Should I go 18-200VR or 10-20 next ?

[dvdowns]

I have two D70's and a D50 . I have my kitset 18-70 , a Tamron 28-200XR and a 70-300ED lens . I ordered a Nikon 18-200VR lens but the wait is going to be pretty long [ at NZ$1349 ] . Now I was wondering if it wouldn't be more practical , since I have that range with everything added up , to go for a wide angle with my options being : 1.) Tokina 12-24 AT-X 124 DX F4 [ NZ$799] , or 2.) Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM F4 [NZ$795] so that I will be introducing extra wide angle to my options instead of duplicating for convenience . What opinions ?

[Nikonfreak]

My thoughts on a 12-24 are that it's a great range to have if you

a) Need it

b) Use it pretty frequently

Otherwise, it becomes a pretty expensive paperweight in your bag. As much as I've used my Nikkor 12-24 f/4, I often wonder if I wouldn't be just fine with a 17mm, but I sometimes shoot interiors for decorators and when I travel, the 12-24 finds it's way on to my camera fairly often.

Many folks can do just fine with the 17mm lenses out there. Don't buy a lens like an ultra-wide unless your shooting style warrants it. Many folks try to "Fill the gaps" believing they need lenses that cover everything from 12mm to 400mm and that just isn't so.

I'm headed to Disney for the weekend and I'm taking two lenses. The 28-70 and the 70-200 Nikkors (Does the Nikon 1.7X teleconverter count?). 'dat's it and truthfully, if the 28-70 weren't a lens I wanted to put through the paces, I'd be taking the Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 AF-S G to save on weight. If we weren't doing Animal Kingdom, I wouldn't probably bring the 70-200 f/2.8......

Julio

Julio

[cyclohexane]

Personally, if I were you, I'd hold onto my money unless I fulfilled the two requirements Julio presented. I don't. While I use a 20mm (which is somewhere between 13 and 14mm on digital) lens as my primary film lens, I don't see myself really requiring something that wide on digital. The 18-70 has served me fantastically, even though it's only 27mm equivalent on the wide-end.

[badpickev]

Originally Posted by Nikonfreak

Many folks can do just fine with the 17mm lenses out there. Don't buy a lens like an ultra-wide unless your shooting style warrants it. Many folks try to "Fill the gaps" believing they need lenses that cover everything from 12mm to 400mm and that just isn't so.

hey just because i have from 18-2600mm leave me alone. i am looking at the sigma 12-24, 12mm on film? wow.

i dont think you would be well served getting the 18-200VR. it makes a lot of your lenses redundant.

[Sidebyte]

Confucius say, "man with one clock knows what time it is, man with two clocks is never really sure"!
Take a look at Cedrics landscapes with the Sigma 10-20, convinced me.

[dvdowns]

Lots of good advice here . My main passion is landscapes which is a strong reason to get 10-20 .
Nfreak, I went to a car show with my 28-200 Tamron and ended up going back to my car to fetch my 18-70 so I would suggest wider than 28 for disneyland .
Chexane , occasionally I need wider than 18 , New Zealand has some wonderful full rainbows and panorama programs don't work too well with sky .
Bpickev , good point , making lenses redundant .18-2600 ! , I seldom use over 200mm , over that Is hard without bright light obviously depending on lens speed .
Sidebyte , I think you just gave me the OK to get the 10-20 and wait for the 18-200VR to become cheaper and more readily available ...

[dvdowns]

The New Zealand dollar is falling and prices will be going up . The 18-200 I ordered has not shown up yet . I am looking at the Sigma 24-70 DF f 2.8 lens and maybe a 70-200 f2.8 lens instead of the 18-200 . My standard 18-70 lens works well so I wonder if I should concentrate on a decent 70-200 lens first ?

[Nikonfreak]

Originally Posted by dvdowns

The New Zealand dollar is falling and prices will be going up . The 18-200 I ordered has not shown up yet . I am looking at the Sigma 24-70 DF f 2.8 lens and maybe a 70-200 f2.8 lens instead of the 18-200 . My standard 18-70 lens works well so I wonder if I should concentrate on a decent 70-200 lens first ?

If I were you, I'd be looking at a good 70-200 first. Most folks don't necessarily need an f/2.8 for the short zooms, but almost everyone will have a use for a 70-200 f/2.8 .... sometimes my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is the most used lens in my bag.

Certainly this weekend it will be.

Julio

[cyclohexane]

I agree with Nikonfreak here. I still do not own a f/2.8 short zoom because I haven't had a major need for it. Go with a good 70 or 80-200; depending on what you're doing, it might change your pictures drastically when you control the DOF. I picked up a 70-200 instead of a f/2.8 short zoom because I can do 1/15 on the 18-70 anyhow handheld, and I'm usually using flash at those focal lengths when it gets dark anyhow.

[dvdowns]

I suppose with the smaller dof of long lenses it is a higher priority to get faster long- lenses with sharper images at lower dof then .... since wider lenses have good dof anyway ?

[cyclohexane]

How many times do you try to isolate a subject with short DOF with a 20mm lens? The only time I'm at f/2.8 on my 20mm f/2.8 AIS is when the lights are out or it's getting darker.

[dvdowns]

OK , so I compromised , I got both I have the 18-200 and it is a wonderful lens . While the NZ$ is strong I decided to get the sigma 10-20mm as well which should arrive tomorrow

[itsdchz]

Good way to go, I have both and wouldnt have it any other way.* There is endless possibilities with this combination, have fun with them!!

Originally Posted by dvdowns

OK , so I compromised , I got both I have the 18-200 and it is a wonderful lens . While the NZ$ is strong I decided to get the sigma 10-20mm as well which should arrive tomorrow

[D200Warrior]

The Nikkor 18-200mm lens does capture wonderful images. See thye Petronas Twin Towers of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia at this url - http://www.gra-pr.com/NewFiles/nikond200warrior.html. The clarity of the structures binding the 32,000 windows amazes me.

[dvdowns]

Now you're making me want a D200 as well ! My bank ballance says NO! But I am glad I bought the 18-200 , it is a really nice lens and range to have .

[Nikonfreak]

Question:

Food for thought here.

Do either of you guys own a 70-200 f/2.8 or an 80-200 f/2.8?

If so, would you have considered the 18-200? or vice versa...

Julio

[dvdowns]

My main concern was range and not having to change lenses so often . I would probably consider the 70-200 f2.8 VR as a next purchase but not a necessity ... yet .
I have heard so much good about it though and that aperture would have been good for the low light pictures i took at the function on saturday night .

[Nikonfreak]

Ineresting.

I ask because my neighbor is wrestling with this decision. He keeps going back to the 18-200 because of it's size, weight, and the hype surrounding it right now.

He's shot with my 70-200 now for two weekend outings and he said that now he understands why folks are so excited about the 70-200VR. My belief is that once he purchases the 70-200, he won't spend the $$ for the 18-200, but I wanted to see how many owned both and if not would you have considered the other.

I think it'd be interesting to see the results.

Julio

[dvdowns]

Tell him to go for the 70-200 2.8 until the 18-200 becomes more readily available and cheaper ...