what nikon VR to buy?

[Dirk]

Dear all,

Some here know that i have just one lens with VR , the 18-55 VR . new they are to expensive for me (the 18-55 was bought new)

what i want is the least on overlap:

I have the following lenses:

Nikon / Nikkor
AF Nikkor 28-80 1:3.3-5.6G (F65)
AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D(F65-D50-D70)
AF Nikkor 85mm 1:1.8 (F65-D50-D70)
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 G VR (D50&D70)
AF-S Nikkor 18-70 DX ED 1:3.5-4.5G(D50&D70)
AF-S Nikkor 70-300 G 1:4 - 5.6

third party:
Sigma 28-105 1:3.8-5.6 UC III (F65-D50-D70)
Sigma 28-200 1-3.5-5.6 DL Hyperzoom Macro (with build in lens creep)(F65-D50-D70)
Tamron (Tammy)28-200 1.3.8-3.6 Macro (AF Aspherical XR)(F65-D50-D70)

So what should i look for , the lens should be good and suitable for a D50 D70 and perhaps also F65

[Jeff Perry]

Way too much overlapping glass with o distinctive benefits. How many of the lenses to you carry around at the same time on any given outing.

My advice, sell the following...

AF Nikkor 28-80 1:3.3-5.6G (F65)
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 G VR (D50&D70)
AF-S Nikkor 18-70 DX ED 1:3.5-4.5G(D50&D70)

third party:
Sigma 28-105 1:3.8-5.6 UC III (F65-D50-D70)
Sigma 28-200 1-3.5-5.6 DL Hyperzoom Macro (with build in lens creep)(F65-D50-D70)
Tamron (Tammy)28-200 1.3.8-3.6 Macro (AF Aspherical XR)(F65-D50-D70)

And buy a Nikon 18-200 DX VR

I suspect that the two "macro" lenses are not true macros, so keep one if you must, but if you really want Mi(a)cro, get the Nikon 105 VR.

Lastly, if there is ever a chance you will move to full frame, I would suggest that you might want to keep either the Tamron or Sigma 28-200 if they are not DX/DC leneses.

Jeff

[badpickev]

well really id say sell one of the 28-200 lenses, the nikon 70-300, maybe the sigma 28-105 and get the 70-300VR.

your current camera lens line up is this
F65
AF Nikkor 28-80 1:3.3-5.6G
AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D
AF Nikkor 85mm 1:1.8
AF-S Nikkor 70-300 G 1:4 - 5.6
Sigma 28-105 1:3.8-5.6 UC III
Sigma 28-200 1-3.5-5.6 DL Hyperzoom Macro
Tamron 28-200 1.3.8-3.6 Macro (AF Aspherical XR)

so a 28-80 and a 28-105 added to 2 28-200 lenses. there is a lot of duplication going on here. does the 28-105 have that much of a different look to the 28-80?

d50 and d70
AF Nikkor 28-80 1:3.3-5.6G - 42-120 fov
AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D - 75 fov
AF Nikkor 85mm 1:1.8 - 127.5 fov
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 G VR - 28-82.5 fov
AF-S Nikkor 18-70 DX ED 1:3.5-4.5G - 28-105 fov
AF-S Nikkor 70-300 G 1:4 - 5.6 - 105-450 fov
Sigma 28-105 1:3.8-5.6 UC III - 42-157.5 fov
Sigma 28-200 1-3.5-5.6 DL Hyperzoom Macro - 42-300 fov
Tamron 28-200 1.3.8-3.6 Macro (AF Aspherical XR) - 42-300 fov

VR/OS/VC lenses

other lenses to look at are the:
24-120 vr - this lens would add decent capabilites to the f65 while being equal to a 36-180 on the dx cameras.

80-400 VR - this lens expands on your current lens lineup is 120-600 on dx
16-85 vr - this would replace your 18-55 maybe your 18-70. 24-127.5 fov
18-105 vr - same as above, but not as wide. 28-157.5 fov
sigma 18-200 os - a lot cheaper than the nikon version. 28-300 fov
18-125 os - same as 18-105 bit more reach. 28-182.5 fov
120-400 os - the sigma version of the nikon 80-400. 180-600 fov
150-500 os - lose a little wide for more reach. 225-750 fov
tamron 18-270 vc - the biggest superzoom. 28-405
tamron 28-300 vc if you wanted to ad this to your f65, it would replace both 28-300 lenses

so i have given you all the possible choices for lenses and reasons to buy them.

the 24-120 is about $340 used and the 70-300 VR is $400 the 80-400 Vr is $1100.

i did not mentions the 55-200VR, the reason is in my view the range is to short and easily over lapped by the 70-300. a lot of people i know that bought 55-200 sold it to get the 70-300

[machmode]

why the need for all that ?

[badpickev]

the question is

what nikon VR to buy?

d70 goes on to say... new they are to expensive for me and what i want is the least on overlap he also says he wants it to work on his d50, d70 and should even work on his f65.

so to avoid all confusion i broke down his lenses by camera bodies or sensor types (film and DX). i also gave him the FOV (field of view) for all his FF lesnes, this does help in thinking when lens purchasing.

what he doesnt tell me is what capabilities of the lens or usage he is going to need this new vr lens for. so because i dont know if he wants to shoot wildlife or landscapes or even children at a school play i gave the best all around answer.

because the first answer he got was to sell 4 of the 7 lenses that work on his f65 and get yet another dx lens the 18-200VR. this of course will not work that well on his f65 which is a film camera.

i also gave him used prices from keh.com for the 3 Vr lesnes i would be looking at if i was him. by adding the sigma os and tamron vc lenses he now has a lot of other options

the best one being selling both the sigma and tamron 28-200 lenses for the tamron 28-300vc, this will mainly be for his f65 will also have a nice impact on the dx cameras.

i also could have been a smart ass and said the 600f4 vr.

now looking at my sig and applying the same question to me

what nikon vr lens should i buy?

what would you say

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by badpickev

the question is

what nikon VR to buy?

d70 goes on to say... new they are to expensive for me and what i want is the least on overlap he also says he wants it to work on his d50, d70 and should even work on his f65.

so to avoid all confusion i broke down his lenses by camera bodies or sensor types (film and DX). i also gave him the FOV (field of view) for all his FF lesnes, this does help in thinking when lens purchasing.

what he doesnt tell me is what capabilities of the lens or usage he is going to need this new vr lens for. so because i dont know if he wants to shoot wildlife or landscapes or even children at a school play i gave the best all around answer.

@ badpickey: You Guessed right i want a allround lens with vr or vc or os that can be used in many fields I know of the problem of VR DX lenses or a FF camera (F65 =film)

So lets keep it simple and forget the F65 , Simply because i bareley shoot film only shoot film if i want to enlarge to lets say A0 (Withch is no porblem with analogue but a huge problem with the digital gear)

because the first answer he got was to sell 4 of the 7 lenses that work on his f65 and get yet another dx lens the 18-200VR. this of course will not work that well on his f65 which is a film camera.

i also gave him used prices from keh.com for the 3 Vr lesnes i would be looking at if i was him. by adding the sigma os and tamron vc lenses he now has a lot of other options

the best one being selling both the sigma and tamron 28-200 lenses for the tamron 28-300vc, this will mainly be for his f65 will also have a nice impact on the dx cameras.

i also could have been a smart ass and said the 600f4 vr.

now looking at my sig and applying the same question to me

what nikon vr lens should i buy?

what would you say

[Dirk]

Badpickey gear:

Fuji S2/S3/S5 Pro
Kenko MC7 2X, Pro 300
Nkkor 50 1.8 70-300VR
Phoenix 100, 650-1300& Sima 100mm F2 SF
Sigma 12-24, 18-50 HSM, 18-125, 50-500, 70-300, 120-300, 1.4X 2x
Tamron 28-75

Hi, you also have overlap:
The 3 sigma's 12-24 18-50hsm and 18-125 overlap each other in the 18-50 mm range (right?)
same with the tamron 28-75 wich overlaps the sigma 18-50 hsm and the 18-125 (right?)

you have nicely summed up my gear to sort of the camera , but i use on the F 65 for 90 % the 28-80 from nikon the rest of the lenses are mainly used on the D50 and the D70.

to comeback at your question so a 28-80 and a 28-105 added to 2 28-200 lenses. there is a lot of duplication going on here. does the 28-105 have that much of a different look to the 28-80?

yes it does , first of all the 28-80 is silver and the 28-105 is a black lens .. and about the duplication between the tamron 28-200 and the sigma 28-200 is maily caused by the lens creep of the sigma , .

first the body question i see 3 body's (right?) you must be cloned 2x (but that also effets mee )

is there a difference in resolution of format ?

i see one VR lens on your sig and that is the 70-300 right?

well i don't know how stable your hands are and how much you use the low end let's say from 18-70 mm dx perhaps the best optin would be the 16-85 vr that will replace the 12-24 sigma and the 18-50 hsm (those could be sold than) the 18-70 dx ed could also be an option , it is one of mine favorite lenses because it has good optics and feels solid and is solid and it would fit perfect with the 70-300 vr (than you could sell the 12-24+18-50+28-75 ) the only problem is that the 18-70 from nikon has no vr so you almost automatically come up with the 16-85 vr witch is the more high end version from the 18-55vr and the 18-70 dx ed (witch you don't have but could be a alternative lens..

Thanks for the time and effort you took.

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by Jeff Perry

Way too much overlapping glass with o distinctive benefits. How many of the lenses to you carry around at the same time on any given outing.

mostley 2 the 18-55vr on the d50 and the 18-70 dx ed on the D70

My advice, sell the following...

AF Nikkor 28-80 1:3.3-5.6G (F65)
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 G VR (D50&D70)
AF-S Nikkor 18-70 DX ED 1:3.5-4.5G(D50&D70)

third party:
Sigma 28-105 1:3.8-5.6 UC III (F65-D50-D70)
Sigma 28-200 1-3.5-5.6 DL Hyperzoom Macro (with build in lens creep)(F65-D50-D70)
Tamron (Tammy)28-200 1.3.8-3.6 Macro (AF Aspherical XR)(F65-D50-D70)

And buy a Nikon 18-200 DX VR

I suspect that the two "macro" lenses are not true macros, so keep one if you must, but if you really want Mi(a)cro, get the Nikon 105 VR.

Lastly, if there is ever a chance you will move to full frame, I would suggest that you might want to keep either the Tamron or Sigma 28-200 if they are not DX/DC leneses.

Jeff

So the 18-70 dx ed will not be sold i am not crazy , i would never forgive myself if i did

From what i read about the 18-200 vr from nikon is that not every body is happy with it , the quailty of the lens does not reach that of the 18-70 dx wich is far better than a average kitlens (i hate that K word) I believe that the tamron is a non dx / dc lens but i would have to investigate is to be shure .. the sigma was given free with the F65 because of the lens creep but still is a good and very solid lens. about the macro , both the lenses are not real macro lenses and per haps the 15vr from nikon could be a option.

the other lenses do not bring money on ebay or any other auction site .. most of them where bought realy cheap so i just keep them for that special occaisson if you getch my drift , anyhow thanks for your time and effort ..

[Nikonfreak]

The 18-70 DX is, arguably, one of the best lenses you have in that mix.

Aside from the "F" camera, that'd cover everything there. The primes can cover the "F" camera if you ever decided to use it.

18-70 DX
50 f/1.8
85 f/1.8

If I were you, as a consumer or enthusiast, I'd look at expanding the system in this way (selling off the others).

Nikon 18-200 DX (it's an excellent lens, but the 18-70 is a bit better..but this gets you to 200mm in one lens... great travel and walkaround lens).

If you don't like that option, the 70-300 VR is there. Good to around 250mm IMO it's a nice tele to have.

Later, add a 300 f/4 somewhere in your kit (old or new version).

As a consumer, my DX body kit would be.

18-70 DX or 16-85 DX
18-200 DX
300 f/4 AF-S

Don't place so much value in VR. Sometimes it's valuable... other times it's not IMO.

Just my 2 cents...

Happy New Year!

Julio

Home

[Douglas]

Reach asside, what would you think is the better lens? 18-70 or the new 18-105 VR? The VR is nice, but I would use a flash or tripod for most of what I shoot.

[Nikonfreak]

Personally, I believe the 18-70 is a better lens optically than the 18-105 VR. The longer the focal range the more "compromise" in the optics to get it to work respectably over the full range. The rule in professional glass is about 3x range.

[Douglas]

Thats good enough for me. Ill swap it with my sister. I gave her my 18-70 when I got the d90 kit

[Eero Makela]

Originally Posted by d70freak

, Simply because i bareley shoot film only shoot film if i want to enlarge to lets say A0 (Withch is no porblem with analogue but a huge problem with the digital gear)

FYI
There is a program that allows you to upconvert pictures to very large size

onOne Software - Genuine Fractals 6 Plugin for Photoshop

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by Eero Makela

FYI
There is a program that allows you to upconvert pictures to very large size

onOne Software - Genuine Fractals 6 Plugin for Photoshop

hmm thanks , film still is very sharp allthough the F65 has it very hard against the D50, the D70 it can cope better..

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

The 18-70 DX is, arguably, one of the best lenses you have in that mix.

Aside from the "F" camera, that'd cover everything there. The primes can cover the "F" camera if you ever decided to use it.

18-70 DX
50 f/1.8
85 f/1.8

If I were you, as a consumer or enthusiast, I'd look at expanding the system in this way (selling off the others).

Nikon 18-200 DX (it's an excellent lens, but the 18-70 is a bit better..but this gets you to 200mm in one lens... great travel and walkaround lens).

If you don't like that option, the 70-300 VR is there. Good to around 250mm IMO it's a nice tele to have.

Later, add a 300 f/4 somewhere in your kit (old or new version).

As a consumer, my DX body kit would be.

18-70 DX or 16-85 DX
18-200 DX
300 f/4 AF-S

Don't place so much value in VR. Sometimes it's valuable... other times it's not IMO.

Just my 2 cents...

Happy New Year!

Julio

Home

you are right but i already have the 70-300 in a non vr sollution and 95% of my photo's bareley go beyond 70mm *1.5 =aka 105mm

i have to admit that due to a medical issue i tremble a bit , large bodies like the d50 and the 70 help but vr does the trick

[Douglas]

From your description of what you need, I think maybe the 16-85 VR lens might be your key lens then. It sticks within your zone, and is a fairly sharp lens from what Ive heard. Better then the 18-105 which has a bit more reach, but seems to be a bit less sharp.

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by Douglas

From your description of what you need, I think maybe the 16-85 VR lens might be your key lens then. It sticks within your zone, and is a fairly sharp lens from what Ive heard. Better then the 18-105 which has a bit more reach, but seems to be a bit less sharp.

From what I've seen of it, it's every bit as good as the 18-70 DX lens but the addition of VR made it pricey. The reason I mentioned it was for the focal range versatility much more so than the fact that it has VR. I'm not a fan of VR in lenses in this focal range as I just don't feel it's needed and for what it drives the cost up to, I don't believe it's worth it. I'd rather save the money on the lens and put it towards a tripod that can be used with all lenses.

Tripods... the original VR.

Nikon needs to stop muddying the water with all of the new kit lens introductions. The 18-70 was, and still is, a darn good lens. Improve the optics if you must but stop with the 30 new kit lenses in 2 years. It's really confusing to the entry level shooters. You need to make the product mix easy at the entry level and give them a relatively high quality, inexpensive lens with respectable optics. To me, that was the 18-70 DX and the 24-85 f/3.5 - 4.5 AF-S.

Nikon should put that R&D money into a good 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR and bring back the 70-180 micro zoom and have it go 1:1, bring in a 400 f/4 prime or the 400 f/4.5 prime again.

Julio

[badpickev]

Originally Posted by d70freak

Hi, you also have overlap:
The 3 sigma's 12-24 18-50hsm and 18-125 overlap each other in the 18-50 mm range (right?)
same with the tamron 28-75 which overlaps the sigma 18-50 hsm and the 18-125 (right?)

sort of; of all my gear, i only have 2 DX lenses. These are the 18-50 f2.8 and the 18-125. all of my bodies are dx bodies. thus the 18-50 is really the dx version of my 28-75. so if i go to film or FF i am still set. remember to always think about the FOV of your lenses when on a dx camera.

Originally Posted by d70freak

you have nicely summed up my gear to sort of the camera , but i use on the F 65 for 90 % the 28-80 from nikon the rest of the lenses are mainly used on the D50 and the D70.

to comeback at your question so a 28-80 and a 28-105 added to 2 28-200 lenses. there is a lot of duplication going on here. does the 28-105 have that much of a different look to the 28-80?

yes it does , first of all the 28-80 is silver and the 28-105 is a black lens .. and about the duplication between the tamron 28-200 and the sigma 28-200 is maily caused by the lens creep of the sigma , .

ahh so then the 28-105 and sigma 28-200 would be 2 i sell of, if i were in your shoes. if you like a lens, keep it.

Originally Posted by d70freak

first the body question i see 3 body's (right?) you must be cloned 2x (but that also effets mee )

is there a difference in resolution of format ?

for me no, they all are DX cameras. the S3 and S5 are the famed fuji SR sensor with 2 extra stops of highlight dr

Originally Posted by d70freak

i see one VR lens on your sig and that is the 70-300 right?

yes i have a sigma 70-300 and the vr one. i have tested a lot of 70-300 lenses. the vr is tops followed by the nikon D version then the sigma APO. these are the top 3. so replacing your G version with the VR would be a step up and works with all your cameras.

Originally Posted by d70freak

well i don't know how stable your hands are and how much you use the low end let's say from 18-70 mm dx perhaps the best optin would be the 16-85 vr that will replace the 12-24 sigma and the 18-50 hsm (those could be sold than) the 18-70 dx ed could also be an option , it is one of mine favorite lenses because it has good optics and feels solid and is solid and it would fit perfect with the 70-300 vr (than you could sell the 12-24+18-50+28-75 ) the only problem is that the 18-70 from nikon has no vr so you almost automatically come up with the 16-85 vr witch is the more high end version from the 18-55vr and the 18-70 dx ed (witch you don't have but could be a alternative lens..

that really is the issue. the 12-24 is a FF lens. so if i go film i have 12mm on dx is like 18mm. the 18-50 is 2.8 as is the 28-75. while most folks will say the dupe, one is FF and the other is DX. both lenses are f2.8, i would not sell them to replace with something other than a f2.8 lens. I am looking at getting the sigma 24-70 f2.8 to replace the 28-75. i also am looking at getting the 70-200vr, this will over lap my 120-300 f2.8 but the vr makes it a much more useful lens. my stable hands, i hand hold my bigma at 500mm

if you think about my advise: i kept the ff glass separate from your dx glass. i did this because in the next few years i am betting most of us will have moved to ff digital because the costs will have come way down.

so back to you, the 16-85vr is the dx version of the 24-120vr. so most folks will jump all over it. but here is my case for the 24-120vr. on a dx camera its fov is like a 36-180mm with vr added it makes for a compelling rang. and i remember when 35mm was wide angle. a lot of landscape photogs i know shoot most of their landscapes with a 35mm lens.

so i think upgrading your 70-300 to the vr version is a good move, from there a hard think about the 24-120 vr and then for wildlife the 80-400 or one of the sigmas. and you will have vr lenses from 18-400. the huge over lap of the 70-300 and the 80-400 is the weight. once you heft the 80-400 you will understand that you will not want to use it everyday.

[badpickev]

now if you want to talk about upgrading to f2.8 glass, that is a subject for a whole lot of money. 2.8 or fast glass is sharp and really nice, but keeping great quality slow glass or zoom can be just as rewarding.

this is a lesson i learned with my bigma (50-500) it is f4 at 50mm. boy can it capture sky a slow lens on a tripod/monopod is not that bad. even hand held the color rendition can be startling.

[Dirk]

Originally Posted by badpickev

sort of; of all my gear, i only have 2 DX lenses. These are the 18-50 f2.8 and the 18-125. all of my bodies are dx bodies. thus the 18-50 is really the dx version of my 28-75. so if i go to film or FF i am still set. remember to always think about the FOV of your lenses when on a dx camera.

right , but how do you calculate the FOV is it just the mulitplier of 1.5 or is there more ?


[Qoute]
ahh so then the 28-105 and sigma 28-200 would be 2 i sell of, if i were in your shoes. if you like a lens, keep it.

[/quote}

the sigma 28-105 is a different lens than the sigma 28-200 , both have there plus and min


left is the 28-200 dc macro right is the 28-105 UC III

for me no, they all are DX cameras. the S3 and S5 are the famed fuji SR sensor with 2 extra stops of highlight dr

yes i have a sigma 70-300 and the vr one. i have tested a lot of 70-300 lenses. the vr is tops followed by the nikon D version then the sigma APO. these are the top 3. so replacing your G version with the VR would be a step up and works with all your cameras.

Yeah but 95 % of my images barely go beyond 70mm (aka 105mm ff) so i use tele not that much to make it worth to buy the vr version also

that really is the issue. the 12-24 is a FF lens. so if i go film i have 12mm on dx is like 18mm. the 18-50 is 2.8 as is the 28-75. while most folks will say the dupe, one is FF and the other is DX. both lenses are f2.8, i would not sell them to replace with something other than a f2.8 lens. I am looking at getting the sigma 24-70 f2.8 to replace the 28-75. i also am looking at getting the 70-200vr, this will over lap my 120-300 f2.8 but the vr makes it a much more useful lens. my stable hands, i hand hold my bigma at 500mm

if you think about my advise: i kept the ff glass separate from your dx glass. i did this because in the next few years i am betting most of us will have moved to ff digital because the costs will have come way down.

so back to you, the 16-85vr is the dx version of the 24-120vr. so most folks will jump all over it. but here is my case for the 24-120vr. on a dx camera its fov is like a 36-180mm with vr added it makes for a compelling rang. and i remember when 35mm was wide angle. a lot of landscape photogs i know shoot most of their landscapes with a 35mm lens.

so i think upgrading your 70-300 to the vr version is a good move, from there a hard think about the 24-120 vr and then for wildlife the 80-400 or one of the sigmas. and you will have vr lenses from 18-400. the huge over lap of the 70-300 and the 80-400 is the weight. once you heft the 80-400 you will understand that you will not want to use it everyday.

It changes to know that there is light sensative glass .. to get a tad better you have to invest more.

Yeah i have heard about the 24-12 vr and perhaps go for that if i can get my hands on it for a reasonable price ( even the previous year i didn't won the lottery)

happy new year and happy shooting