FX equivalent to the 18-200mm?

[chester0711]

Just picked up a D700 and I am in the process of changing out a few lenses. I will selling off the 18-200mm and looking for another lens that could fill it's place on a full frame body. Any thoughts? Hoping to get something in the same price range but realize the FX lenses can be a bit pricey.

Currently have a 50mm 1.8 (probably upgrade to a 1.4) and an 85mm 1.8

I don't really need the length of a 70-300 and would rather it be a lens that covers some wide and tele.

 

[Windancer]

chester0711 wrote:

I will selling off the 18-200mm and looking for another lens that could fill it's place on a full frame body. Any thoughts?

http://en.nikon.ca/Nikon-Products/P.../AF-S-NIKKOR-28-300mm-f%2F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html

 

[Bjorn_L]

chester0711 wrote:

Just picked up a D700 and I am in the process of changing out a few lenses. I will selling off the 18-200mm and looking for another lens that could fill it's place on a full frame body. Any thoughts? Hoping to get something in the same price range but realize the FX lenses can be a bit pricey.

Currently have a 50mm 1.8 (probably upgrade to a 1.4) and an 85mm 1.8

I don't really need the length of a 70-300 and would rather it be a lens that covers some wide and tele.

Congrats on the fine camera. The FX equivalent is the Nikon 28-300vr or the Tamron 28-300vc. The Nikon is better but much heavier and more expensive.

But putting a 28-300vr on a d700 is selling the camera short. I suggest you get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (older version without a BIM (built in motor) or the Nikon 24-120 vr f/4 (not the older 24-120 f3.5-5.6). The Tamron has close to the same image quality of the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. Obviously the Nikon is better, but used the Tamron costs around 1/5th to 1/6th the price and is very good. You give up some build quality and weather sealing to get the Tamron, but the 28-75 is excellent optically, light weight, and very compact. Another option is the newer Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC.... slightly more useful FL than the older version, plus it is stabilized and has some weather sealing.

Any of these three is a much better choice as your main lens. Other good options include the NIkon 24-85 vr f3.5-5.6, Nikon 24-85d f2.8-4 and Sigma 24-70 f2.8.

Then add the Nikon 70-300vr. The thing is all of these are alot better in the overlapping ranges when compared to both the 28-300 VR & VC. The Nikon 28-300vr is better than the 18-200, so I am not saying it sucks. I am saying you can do a lot better.

--

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

 

[peterclark55]

The Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 is a pig of a lens that has a bad reputation among pros but I find it great both with the D700 and now with the D800:

--

Galleries by gardener

www.pbase.com

 

[nathantw]

Bjorn_L wrote:
But putting a 28-300vr on a d700 is selling the camera short. I suggest you get the Tamron--

Ummm, if you say so. Sometimes it isn't the equipment that's selling it short...

And quite a few more examples can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157627518315711/with/6905420086/


____________________

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/
Always have a camera with you and make sure you use it.

 

[inasir1971]

chester0711 wrote:

Just picked up a D700 and I am in the process of changing out a few lenses. I will selling off the 18-200mm and looking for another lens that could fill it's place on a full frame body. Any thoughts? Hoping to get something in the same price range but realize the FX lenses can be a bit pricey.

Currently have a 50mm 1.8 (probably upgrade to a 1.4) and an 85mm 1.8

I don't really need the length of a 70-300 and would rather it be a lens that covers some wide and tele.

 

[Brad Davis]

nathantw wrote:

Bjorn_L wrote:
But putting a 28-300vr on a d700 is selling the camera short. I suggest you get the Tamron--

Ummm, if you say so. Sometimes it isn't the equipment that's selling it short...




http://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/
Always have a camera with you and make sure you use it.

Agreed, it is not the best lens I own, but it is nice when you need a broad focal range and aren't quite sure what you may encounter out and about.......my dog seems to like the 28-300 Nikkor!

 

[slimandy]

If you want a good equivalent to the 18~200 you should probably have kept it and stuck to DX. The D700 deserves better. I don't think you are doing it justice by sticking a big jack of all trades lens of questionable quality on it. You would be wasting its capabilities IMO. However, if it's what you want take a look at the Nikon 28~300. Not that I recommend it.

 

[Josh152]

That's the thing. We are talking such small margins of performance differences that even the though 28-300 isn't the "best" it is still very good.

 

[Josh152]

Most reviews I have seen also say that the 50mm 1.8G is sharper at pretty much all apertures. The 50mm 1.8G even has an aspherical element and the 1.4 doesn't even have that. Nikon really needs it update the 50 1.4 because there is really no reason to buy it over the 1.8G. Especially with the iso preformance of Nikon cameras these days. Sure the 1.4 has slightly less DOF and slightly better bokeh but IMO not by enough to make a noticeable differnce in the images and certainly not enough to justify paying double the price.

 

[RBFresno]

slimandy wrote:

If you want a good equivalent to the 18~200 you should probably have kept it and stuck to DX. The D700 deserves better. I don't think you are doing it justice by sticking a big jack of all trades lens of questionable quality on it. You would be wasting its capabilities IMO. However, if it's what you want take a look at the Nikon 28~300. Not that I recommend it.