Nikon 18-200mm lens replacement?

[PSam]

Want to get rid of my 18-200mm lens. I have 10-20 and 70-300. Any recommendations for the middle area? Maybe just a 50mm? Or 16-85? Just for general picture taking, walking around, people, things. Thanks - advice from this forum always appreciated!

 

[Misled]

This is the closest I can find to what I use.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/350972-REG/Sigma_548306_24_70mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html


I have an older sigma 28-90AF. An older film lens, but I do like it very much. I had a tamron sp 28-105 at the same time but prefered the sigma. The tamron was nice, but extreamly heavy, and the lens creep was very hard to deal with, though the newer model corrected that.

 

[VoidRaven]

Depending on how "fast" of a lens you want, the 16-85 is a good option as is the 28-105 if you can find one rolling around. If you want "fast" then maybe something like the 17-55/2.8 (which I can say is a beautiful, and expensive, piece of glass and worth every penny).

 

[PSam]

I see on Craigs List the Tamron 2.8 28-105 for rrrreal cheap and the ad mentions "drift lock" - to help w/ lens creep? Is this maybe the newer model you're talking about misled? I may just buy it as cheap as they're selling it. Can't hurt.

The 17-55 looks pretty sweet. I would like something a little faster. Haven't decided on a budget yet, but can always rent for a week and see how I like it.

Thanks for the suggestions. Keep em coming if you have one.

 

[Misled]

It could be. I think there's a SP version and a regular version. The one I had was SP 28-105 f2.8 LD IF.

 

[xtm]

If you want a midrange zoom, it's either the 16-85 or the great 17-55.

For primes, I'd get the 35 f2 and the 50 1.4

 

[VoidRaven]

The 17-55 looks pretty sweet. I would like something a little faster. Haven't decided on a budget yet, but can always rent for a week and see how I like it.

Thanks for the suggestions. Keep em coming if you have one.

Which 17-55 are you referencing? The Nikon 17-55 (the one I have) is a 2.8 which is about as fast as you will find in a zoom lens but it'll cost you (I think it's around $1,200 last I bothered to check).

The Nikon 28-105 does not have the lens creep problem and also has a "macro" capability (1:2 I believe....not bad, but not a true 1:1 macro). It's a nice walk around lens. I've got one and love it, my wife loves to use it, and I've talked to several other Nikon users who are re-discovering the lens. Sure it's not very "fast" (I think it's a 3.5-4.5) but it's a solid performer.

If you're working with a crop sensor the 35/2 is really getting some rave reviews for a modest priced prime. I've got the 50/1.8 but I really don't use it.

The 16-85 is another potential good option for a mid-range zoom. 18-135 could be one too but I've not heard much around that particular lens.

 

[TWallace]

I'm pretty happy with the Nikon 18-70 other than the annoying way it "sticks" at 18mm (I've heard this is common with this lens). It's F3.5-4.5 I believe and has ED glass. I got mine used from KEH for around $180.

 

[PSam]

Which 17-55 are you referencing? The Nikon 17-55 (the one I have) is a 2.8 which is about as fast as you will find in a zoom lens but it'll cost you (I think it's around $1,200 last I bothered to check).

We're talking about the same one, my sentence just reads weird. It meant to read like yes I'd like something faster - faster as in that 17-55 2,8. It's still ~1200, which isn't as off putting since I'll be selling the 18-200. Hoping to get a second to head down to Calumet this weekend with a list of all the suggestions in the thread so far. Thanks all so far! Pics to accompany the great suggestions are quite welcome as well

 

[Misled]

Don't know what you take pics of, but here you go. Both with my sigma.

 

[maroun.c]

I have the 18-200mmVR and 50mm 1.4 70-300VR Nikon and I also have hte 17-50mm2.8 Tamron.
The 18-200VR is the perfect lens for traveling I don't see myself replacing it anytime soon. not the perfect lens quality wise but very convenient range.
for tank shots I do prefer my 17-50mm 2.8 to the 18-200 and tot he 50mm 1.4 as well and thats because of the minimum focusing distance which is closer on the tamron 17-50 than on all the lenses I listed. not sure about hte minimum focusing distance ofthe nikon 17-55 which I'm sure is a great lense howevevr with the price difference 3-4 times the price of the tamron 17-50 it was an easy choice. some even say that IQ is the same or very close on both lenses I wouldn't go tot hat extent as my tamron is a tiny bit soft wide open which could still be only my lense or even camera or maybe me nto so good at focuing wide open...

 

[PSam]

Great detail on those shots misled - thanks. That's the 28-90? My only problem with Sigma is the stupid rear lens caps .

maroun - I thought the same about the 18-200, great for travel. However, I usually find myself traveling with 3 lenses anyway, so there's no point for me keeping a convenient but mediocre lens. I'd rather just switch them out.

Minimum focus distance for tank pics is not a deciding factor for me either - my tank is currently a bunch of rubbermaids and 20 longs while I wait for an upgrade.

Thanks for all the comments so far. Very helpful!

 

[Misled]

My only problem with Sigma is the stupid rear lens caps .

Hate those too. I've kept my nikons and they work fine in sigma lenses. I also don't do my tank as I have a corner bowfront which tends to crap things up.

 

[tyoberg]

...
The Nikon 28-105 does not have the lens creep problem and also has a "macro" capability (1:2 I believe....not bad, but not a true 1:1 macro). It's a nice walk around lens. I've got one and love it, my wife loves to use it, and I've talked to several other Nikon users who are re-discovering the lens. Sure it's not very "fast" (I think it's a 3.5-4.5) but it's a solid performer...

Hmmm... How did I miss that one? Well rated and inexpensive! I'll have to keep my eyes open for one.