Kathy G
Well-known member
I have the 70-200 F4 lens. I love it. Sharp as a tack, focuses fast, not heavy. I have never regretted purchasing this lens.
Can you help me choose a new zoom lens?
- Thread starter Mr. Goodkat
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
That sounds like great advice. The next time I want to buy a lens, I'll ask you to get your wife's permission for me,... mine always gives me trouble about new gear.Always good to consult the wife
Then again, I've got a couple of longer primes and a 70-200, we might be able to work some kind of trade if that's your Land Cruiser in your avatar...
But seriously, if your spouse tells you to buy the right lens, do so, even if it means a delay in getting one. Save a bit more to purchase a better lens, or to keep looking for the right lens, used and at the right price. If you purchase a lens that isn't what you need and/or want, it is as your wife alludes: money, and opportunity, lost.
W
Last edited:
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
I guess I would say that birding isn't a major priority for me. At this point I would say I'm more of a urban explorer, that would like to shoot landscapes, city scapes, products, and occasional birds. It is fun though and there's always a chance that I could get more into birding. I really only look for birds in our backyard. I do have the nagging concern that 200mm won't give me that much more reach than the 140mm, 210mm vs 300mm.
I like low light lenses but that's a necessity for urban exploring and astrophotography. I'm not sure how much I would use a 70-200 f2.8 for that. I probably don't need a third lense for that when my 14-20 f2 and 35 f1.8 are all I need and it keeps things less complicated. That's where I think for my needs and concerns the 70-200 f4 would probably be fine for vs the f2.8.
That sounds like great advice. The next time I want to buy a lens, I'll ask you to get your wife's permission for me,... mine always gives me trouble about new gear.
Then again, I've got a couple of longer primes and a 70-200, we might be able to work some kind of trade if that's your Land Cruiser in your avatar...
W
Haha, trust me, it's not always this easy for me and I admit that sometimes she does need to rein me in. Is there such a thing as a cheap hobby?
I wish the LC was mine! That's the Landcruiser Museum in Salt Lake City and it's an incredible private collection of Landcruiser from every generation. It really is worth a visit if that's your thing. I'll have a Landcruiser one day
The Nikkor 70-200mm F4 zooms internally, which means the length remains constant. Reviews at the time when I purchased it rated the F4 as very similar to the Nikkor 70-200mm F2.8 in terms of sharpness and IQ. I suspect you would have to look very carefully to see a difference in image quality between the two. The F4, of course, is much smaller and lighter, the main reason why I bought one. The lower price also made this lens more attractive to me compared to the F2.8. I have been very satisfied with mine. When I bought my lens the Tamron and Sigma F2.8 offerings were similar in price, but again, they are larger, heavier and zoom externally. I believe there's less chance of dust being sucked into an internally zooming lens versus one that zooms externally. I also believe the IQ from the Tamron and Sigma lenses were no better than the Nikkor F4.
For urban exploring and street photography a 70-200mm in either the f/2.8 or f/4 variety could be very useful. For astrophotography, not so much. 70mm much less 200mm is very long for wide field astro photography work such as Milky Way images and unless you also have a good equatorial mount you'll really struggle with a lens that long for astro work. With a 70mm lens and no tracking mount you'd be limited to exposures of roughly 7 seconds long or less to minimize star trailing which isn't very much for capturing night sky images. With something like a more typical 14mm lens for astro work you not only bring in much more of the starry sky but can also run exposures as long as 30 seconds for similar amounts of star trails which is a lot more light on the sensor.
Longer lens astro work really needs an equatorial tracking mount to get exposures long enough to capture a lot of light without noticeable star trails.
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
Yeah I wouldn't use it for astro at all. My Tokina 14-20 f2 does prenominal though. I was very impressed with the little bit of astro I did with it. I would say that my Tokina is just as sharp or EXTREMELY close to the sharpness of my 35mm DX f1.8 prime. It's hefty and feels very well built.
Although it may not be the most practical the 70-200 f2.8 could be useful with URBEX as you said. I'm reading up on the Tokina SP 70-200 f2.8 Di VC USD G2 (that's a mouthful....) now. It's one to consider for the price and right now it comes with a free B+W UV haze filter and TAP-in. It is big though and I think it's even heavier than the Nikon 2.8.
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
I'm exploring a lot of options here.
Does anyone have experience with the AF-S 16-80 f/2.8-4E ED VR? It was recommended by a lady at Allen's Camera.
I'm considering a combo and getting myself the 16-80 with the AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-5.6E ED VR. Much more of a budget than I previously stated but I think it would be a nice range of lenses to extend my reach while also replacing the 18-140.
I was considering a used 24-70 to go with a new AF-P 70-300 but after the crop factor I would have concerns about it's 36-105 equivalency for a walk around.
Thoughts?
Thanks again for the input!
Does anyone have experience with the AF-S 16-80 f/2.8-4E ED VR? It was recommended by a lady at Allen's Camera.
I'm considering a combo and getting myself the 16-80 with the AF-P 70-300 f/4.5-5.6E ED VR. Much more of a budget than I previously stated but I think it would be a nice range of lenses to extend my reach while also replacing the 18-140.
I was considering a used 24-70 to go with a new AF-P 70-300 but after the crop factor I would have concerns about it's 36-105 equivalency for a walk around.
Thoughts?
Thanks again for the input!
That's the lens that came supplied with my D500. It's a very good lens, quite sharp and a good focal length range for general walk around use on a crop body camera. It's not the smallest lens around but is still substantially smaller than the 24-70mm f/2.8. Another good lens that is much smaller is the Nikon 16-85mm DX lens which IMO is also a very sharp and good lens and quite a bit smaller and lighter than the 16-80mm f/2.8 which is nice for travel and walk around use.
Nick B.
Member
I agree with DRwyoming - the 16-80 lens is very good. I hesitated to buy it since the price is high. But, once I was very pleased and us it as my main travel lens on my D7200. The combination of the 16-80 and 70-300 AF-P you mention would be very good.
Capelle Ch
Member
[QUOTE = "M. Goodkat, message: 11926, membre: 2486"]
Merci pour la suggestion, je vais l'examiner.
J'attends de voir si quelqu'un peut intervenir sur le 28-300 f / 3.5-5.6
Je me demande vraiment si je devrais simplement garder 18-140 et ajouter un 70-xxx à mon kit. J'ai vraiment peur de manquer la portée et la commodité du 18-140 pour les images générales, même si elles ne sont pas toujours les plus nettes. Le fait est que j'aurai encore besoin d'un téléobjectif à un moment donné. J'ai également besoin de comprendre ce que je veux faire pour le flash.
[/ CITATION] 18-140 + 70-300
Merci pour la suggestion, je vais l'examiner.
J'attends de voir si quelqu'un peut intervenir sur le 28-300 f / 3.5-5.6
Je me demande vraiment si je devrais simplement garder 18-140 et ajouter un 70-xxx à mon kit. J'ai vraiment peur de manquer la portée et la commodité du 18-140 pour les images générales, même si elles ne sont pas toujours les plus nettes. Le fait est que j'aurai encore besoin d'un téléobjectif à un moment donné. J'ai également besoin de comprendre ce que je veux faire pour le flash.
[/ CITATION] 18-140 + 70-300
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
Sounds great. The price is high but B&H has a used one with a condition "9" for $650
I have the 16-80mm F2.8-4. It’s a very good lens. Nice and sharp. I’d recommend it all the time. I also had the older 16-85mm lens. That one was lighter and smaller, but not as sharp.
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
Thank you both for the recommendation. I think I'll stick with the 16-80 at this point since I'm partial to the f/2.8-4 vs the f/3.5-5.6 for low light and I'm searching for as much sharpness I can get.
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
I appreciate your response and taking the time to do so but unfortunately I can't speak your language.
You won't regret it. A very nice lens!
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
Well I finally pulled the trigger. Picked up the used 16-80, a new AF-P 70-300 and the Nikon wired shutter remote.
Thanks everyone for your help! After all my research in confident I'll have a nice range of lenses with sharp images and vibrant colors.
Thanks everyone for your help! After all my research in confident I'll have a nice range of lenses with sharp images and vibrant colors.
Last edited:
Viseguy
Well-known member
I have had the Nikon 28-300, and used it on a trip to Alaska. While it may be consider a great general travel lens for an average tourist, if you really are looking for sharp images, IMO this is not it. I was disappointed with image quality, and sold it. I would suggest, as others have, either a used 70-200 f2.8, or even a 70-200 f4. Both of these are sharp, and possibly within or near your budget limitations. JMO.
Last edited:
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
Thanks but I just went with a used 16-80 F/2.8-4 and a new AF-P 70-300E ED VR FX. On paper I'm happy with the spread but of course I'm anxious to put them to work
The 16-80 is a great lens on my D7500. I primarily do landscape, woodland and macro. This is the lens on my camera for the bulk of my shooting other than macro. I find the shots to be very sharp. Greatest acuity for me is at f8 to f11 up to about 50mm. 50mm to 80mm I find the best range between f5.6 to f8. Good luck you will not be disappointed.
Mdf123
Active member
The Tamron 18 to 400 is an incredibly flexible lens. It is not as sharp as some others, nor is it the fastest at locking autofocus. I use it primarily while hiking as its size and weight can't be beat for a lens with its wide range. It takes good quality pictures, just not as good as a quality single purpose lense, they of course can not compete with its flexibility from wide angle to zoom.
Flyboy
Active member
Why are your pixes with the 18-140 "not always the sharpest"? Do you have a "bad" lens? If it's a U.S. lens, Nikon will fix it for yo free, if it is within warranty. My 18-140 is very sharp. Technique, perhaps? How do you shoot it? Rule of thumb( ROT) Shutter speed at or faster than the longest focal length. With VR, you can get away with lower shutter speed than you think, but there are limits. How's your ISO? The D7500 can handle higher ISO with little or no noise. But...More photos are ruined by someone mashing the shutter release like they were killing a very ugly spider. My 18-140 has VR, and smooths out the wibbles and wobbles pretty well.
Of course, it may be like me years ago. I had a Nikon 105 f/2.5 AIS lens, highly recommended by seemingly everyone in the photo community back then. I used it lots, but could not get to like it, the years I had it. I finally traded it off, and never missed it.
It seems to me that the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 would suffer the same disability you claim for the 18-140 with the same f/stop range "...only optimal in the light of full sun".
Are you trying to muddle through, using only Nikon's D 7500's manual ? If so, I would recommend something like the "Dummies" book for the 7500. Mine is losing its pages, I've used it so much! And/Or, any of Bryan Peterson's books about exposure might be a help. Worth every penny! Good luck with your search!
My 18-140 has VR, and smooths out the wibbles and wobbles pretty well. Of course, it may be like me years ago. I had a Nikon 105 f/2.5 AIS lens, highly recommended by seemingly everyone in the photo community back then. I used it lots, but could not get to like it, the years I had it. I finally traded it off, and never missed it.
It seems to me that the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 would suffer the same disability you claim for the 18-140 with the same f/stop range "...only optimal in the light of full sun".
Are you trying to muddle through, using only Nikon's D 7500's manual
? If so, I would recommend something like the "Dummies" book for the 7500. Mine is losing its pages, I've used it so much! And/Or, any of Bryan Peterson's books about exposure might be a help. Worth every penny! Good luck with your search!
Last edited:
I've had a Tamron 16 to-300 and a 28 to 300 (crop frame and full frame) and have been very pleased with both. Fast autofocus, sharp for a zoom, light weight. Baesd on reviews I've read these lenses were said to be superior to the Nikon 18-300, and tyhe price is much lower on the tammys.
I wish the Tamron 18-400 was available in full frame. I'd get one right away.
I wish the Tamron 18-400 was available in full frame. I'd get one right away.
Mike Sagara
New member
I have the 28-300 3.5-5.6 and it is ok as a travel lens. It is a bit soft at the 300mm focal length. I use it on my FF camera's.
Ilan
New member
Hi I have the tamron 18-400 and very happy with it. it is not perfect but very versatile and like this I travel with only one lens
Mr. Goodkat
Active member
Why are your pixes with the 18-140 "not always the sharpest"? Do you have a "bad" lens? If it's a U.S. lens, Nikon will fix it for yo free, if it is within warranty. My 18-140 is very sharp. Technique, perhaps? How do you shoot it? Rule of thumb( ROT) Shutter speed at or faster than the longest focal length. With VR, you can get away with lower shutter speed than you think, but there are limits. How's your ISO? The D7500 can handle higher ISO with little or no noise. But...More photos are ruined by someone mashing the shutter release like they were killing a very ugly spider.
Of course, it may be like me years ago. I had a Nikon 105 f/2.5 AIS lens, highly recommended by seemingly everyone in the photo community back then. I used it lots, but could not get to like it, the years I had it. I finally traded it off, and never missed it.
It seems to me that the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 would suffer the same disability you claim for the 18-140 with the same f/stop range "...only optimal in the light of full sun".
Are you trying to muddle through, using only Nikon's D 7500's manual
It's not that it's a bad lens and I've taken some nice pictures with it. I just believe there are lenses out there that produce more vibrant pictures, are a touch sharper, and will work better for me. I've been experimenting with all sorts of settings and most of the time I shoot in manual. I don't do anything different than when I use my other lenses and for me the 18-140 can be lacking at times. My situation with the 18-140 does sound like your situation with the 105mm. Good lenses but for one reason or another we prefer something else.
I actually treat firing off a camera similar to firing off a gun. There does has to be some technique or care to pull off an accurate or precise shot. I do take care to not just mash the shutter release. It still happens but I'm aware when it does and I take another shot. Even though I'm setup for back button focus I still press the shutter release halfway so I have less button travel to press through which SHOULD make it less likely to influence my exposure.
I was unaware of that for the D7500 but I may have to pick it up! I don't plan on changing camera bodies anytime soon. I'm very satisfied with it other than the AF for video but I was well aware of that before I bought it. I wanted it for taking pictures and videos would have been a bonus. Someday I may just buy a used Canon to use on my gimbal for video purposes only.