A quick question for you nikon appreciators.

I just replaced my d70s kit with a d300 and now need a normal range zoom to replace the handy 18-70 that went with the old kit.

What do I replace it with?

For the last 5 years I have shot mainly sports (surf, snowboard, skate) and landscapes and am venturing into portraits.

My current kit as it stands is: d300, 50mm 1.8, 70-300mm VR, sb600 and manfrotto tripod.

I see three options for a budget of $1k AUD (all second hand):
a) go the 18-70 - save some coin and get an ultra wide (tokina 11-17?)
b) upgrade to a 16-85 VR (similar to the 18-70, but better) + ultra wide
c) go the 17-55 2.8 and don't look back

Some examples of what I do in this range:









Cheers in advance for your opinions

18-200?

Another good option is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. This is a favorite of beginning wedding photographers and is much lighter/compact than the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. It is a very good lens for half the money. If you can find a used one on eBay you'll likely be getting a great value. There are a number of good options for ultrawide now. I use the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. I need the f2.8, and image quality is superb on my D300. Distortion is very, very low. The Sigma 10-20mm is another good choice. I do think you're a "candidate" for ultrawide; not everyone is. My personal choice would be sell 50mm f1.8, buy Sigma 10-20mm (used if possible) and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (used, if possible.) You would then have a very fast mid range capable of pro results, an ultrawide with good iimage quality, and a long lens with VR. BTW, like your first shot a lot.


Kent in SD

There have been a few threads on this recently. Here's one: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/722632/0

I'd throw in another vote for the 17-50 if you can find a good copy. Though there's nothing wrong with the 18-70 unless you need something faster.

If you've got the cash, then by all means, the 17-55 f/2.8

Tamron 17-50/2.8 will do fine on a crop camera. Unless you need weathersealing or go to battlefields there IMHO are not many reasons to buy the Nikkor 17-55/2.8 since this Tammy sharp, light, dirt cheap and delivers excellent results.

I replaced it with the Nikon 28-70/2.8 when I got my D3 (yes: I needed the weather sealing)

Cheers everyone.

18-200 is not something I was thinking about because I have the long range covered, wanting something of a bit more quality and willing to sacrifice some flexibility.

the Tammy 17-50 wasn't something I had considered, so taking that on board. Am I right that the main limitation is non-weather sealing (which is a consideration). Is it as fast for focus acquisition? Do I need to look out for quality control (as with sigma lenses?)

Willing to invest more to go for quality and a long term solution. Cheers for your input so far guys.

Hey,
If the 18-70 isn't holding you back, I'd look at one of the wides used and go from there, you'll have NAS kick in again soon, by then you'll know if you like the really wide shooting or not.
From there you can look to replace the 18-70 and or the ulra wide depending on what you find for you style.

Thanks
Anthony

With most of your work outdoors, I don't see VR on a standard zoom as compelling. I'd keep the 18-70 and look for a wide zoom and a portrait lens. There's any number of wide zoom options out there, and the 85 1.8 springs immediately to mind as a possible portrait lens.

I would vote for the 16-85 VR... it's an excellent lens (very under-rated), has VR for those times you don't want to lug the tripod around, and it takes the same size filters as your 70-300 VR.

The Nikon 17-55 f2.8 is a nice lens, but IMHO not worth the new higher price Nikon wants for it.

If not the 17-55 then consider the Tokina/Tamron/Sigma alternatives. The D300's motor is plenty torquey enough to move the Tokina. The f/2.8 means more light for the viewfinder, AF and ability to use a shallow DOF if needed.

The Tokina is built like a tank but the only really weather resistant lense (to my knowledge) is the Nikon.

yaphoto wrote:
Cheers everyone.

18-200 is not something I was thinking about because I have the long range covered, wanting something of a bit more quality and willing to sacrifice some flexibility.

the Tammy 17-50 wasn't something I had considered, so taking that on board. Am I right that the main limitation is non-weather sealing (which is a consideration). Is it as fast for focus acquisition? Do I need to look out for quality control (as with sigma lenses?)

Willing to invest more to go for quality and a long term solution. Cheers for your input so far guys.


The sometimes spotty quality control would be my primary concern about the 17-50, followed by lack of weather sealing. I've used mine in the rain and it kept on working, though it's not necessarily a good idea. Focus acquisition for the no-motor version on my D200 is quite fast, at least as fast as the 18-70 and much snappier than the 16-85. The front ring does turn during focusing, so that could be something to keep in mind as well.

Go for the 17-50 from Tamron. You can't really do any better unless you want to spend the really big bux for the Nikon 17-55.

Meanwhile, keep on plugging away with that obsolete and outmoded 18-70. I still use mine when the situation requires the extra reach.

I have the 28-70 for my normal zoom range on the D700, and it's a great lens for the price I paid. I think you could easily get one in your budget range! And its an f/2.8 lens.

lxdesign wrote:
I have the 28-70 for my normal zoom range on the D700, and it's a great lens for the price I paid. I think you could easily get one in your budget range! And its an f/2.8 lens.

Unfortunately it's not quite as useful a range on the DX format cameras. You'd be looking at a wide angle of about 42mm. It might work well for some people though.

Another vote for Tamron's excellent 17-50 f/2.8. This lens is tack sharp. I prefer the old screw drive models if you can find one.

The Promaster 17-50 f/2.8 is also a rebadged Tamron. There is absolutely no difference if you can find one cheaper. They have a lifetime warranty.

Loved my 17-55 on my D200. Fantastic lens and I almost didn't want to part with it! Went to the 24-70 on my D3.

17-55 and don't look back, or pick up a 24-70 and you will be ready for the eventual move to FX.

Either get the Tamron, or get a $100 18-55 VR, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and have money left over for the 35 1.8 for low light. That would be a great kit for ultrawide to mild tele.