English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I would like to eliminate my 18-55mm kit lens completely, as it is a piece of poo. We know how expensive good lenses can be, so I would like one that can do everything. I know that's a lot to expect from just one lens. Right now, I take the basic city shots (I live in New York, carry my camera everywhere), and some pictures of my family. I need something GOOD. I've been reading Scott Kelby's 'The Digital Photography Book,' and he mentions that his friend bought a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for his camera. Maybe something equivalent? Although it is a $1000 lens. I guess I'm willing to spend that much, if it's gonna get me TACK SHARP pictures. Thanks y'all

2007-01-13 04:41:45 · 5 answers · asked by very new york curious 2 in Consumer Electronics Cameras

5 answers

A 'piece of poo'? I like that :-)
One step up is the $310 Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5. It's a very decent lens and great value for money.
Two steps up is the $450 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. This lens has also received good reviews, but people always add 'for the price'. It delivers about 90% of the image quality but it lacks the build quality and AF speed of the lens it's always measured against - your third option:
The $1200 Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. I use this lens myself on a D200. It's overkill on a D50 but it's the best there is, and if you can afford it... why not?
You mentioned a Canon 24-70. Nikon has a $1600 28-70mm f/2.8. This is another fantastic lens but for me the focal length is wrong on a digital body. (Nikon made the 17-55mm to replace this lens for digital - with the 1.5 focal length multiplier, the 17-55 effectively becomes 26-83mm.)
You also mentioned you'd like a lens that can do everything. For this, Nikon made the 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 VR. The list price is $750 but due to poor availability you'd be lucky to find one for $900. The image quality beats the 18-55mm, but not by much. It also doesn't have the low light performance, AF speed, or build quality of the 17-55. What you do get, is tons of convenience. That, and it blows the 3rd party 18-200mm zooms out of the water.
You could also consider primes. If you can live with fixed focal lengths, they can't be beat for image quality. And if you don't like Nikon's primes, Zeiss now makes them with an F-mount, too (albeit manual focus lenses.)
But don't take my word for it. Scroll down to the bottom of this page for all the Nikon lens reviews you could ever want: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

2007-01-13 06:52:06 · answer #1 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 0 0

OMG has written "THE" definitive answer to your question, so I can add no more. I will just agree 150% and recommend that you vote for him as the best answer. The 18-70 is a great lens "for the money" and the 17-55 is "The Ultimate." It matches the focal length of the 18-55 that you are already used to using. I wouldn't call it "overkill for the D50," though, as we all know you will buy a new body in 5 years anyhow and you will have your 17-55 lens forever. If you want "tack sharp," buy the 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens. Hey... I see there is a $40 rebate from Nikon running through January 28, so buy it anywhere and save $40.

2007-01-13 18:30:19 · answer #2 · answered by Jess 5 · 0 0

Take the list from OMG and do some searches at www.keh.com. KEH is a used camera equipment dealer and they come recommended. You can probably find some decent deals on those top quality lenses there.

2007-01-13 22:51:53 · answer #3 · answered by k3s793 4 · 0 0

Try ebay for a used one and save new are cheap too.

2007-01-13 14:05:32 · answer #4 · answered by tmerring64 2 · 0 0

Have you tried Nikon.com?

2007-01-13 12:44:55 · answer #5 · answered by Miss Informed 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers