I Need a Nikon Digital SLR Lens Recommendation Please.

[joeychitwood]

I'm not satisfied with the two cheap lenses I use with my Nikon D70 (a Sigma DC 18-125 and a Nikkor AF 70-200.) After seeing the beautiful photos posted by the resident photographers on RC, I'd like recommendations for a versatile, multipurpose lens for my camera. Keep it under $1000. I have made numerous purchases from B&H Photo, so if you can provide a link, that would be great.

I use the camera for outdoor landscapes, sports action shots, reef tank shots and portraits.

 

[Absolute Reef]

I would recommend...
Nikon AF-S DX VR 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED for the the most versatile and multipurpose lens.
Nikon AF-S DX 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED for the best mid-range versatile lens.
AF-S MICRO VR 105 f/2.8G IF-ED this is the best macro lens available for Nikon...I just love my 105 vr soooo much.

Since you already own 70-200...I don't think I need to recommend it to you.

Anyway, go to www.pixel-peeper.com for tons more of the actual pictures taken by various lenses available in the market.

Good luck and Enjoy!

 

[joeychitwood]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10170196#post10170196 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Absolute Reef
I would recommend...
Nikon AF-S DX VR 18-200 f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED for the the most versatile and multipurpose lens.

This appears to be a difficult lens to find in stock.

 

[hyperfocal]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10170196#post10170196 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Absolute Reef

AF-S MICRO VR 105 f/2.8G IF-ED this is the best macro lens available for Nikon...I just love my 105 vr soooo much.

I agree, this is a fantastic lens. A pleasure to use.

 

[maroun.c]

What exactly are you not happy with with your current lenses.
I agree the 70-200 even if a good quality lense will be too long for aquarium photography.
Maybe post some of your pics so that we can help on what's not working for you.
also you have to specify which type of Aqua photography you do most so that we can better help you chose a lens.
So far you got some nice (though expensive solutions)
I do have the 18-200 VR extreemly versatile, a one lens solution for travel and every day photography. Still not the best choice for tank photography as it's a bit slow (3.5 at it's wides and gets smaller as you zoom) if you use a flash for it and learn how to avoid the reflections and colour washout it can give you some nice results. The 18-200 is nice for full tank shots as you need to use a smaller aperture (bigger number) to make sure you have DOF coverage from front to back.
When mine was broken and I was visiting an aquarium display I used my 50 mm 1.4 was not as comfortable as I had to move back and forth to compose but got some really nice crisp pics even at low lit tanks without flash. Couple that lens with a Flash and you get amazing results. Still it's a hassle to have to move and you struggle with compositions.
for macros 105 Vr is perfect.
Now for the cheaper lenses still reported for good quality:
Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50. bought the Tamron few days ago and with the limited testing I did I'm amazed at it's sharpness even at 17mm. It's a fixed 2.8 aperture so is faster than the 18-200 Vr. Vr will help more with handheld shots but for moving subjects (fish) you need faster shutter speeds achieved with higer Iso and bigger aperture. the Tamron 17-50 is reportedly equally sharp or even sharper than the Nikon at 2.8. Still the Nikon is much better built and gets sharper as you close down. Tamron and Sigma will sell for a fraction of the Nikon Price.
for Macros Sigma 105 and Tamron 90 are very sharp macro lenses they don't have the quality built of nikon but have good glass inside them.
Vr is nice on all lenses but does not deal with front to back camera movement which throughs your subject out of focus because of the limited DOF in Macros so a non Nikon lense or maybe the cheaper Nikon 105 non Vr would be good choices.
Tamron is starting a new series of Vr lenses so I guess prices of non Vr lenses from Tamron will soon drop.
for general photography I would recommend the 50 mm 1.8 very cheap ( 100 usd) and sharp lens for clsoeups and macros (with extension tubes or close up filters or inverted on the camera or on other lenses) and portraits and low light shots.
50 mm 1.4 is better built sharper and focuses better (three times the price)
85 mm 1.4 is a longer and very sharp portrait lense.
105 (VR or non Vr) is the sharpest lense Nikon made it can be used for portraits if you have the distance and is even sharper.
60 mm macro is also a nice lense for portraits but too short for insect macros or tank macros.
for your general photography lots of options:
18-200 general sigle lens solution.
17-55 Nikon (or Tamron or sigma equivalent) with the 70-300 Vr which I got and am impressed with it's quality.
or 18-70 (kit lens sharp enough but not a 2.8) with the 70-300VR
also you could get the 18-135 with the 70-300 Vr
or the 18-55 with the very cheap 55-200 Vr
70-200 VR with 200-400Vr (most expensive but this is what I would buy if I'm starting from scratch)
As you can see there is no limit to the options and the choice is yours. you have to decide wether you want to carry 2 lenses and switch frequently or not.
Depending on your type of photography you have to decide if most of your shots will be below or above 50 or 70 to chose a combination.
18-135 and 18-200 allow you not to miss a shot while switching lenses. they give you a smoother pic at their edges but at least give you the chance of taking the picture.
I personally went for 18-200 VR 70-300 Vr 50 mm 1.4 Tamron 17-50 recently still have to get the 105 VR from Nikon and the Sigma 10-20 for landscapes.
can't believe I typed all this. guess it reflects the challenge in lense choice that I'm living in.
Anyway as I said just clear your interests and post some of your pics

 

[joeychitwood]

Thanks for the great information, maroun.c. I appreciate everyone's contribution.

 

[Raphael]

I strongly recommend the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html)
My favourite photo was taken on this lens. Here is an example (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8851671@N04/542744144/)

 

[Absolute Reef]

70-300 VR is very light and quick (focusing). I tried it before on D80...very nice affordable lens ,great portraits too.

Thanks Maroun.c for great information and supports.

To be honest, I have never heard of someone complaining about 70-200 vr, u can't get better than that.

 

[Ebn]

If used properly, the 70-200mm VR is a gem. It can take awhile to get used to though due to weight and focal length. It's good for sports as long as you can get close enough (even w/TCs). It also produces great bokeh and sharpness for portraitures.

Keeping it under $1k will rule out the 17-55mm f/2.8 (unless you don't mind used gear). For the price, I'd take a look at the 18-200mm VR lens for general usage. The 70-300mm VR is too long for use in landscape photography. Just need to get your name on the B&H list for them to contact you (also check w/Robert's Imaging to see how long their list is since it's cheaper there).

 

[reefman13]

I have the 18-200mm lens and it is a fantastic lens. It is also the highest rated by camera lens experts. It has the highest quality glass out of all the Nikor lenses.

 

[joeychitwood]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10189630#post10189630 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by reefman13
I have the 18-200mm lens and it is a fantastic lens. It is also the highest rated by camera lens experts. It has the highest quality glass out of all the Nikor lenses.

I purchased this lens, so I'm selling my Nikon 70-210mm D and my Sigma 18-125mm D lenses. Thanks for all of the great advice.

 

[shaggydoo541]

You can't go wrong with the 18-200 VR. I have it myself. But if you really want amazing puctures may I recommend the 105 mm VR. I took these at a local garden the other day.

 

[joeychitwood]

Gorgeous photos.