which lens: Nikon 18-105vr, 18-200vr, 24-120vr, 16-85vr & tamron 28-75 f2.8

p1tse

p1tse

Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
which lens if only chose of one: Nikon 18-105vr, 18-200vr, 24-120vr, 16-85vr & tamron 28-75 f2.8

this will be for a nikon d90.

so i had the 18-105 vr and thought it was ok, but had the opportunity to sale at a good price, so i did.

i had the tamron 28-75 f2.8 on my sony and thought it was a good lens

but confused on which lens i should go for now on the d90. i already have a 50mm and sb600 flash, so just need a general lens.

most of my shots are candid, general and portrait.

i guess it would be handy to have the 105mm+ reach, so the 18-200 wins there.

but how do all these fair in terms of image quality, focus speed etc.
also for now i shoot in jpeg only, not sure if that would make any difference and tend to only crop on my d90 to recompose the original picture abit.

i thought the 18-105vr was fine, so thought i would stick it on the list and replace my old one and save the money for something else.

thoughts?
 
reading ken rockwell:

- 24-120vr would probably be at the bottom as it's in his 10 worst nikon lens

- 18-200 vr is highly regarded

- 16-85vr is obviously sharper than the 18-200vr, but ken still thinks the 18-200 would be the better choice

your thoughts and how does the tamron fair?
 
Something that occurred to me the other day is that while to get the shot you want with a shorter lens you obviously just reposition yourself, that won't hold true if you're shooting something up high. It's never bothered me before but I was walking round the other day and started looking up high at parts of buildings I'd never thought much about and couldn't quite get to with an 18-135. I'm now looking to get an 18-200vr and sell everything else apart from my 50mm and buy a 10-20 or 10-17.
 
i think it's just that

i know the 16-85 is sharper, but as a hobby i don't want to miss a shot being short
 
The best lenses, in your list in order of optics are:

1) Tamron 28-75
2) Nikon 16-85
3) Nikon 18-105
4) Nikon 18-200 VR
5) Nikon 24-120 VR

Your best bet would be to forget trying to do it all with one lens, a Nikon 55-200 VR is excellent and way better than the 18-200 VR. In fact a Nikon 18-55 VR + Nikon 55-200 VR is much better than the 18-200 VR from wide to long, and you should be able to buy both for around £200.

I personally wouldn't use the Tamron 28-75 on a crop body, even though optically its the best lens on your list.
 
thanks puddleduck

i used the tamron 28-75 on my cropped sensored sony a300 and thought it was good though, hence the consideration.

"In fact a Nikon 18-55 VR + Nikon 55-200 VR is much better than the 18-200 VR from wide to long"
Really and noticeable?

but i only like to travel light, i.e one lens due to baby gear on board to when i'm out and about, so the 18-55vr is going to be too short
 
Do Tamron suffer from the same variation in build quality that sigma do? Because I have seen some very mucky images from the Tamron?

I've never used one though.

Cheers Stuart
 
i guess any product can suffer from variation even branded nikon and canon etc.

i've seen a 16-85vr, but if the tamron 28-75 f2.8 is optically better and cheaper, the 16-85vr doesn't make much sense (as i know i can work from 28mm)

still the 18-200vr is attracting me most. if i need pin sharp i'll use my 50mm prime.
think i'm going to stick with this. worst case scenario is sell it on etc
 
Why 16-85 VR and not the 18-200 ? 16-85 is a great lens and its enough of zoom range. Some concentration is useful, normally I recommend to use sometimes prime lenses or 2*zooms.
As a long I used 55-200 VR, however moved to the Sigma 50-200 OS HSM, because it has similar optical qualitiy but seems to be more stable: metalic bajonet and better MF ring in comparision to the 55-200 VR.
http://joergvetter.oyla.de/cgi-bin/hpm_homepage.cgi BR Atomino.
 
Out of the list, I would probably go for the 18-105 as the price differential vs. the 18-200 is huge and the extra 100mm isn't something I need everyday. Also the 18-200 is a big heavy beastie compared to the others which is a consideration as a walkaround.

In fact, even though I have the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR I did get a 18-105 and now the only thing I change it for is a 35mm prime.
 
thanks for all the input
i've now sourced a 18-200vr and hope to recieve it this week
the 18-200vr isn't that much bigger or heavier than the 18-105vr

just hope optically it will match the 18-105vr and maybe a little bit better

if i find it doesn't suit, i'll sale and opt for the 16-85vr or tamron 18-75 f2.8
 
update

i decided to go for the 18-200vr and have one ;-)
question: doesn't anyone else experience a light buzzing type noise when focusing?

shame i don't have the 18-105vr to compare it against.
only managed to try it last night indoors and coupled with the sb600 it's great, although a little heavy.

decided against the 16-85vr, trade off on image quality to have 85-200 range. i've got the 50mm f1.8 to help on better IQ.

annoying thing with this and the 18-105vr is when the hood is on the lens but opposite way, can't zoom as it gets in the way, while on my old 28-75 f2.8 i could keep it on and zoom all the time.
 
i'd go for either the 18-200 which can be an excellent lens or a 17-55 2.8 from tamron/nikon
 
cheers murph. glad just in time for the holiday period

that could be it the VR kicking in maybe. just don't think i heard it as much with the 18-105vr before.

haven't got the lens in front of me nor had time to look or play, but what's the switch i think normal or active? there's manual or auto focus, vr on or off and then the third switch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top