Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 7, 2006, 4:11 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
monx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
Default

like so many others here goes

i have a 18-55mm and a 70-300mm lense but i´m tired of having to take them along everytime i just go fo a small walk.

i have found that 28mm is sufficient for me on the wide end, and i won´t be going crazy teleeither. ( anything over 200mm = waste )

I had a look at28-200mm tamron but my wife thinks i should aim a little higher qualitywise. This does not mean i´m ready to pay for a 18-200mm VR.

I was thinking of the

24-120mm VR or to wait for the new sigma 18-200mm OS.

give your thoughts. I realize they are slow lenses, but in common use the VR/OS should make up for it. ( i´m not shooting low light sports by the way :blah
monx is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 7, 2006, 8:25 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Ronnie948's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 721
Default

I have always really liked my Nikon 24/120 "VR" lens. I now have a Nikon 18/200 "VR" but if Nikon never came out with the 18/200 I would still be using the 24/120. It is a very,very good all around lens that gives nice crisp photographs.

Ronnie,
Ronnie948 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 12:06 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 215
Default

The Nikon 28-200 gets good reviews (and good price) if you don't want wider than 28mm.

Keith.
keith1200rs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 2:09 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

Looks to me you already answered your own question.

Suggesting anything to be a waste is a matter of your opinion and I don't agree with you on that.

If you want and walk around lens then the 24-120 should be close to what you need, problem may be that it is not wide enough.

Thus, stick to what you have already and save your money and just put up with the little inconvenience.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 3:15 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Remember that 24-120 becomes a 36-180 after the crop factor, which isn't terribly wide. I would probably pony up the extra $300 or so and just get the nikon 18-200. I'm generally not a big fan of the third party superzooms as you do give up quite a bit in image quality.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 8:52 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
monx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
Default

wiznquest.

I think you misunderstood my original post.

Yes my statement :"anything over 200mm is a waste" is a personal opinion. But i think i might have been a little unclar as tothe meaning of my statement.-:-)

It was written in the context of. "I adore my 300mm zoom from nikon, but given this particular situation i won´t need anything over 200mm". I would love to have a 18-800mm if it was possible.I love teleshooting, but having played around with affordable lenses in the 28-300 range it has somehow led me to believe that they are a tad soft over 200mm. If i need the full 300mm range i don´t mind changing lense.-

basicly i was asking to the quality of the 24-120mm VR or if i should possibly wait for the sigma. ( i will also give the 28-200mm a look )

i´ll have to go and test them i guess.-

300$ dollars more is to much for me. ( it´s actually more expensive here in beijing )
monx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 9:18 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
monx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
Default

rjseeney

I have considered the cropfactor, but in cases where i would actually need a wideangle ( landscape, architecture ) i would bring the 18-55mm.
monx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2006, 11:11 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16
Default

Monx, you might consider the Tamron 28-300. Since I got mine, it hasn't been off my D50. I think IQ is good wide open and I've taken quite a few shots with the combo. These are from our backyard water garden.







I'm quite happy with the results I am getting.
Oldtimer Curt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 19, 2006, 5:11 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
audioedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 254
Default

I too can vouch for the Tamron 28-300, its never off my d50


audioedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2006, 5:43 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
monx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 107
Default

I must say the 28-300 considering price looks like a great deal! If anyone has to stumble upon a sigma 18-200 OS review plz let me know
monx is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:36 AM.