Traveling light -> 18-200 vs ?

I currently have Nikon's 18-200, 50mm 1.8, 105mm 2.8 (Macro) with a new D7000

I've been using the 18-200 for about 5 years, and I can't say I'm pleased with its quality (especially on the longer side).

I going to travel for 1.5 months in Nepal and Thailand.
I'm thinking of giving the 18-200 to my dad, and to buy myself a new lens.

I prefer the wide to mid range (let's say 10-85 or 10-100), so I'm not looking for an alternative to the 18-200 range.

I'm looking for a lens to take along my 50mm, or any other solution which will be light enough and won't have and not more than 2 lenses to carry around.

I want the new lens to be better than the 18-200, while not throwing all my money on it.

Suggestions?

Gumpa S said:

I currently have Nikon's 18-200, 50mm 1.8, 105mm 2.8 (Macro) with a new D7000

I've been using the 18-200 for about 5 years, and I can't say I'm pleased with its quality (especially on the longer side).

I going to travel for 1.5 months in Nepal and Thailand.
I'm thinking of giving the 18-200 to my dad, and to buy myself a new lens.

I prefer the wide to mid range (let's say 10-85 or 10-100), so I'm not looking for an alternative to the 18-200 range.

I'm looking for a lens to take along my 50mm, or any other solution which will be light enough and won't have and not more than 2 lenses to carry around.

I want the new lens to be better than the 18-200, while not throwing all my money on it.

Suggestions?

Click to expand...

The obvious solution would be the 16-85. Kinda wide to kinda tele. Very sharp. Not ideal bkeh (depends on shot conditions). Good build quality. Quick and responsive lens for a f3.5-5.6

This would cover your preferred FL. The next closest option would be the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS. It typically has better bokeh than the Nikon, but I otherwise prefer the Nikon.

--

See my plan (in my profile) for what I shoot with. See my gallery for images I find amusing.

Gumpa S said:

I currently have Nikon's 18-200, 50mm 1.8, 105mm 2.8 (Macro) with a new D7000

I've been using the 18-200 for about 5 years, and I can't say I'm pleased with its quality (especially on the longer side).

Click to expand...

I've used a 18-200 for about 6 years now and I must say that I am very pleased with the results. I actually bought a second one recently and my girlfriend now uses the first one.

It could be that you have a bad copy (or that I have a very good one of course). Having set the AF tune to +4 gives my simply very sharp results on my D7000.

Here are some shots I took a while back, had the AF tune set to +8 during that holiday, and later on found out that +4 is even better.
http://forums.dpreview.com/Galleries/7033287209/photos

Of course everyone has their own standards of sharpness, but I am pretty pleased with such results.

Gumpa S said:

I prefer the wide to mid range (let's say 10-85 or 10-100), so I'm not looking for an alternative to the 18-200 range.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should try another copy of the 18-200..

Gumpa S said:

I want the new lens to be better than the 18-200, while not throwing all my money on it.

Click to expand...

hmm, in my experience this is not going to happen...not with a zoom lens at least.

In the last years I've tried (borrowed) a lot of lenses, but I found very little difference between the consumer zoom lenses when compared to the 18-200. The 16-85 gets good reviews, but in my personal experience I saw little improvement over my 18-200. But you do gain the 16-18mm which is nice at the wide end!

The only real difference I saw was with the more expensive pro lenses I rented. That combined with my girlfriend shooting getting more serious as a freelancer, made me get the 24-70 adn the 70-200 which just arrived

The example you mention both start at 10mm. I recently got a Tokina 12-24mm-f4 and used iy on a trip to Venice, Italy. I was very pleased with the results and the extra 12-18mm range is wonderful when shooting in smaller places..

I agree with you. I think the 18-200 is a great lens. It does not compare to a 70-200vr I had but I found little difference between it & a 16-85.

The 16-85 is not an option in my opinion, as I don't think it will be so much better than the 18-200.

I was thinking maybe Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Nikon 17-55 2.8 or go wild with a 10-20/12-24 and my 50 1.8.

And giving up on all the 50-100 area...

Why couldn't they just deliver a 16-85 f/4 ?!?! (or go crazy with a 16-85 f/2.8)

I compare the photos I get with the 50 1.8 and the 18-200, and it feels like it's from different cameras! The colors, the sharpness, the contrast...

An option I don't want (due to the number of lenses), but I think will be the best:
10-20/12-24 + 35 + 55-200/70-300

24-70 f/2.8?

--
Max
maxphotoblog.net

Gumpa S said:

The 16-85 is not an option in my opinion, as I don't think it will be so much better than the 18-200.

Click to expand...

Better at what? From what you have written is hard to say if you need a lighter lens, a faster lens, a sharper lens or just a "more contrasty with better color transmission".

There is no lens that does it all.

Be more specific

Regards

Because of the pretty large retrofocus adjustment necessary to get a wide angle on an SLR, you're probably going to have to use two lenses to cover 10mm anything over 30 or so. What about an ultrawide 8-16, 10-24, 10-18 etc and 16-85, or 18-xxx kit or something like the 24-120?

Gumpa S said:

The 16-85 is not an option in my opinion, as I don't think it will be so much better than the 18-200.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on that one.

Gumpa S said:

I was thinking maybe Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Nikon 17-55 2.8 or go wild with a 10-20/12-24 and my 50 1.8.

And giving up on all the 50-100 area...

Why couldn't they just deliver a 16-85 f/4 ?!?! (or go crazy with a 16-85 f/2.8)

Click to expand...

I'm with you on just about all the above. ...waiting for a semi pro replacement for the 17-55.

Gumpa S said:

I compare the photos I get with the 50 1.8 and the 18-200, and it feels like it's from different cameras! The colors, the sharpness, the contrast...

Click to expand...

Yep...

Gumpa S said:

An option I don't want (due to the number of lenses), but I think will be the best:
10-20/12-24 + 35 + 55-200/70-300

Click to expand...

Having used the 18-200 for years, including Nepal and Thailand, I recently just added a 35 on my last two trips. The last trip (Vietnam, Myanmar and Thailand) I used the 35 probably 95% of the time, if not more. There really is no replacement for the 18-200 unless you go much bigger, more expensive, and don't mind carrying multiple lenses and changing. If you like wide ...go wide with a prime. If not the 17-55 is the best of the bunch. The 16-35 may be another option.

...the 18-200 always does a decent job, the 35 does a better one ...at 35. Bottom line, have fun. If you don't like the 18-200, replace it. It seems you have a better understanding than most that throwing money at a problem won't always solve it...

--
http://www.wanderinground.wordpress.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye

It's almost all opinion folks, gonna have to deal with it...

So, to be specific, I'm looking for setting up a leses set, preferably based on some of the lenses I already have.

I want the set to be light and small (size and amount of lenses) as my 18-200 and 50 combination.

I want to be able to produce (with this new set) photos which are sharper, contrastie, with better colors and prefferably bigger appertue than the 18-200 produce. I wish it would all be like the 50 1.8 (but at least one zoom?)

And... (yes, I know it's too much to ask...) not too pricey. (I'm willing to buy a 2nd hand)

Any suggestions?

And what about the wide(r)?

I was told by owners that on DX, the 24 is not wide enough, and they always need to change lenses because of this...

Wouldn't it be the same as pairing an ultra-wide zoom with the 18-200?

(the lens that should solve all problems, but creates all probems for me as I believe)

Aren't you an owner of a DX? Is 24 wide enough for you or do you use 24 and below on the 18-200 a lot.

I don't think anyone can answer that question for you, except for yourself.

Gumpa S said:

And what about the wide(r)?

I was told by owners that on DX, the 24 is not wide enough, and they always need to change lenses because of this...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.wanderinground.wordpress.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye

It's almost all opinion folks, gonna have to deal with it...

If I was in your shoes, I would consider 10-24/16-85VR/70-300VR and maybe add the 35.
--

Never ask a man where he's from. If he is from Texas, he'll tell you. Otherwise, don't embarrass him.

Read through the thread. You've got some good suggestions. Since we're spending your money....

Why not get the 10-24 (or similar) coupled with the Sigma 50-150 2.8 (if you can find one)?

Personally, I find I really enjoy shooting really wide...it's just fun. The Sigma seems to get some nice reviews plus it doesn't really look that big for a 2.8. I wouldn't worry too much about missing a few mm in the middle.

If that's too much cash then make your call about what focal lengths are more important to you. On such a trip as you describe I'd be inclined to get the 10-24 then throw in something dirt cheap like the 28-80 AF that you can get for less than $50 (it's a sharp lens by the way). Replace the 28-80 later when you are willing and able to get another good lens.

Gumpa S said:

I currently have Nikon's 18-200, 50mm 1.8, 105mm 2.8 (Macro) with a new D7000

I've been using the 18-200 for about 5 years, and I can't say I'm pleased with its quality (especially on the longer side).

I going to travel for 1.5 months in Nepal and Thailand.
I'm thinking of giving the 18-200 to my dad, and to buy myself a new lens.

I prefer the wide to mid range (let's say 10-85 or 10-100), so I'm not looking for an alternative to the 18-200 range.

I'm looking for a lens to take along my 50mm, or any other solution which will be light enough and won't have and not more than 2 lenses to carry around.

I want the new lens to be better than the 18-200, while not throwing all my money on it.

Suggestions?

Click to expand...

--
eddyshoots

These are interesting options...
How are the 28-80 and the 50-150 optics and weight?

Thanks, but it's too many lenses, too much weight.
No need for overlaps in focal lengths - I can walk a step forward/backward.

Have done a small rethinking about your offer with the 24-120, and I think it might work.
How is it compared to the 18-200? Is it any better?

I use the wide a lot... This is one of my requirements from the new/upgraded set - to handle the wide part well.

But maybe I can pair it with a 10-24/10-20/etc.

The down side will be that I will have to buy now 2 lenses, instead of one.

How is the Sigma 24-70 2.8? (the Nikon is way way out of budget)

Gumpa S said:

I want to be able to produce (with this new set) photos which are sharper, contrastie, with better colors and prefferably bigger appertue than the 18-200 produce. I wish it would all be like the 50 1.8 (but at least one zoom?)

And... (yes, I know it's too much to ask...) not too pricey. (I'm willing to buy a 2nd hand)

Click to expand...

From reading between the lines - something tells me that what you miss is a (semi)pro glass with an aperture fast enough.

Get an used 17-55 (it's more like 18-55 though).

17-55 is not really tack sharp (but sharp enough), it has an excellent autofocus and excellent rendering (bokeh, contrast, colors - for a zoom). It is not a light glass by any means though (755g, for comparing - 18-200 is around 560g) but has weather sealing.

Tamron 17-50 is very sharp (the older one) but its bokeh is nothing to dream of, build quality is questionable too, it is very very very cheap and light (430g).

Sigma 17-50 is in between with good build quality, good bokeh and almost the price of an used Nikkor...

Out of these three my vote goes for Nikkor (rendering) or Tamron (for price and sharpness).

Test any of them because there are lemons out there.

If you need to get any wider - Tokina 12-24 f/4 is very cheap and sharp. Has lots of CA though.

Regards