# New 'daily use' lens needed.  Suggestions?



## tirediron (May 30, 2008)

The time has come to replace the well used 18-70 (D70 kit lens) that is my every day lens.  With almost 20,000 images to it's credit, it is starting to show it's age.  What I want to replace this is a quality, fast lens with a similar focal range.  I don't mind paying for quality (I'm thinking top-end price $2000.00, and ideally less).  

In a nutshell what I want is a moderate wide-angle to moderate telephoto zoom for my D300.  I also want a faster lens.  Nothing slower than 2.8.  So far, the only real candidate seems to be the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 Dx, which, at a little less than $1500 is well within the budget for this purchase, BUT i would like one that has a little more on the telephoto end.

So, the question is, does anyone know of such a beast.  It doesn't have to be brand new, it doesn't have to be Nikon (though a Nikon mount would be a plus!  )  I've looked at Tamron, and didn't see anything right off the bat... are there older lenses that I could look for on the used market?  It doesn't have to be a Dx lens either, but it needs to have the equivalent focal length.
Thanks!
John


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 30, 2008)

Nikon makes a superb 24-70mm


----------



## tirediron (May 30, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Nikon makes a superb 24-70mm


  Indeed, but that's not a Dx lens, so the equivalent focal length is something akin to 48-105mm; ideal on the telephoto side, shy on the wide-angle side.


----------



## JimmyO (May 30, 2008)

Sigma also make a quick 24-70mm


----------



## Garbz (May 30, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Indeed, but that's not a Dx lens, so the equivalent focal length is something akin to 48-105mm; ideal on the telephoto side, shy on the wide-angle side.



Even if it were a DX lens it would still be 48-105mm 35mm equivalent fov. Makes it a nice portrait lens though.

Nikon make a nice 17-55mm f/2.8 too, but it's a bit overpriced in my opinion.
The problem with f/2.8 lenses is that they get HUGE as the zoom range increases. You're unlikely to find anything 17-wider than ~50-70 if you're after f/2.8 over the range. There's a reason why superzooms like the 18-200 change so widely in aperture (f/3.5-5.6)


----------



## Senor Hound (Jun 3, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Indeed, but that's not a Dx lens, so the equivalent focal length is something akin to 48-105mm; ideal on the telephoto side, shy on the wide-angle side.



Wouldn't it be more like 36-105?  I don't know if that changes your mind, though.  BTW, Sigma has a 24-70 2.8 for only about half the cost.  With that price, you could get a 14-28 or something like it also!  Just a thought.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 3, 2008)

Senor Hound said:


> Wouldn't it be more like 36-105? I don't know if that changes your mind, though. BTW, Sigma has a 24-70 2.8 for only about half the cost. With that price, you could get a 14-28 or something like it also! Just a thought.


You're right right, my mistake on the guzintas!  As far as the Sigmas go...  it's a thought; I'd prefer to stay Nikon, but it's not a must-do... Thanks.


----------



## JIP (Jun 7, 2008)

Fir a quality fast lens you just are not going to get the range you want.  One way to go might be the 12-24 and the 24-70 but I imagine that is slightly out of your range. A suggestion might be the 17-55 and then get a decent prime like the 85 1.8 for $399 along with $1500 for the 17-55 you might exceed your budget just a bit with tax and shipping.


----------



## kundalini (Jun 7, 2008)

I know you dismissed the 24-70mm fairly quickly and the 17-55mm is the only other Nikkor lens (that I know of) that falls in your desired range.

As good as the 70-200mm lens is touted, I find that for "walking around", I use the 24-70mm 90% of the time.  It is a wonderful lens.

To fill out the compliment is the 12-24mm f/4.  So with the three lenses, I go from 12-200mm and can catch just about any focal length I want within reason.  Slap on the 1.7 TC and that extends it to 340mm.  These are mounted on a D80 and a D300 and work great with either.

You'll just need a bigger wallet.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 8, 2008)

Well, what goes around comes around, and it now appears that the Nikon 24-70 is the lead contender in the race.  I still don't see why it's so darn hard for them to make the lens I want, I mean really....


----------



## icassell (Jun 10, 2008)

It's not any longer than what you have, but I love my Tamron 17-50 f2.8.  On my crop-sensor 30D, it fits the bill from a little WA to a little tele


----------



## reg (Jun 12, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Indeed, but that's not a Dx lens, so the equivalent focal length is something akin to 48-105mm; ideal on the telephoto side, shy on the wide-angle side.



Dx vs non-dx has no bearing on it.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 13, 2008)

reg said:


> Dx vs non-dx has no bearing on it.


 
Howzzat?


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 13, 2008)

JimmyO said:


> Sigma also make a quick 24-70mm


 
Sigma also has a 24-60mm f2.8 that you can buy new for $250!! I don't think the extra 10mm of the 34-70 is worth the $175 more asking price.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 13, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> Sigma also has a 24-60mm f2.8 that you can buy new for $250!! I don't think the extra 10mm of the 34-70 is worth the $175 more asking price.


Hmmm... at $250 - 425 I don't think these two are likely to be in the build-quality range I am looking for.


----------



## reg (Jun 14, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Howzzat?



Because if you put it on a crop body, it's gonna be cropped no matter what the lens is.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 14, 2008)

reg said:


> Because if you put it on a crop body, it's gonna be cropped no matter what the lens is.


 
Yes, but the focal lengths of DX lenses are equivalents are they not?  That is to say that a 17mm DX lens gives you a FoV approximating that of a 17mm non-DX lens on an FX body.


----------



## reg (Jun 14, 2008)

Nope.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 14, 2008)

reg said:


> Nope.


An enlightening reply; perhaps you could elaborate on that?


----------



## reg (Jun 14, 2008)

Nope as in nope to the only question you posed - whether or not a DX only lens 17mm = 17mm on 35mm film or fill frame.

That is to say, that ANY 17mm on a crop body is still gonna come out to 20 something-mm to lower 30mm in field of view, depending on the camera body. The "problem", depending on what FOV you're trying to achieve, really, is in the sensor. That's how P&S's have lenses that only stick out 5 or 6mm from the actual camera.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 14, 2008)

Well, don't I feel like a right prat.  Now that I've actually read all of the relevant webpage on Nikon's 'site, it's clear, Reg, you are indeed correct, and thank-you.  I can't believe that I have been mistaken about this for so long!  To explain wherein my error originated, this is the line which I read from Nikon's website some time ago which made me think the way I did:



			
				Nikon Canada's Website said:
			
		

> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]*Field of View (FOV)*
> Due to the fact that Nikon Digital SLR and Nikon film SLR cameras are using different size sensors the lens FOV for any given lens is different on each camera.[/FONT]
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Historically, Nikon have always specified the FOV for 135 Nikkor lenses when used on 135 format cameras, this will continue. However, as DX Nikkor lenses are specifically designed for Nikon DX Format cameras, Nikon will now state the DX Format FOV for these lenses.


  [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Without thinking, I interpreted "FoV" as Focal Length.  Had I read a little further, I would have found:  [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]


			
				Nikon Canada's Website said:
			
		

> For example:
> - The AF 24mm F2.8D Nikkor has a quoted FOV of 84º (on a 135 film SLR camera)
> - The 12-24mm DX Nikkor has a quoted FOV of 61º (at 24mm on a DX format camera)


[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Learn something new everyday!
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Bevel Heaven (Jun 16, 2008)

17-55 f2.8 gets my vote


----------



## tirediron (Jun 16, 2008)

The 17-55 f2.8 will be my second purchase.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 24, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Hmmm... at $250 - 425 I don't think these two are likely to be in the build-quality range I am looking for.



Hmmm... I recommend judging lenses by performance and not price.  Not ALL 1st party lenses are better then their 3rd party equivalent (some are worse), but they are ALL more expensive, many MUCH MUCH more. 

Of course in this case the nikkor does have a better "feel" and build quality, but the picture quality is a toss up IMO--having used both and compared. Considering the 3x price difference (6 x in the case of the 24-60), the sigma is a tempting alternative.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 24, 2008)

djacobox372 said:


> Hmmm... I recommend judging lenses by performance and not price. Not ALL 1st party lenses are better then their 3rd party equivalent (some are worse), but they are ALL more expensive, many MUCH MUCH more.
> 
> Of course in this case the nikkor does have a better "feel" and build quality, but the picture quality is a toss up IMO--having used both and compared. Considering the 3x price difference (6 x in the case of the 24-60), the sigma is a tempting alternative.


 

Good points, however I'm looking at these as a LONG-term purchase, so build quality is very important.  I don't buy any means discount 3rd party gear, but I also don't want something that's only going to last a couple of years.


----------



## reg (Jun 25, 2008)

Fact: I have a, oh probably 24(?) year old Sigma lens that still works.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 25, 2008)

I looked at the Sigma 24-70 2.8 yesterday; a nice lens, but it didn't have the same smooth, solid feel as the Nikon.


----------

