Looking for Lens Recommendations

[PatrickCheung]

i know this thread isn't gonna get much replies or views, but its worth a shot posting i guess.

so i'm looking for a lens to possibly add on to or replace my D60's kit lens. I usually shoot either extremely close to the subject, or from a distance, rarely in the middle. I'm looking for something reasonably affordable, and narrowed it down to (but not limited to):

-nikon 55-200mm f4-5.6 (DX one, sometimes comes packaged with D60+kit lens)
-nikon 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 (one that comes with D90s)
-nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 (most expensive)

the 55-200mm is the least expensive, and can be added on to my 18-55mm kit lens for a 18-200 reach... i'm just a little worried about build quality and image quality/performance

the 18-105mm will replace my 18-55, but i'm also a little worried about performance and build...

the 16-85mm will also replace my 18-55, i'm not too worried about performance or build, but just wondering if i'll regret not buying something with more zoom (such as the ones above) and if it was worth the steep price.

I excluded the nikon 18-200mm 'cause i figured that was TOO expensive, and the 55-200mm can be added on to the 18-55 for the same range, and thats a much cheaper option, and i've heard it has less distortion.

As i mentioned i like to shoot close up, but i excluded most macro lenses because they cost... a lot. at least the nikon ones.

if anyone has any input, or recommendations (especially for third party lenses that work perfectly with the D60), please please please feel free to comment. thanks.

 

[dhilberg]

For the wide end, look into the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM Macro. Sharp lens, and has a 1:3 macro mode. It's not a true macro, but it can focus on objects only a couple inches away. I have one for my D80 and it's excellent.

 

[PatrickHMS]

For the wide end, look into the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM Macro. Sharp lens, and has a 1:3 macro mode. It's not a true macro, but it can focus on objects only a couple inches away. I have one for my D80 and it's excellent.

I second this, have the same Sigma lens, and also like mine very much.

 

[PatrickCheung]

:O thanks!

iunno though, i'm thinking of getting a better 18-55 or 17-50 sometime later, seeing as if i have a 18-55 now... haha this is gonna be my first lens, so i dont want the same lens twice

 

[PatrickHMS]

:O thanks!

iunno though, i'm thinking of getting a better 18-55 or 17-50 sometime later, seeing as if i have a 18-55 now... haha this is gonna be my first lens, so i dont want the same lens twice

A 2.8 and a 3.5 are NOT the same lens, just the same focal length.

If you don't need or want the constant f/2.8 offered with the Sigma 18-50mm, just go with the slower Nikon 55-200mm VR "kit" lens. Still a nice lens for the money, especially if you want to go el-cheapo.

 

[PatrickCheung]

:O thanks!

iunno though, i'm thinking of getting a better 18-55 or 17-50 sometime later, seeing as if i have a 18-55 now... haha this is gonna be my first lens, so i dont want the same lens twice

A 2.8 and a 3.5 are NOT the same lens, just the same focal length.

If you don't need or want the constant f/2.8 offered with the Sigma 18-50mm, just go with the slower Nikon 55-200mm VR "kit" lens. Still a nice lens for the money, especially if you want to go el-cheapo.

i know i know haha i'd love to have a 2.8 17-50mm honestly. i was thinking of getting one, but right now i want to expand my zoom range. I'm actually considering the 55-200, as i can have a pretty decent range with that combined with the kit lens i have. does anyone suggest this?

however, i'm not too keen on carrying two lenses, i usually walk around and find things to shoot, and i dont want to lose a shot because i had to change a lens.

That said, i'm really interested in what people have to say about the 18-105mm and 16-85mm, or 24-105mm or 24-85mm(preferably the cheaper 3.5-4.5) even. I'm looking for a good walk around lens with good image quality (sharp images, minimal distortion).

 

[PatrickHMS]

:O thanks!

iunno though, i'm thinking of getting a better 18-55 or 17-50 sometime later, seeing as if i have a 18-55 now... haha this is gonna be my first lens, so i dont want the same lens twice

A 2.8 and a 3.5 are NOT the same lens, just the same focal length.

If you don't need or want the constant f/2.8 offered with the Sigma 18-50mm, just go with the slower Nikon 55-200mm VR "kit" lens. Still a nice lens for the money, especially if you want to go el-cheapo.

i know i know haha i'd love to have a 2.8 17-50mm honestly. i was thinking of getting one, but right now i want to expand my zoom range. I'm actually considering the 55-200, as i can have a pretty decent range with that combined with the kit lens i have. does anyone suggest this?

however, i'm not too keen on carrying two lenses, i usually walk around and find things to shoot, and i dont want to lose a shot because i had to change a lens.

That said, i'm really interested in what people have to say about the 18-105mm and 16-85mm, or 24-105mm or 24-85mm(preferably the cheaper 3.5-4.5) even. I'm looking for a good walk around lens with good image quality (sharp images, minimal distortion).

Now I understand, your OP didn't mention anything about your wanting to carry only one lens, as you did mention "add on to" what you already have.

The longer the focal length of a zoom lens, you will usually get a lens with more shortcomings in IQ, or a much higher price - thus the cost of the 18-200mm, which you say is prohibitive to you. I had a 18-200mm VR lens, didn't see is as being worth the additional cost over my combined 18-55mm and 55-200mm "kit" lenses for the same focal lengths.

That is why two of us mentioned the fast Sigma lens as an affordable alternative.

We can't get everything we want (long range of focal length, IQ, and affordability), all in one lens, doesn't work that way.

Zoom lenses ARE convenient, but you give up something in IQ over a prime lens.

For what you ask in your OP, as I understand it now, I don't have an answer for you. In all of the lenses on your list you mention each of them as having some shortcoming or another.

 

[PatrickCheung]

A 2.8 and a 3.5 are NOT the same lens, just the same focal length.

If you don't need or want the constant f/2.8 offered with the Sigma 18-50mm, just go with the slower Nikon 55-200mm VR "kit" lens. Still a nice lens for the money, especially if you want to go el-cheapo.

i know i know haha i'd love to have a 2.8 17-50mm honestly. i was thinking of getting one, but right now i want to expand my zoom range. I'm actually considering the 55-200, as i can have a pretty decent range with that combined with the kit lens i have. does anyone suggest this?

however, i'm not too keen on carrying two lenses, i usually walk around and find things to shoot, and i dont want to lose a shot because i had to change a lens.

That said, i'm really interested in what people have to say about the 18-105mm and 16-85mm, or 24-105mm or 24-85mm(preferably the cheaper 3.5-4.5) even. I'm looking for a good walk around lens with good image quality (sharp images, minimal distortion).

Now I understand, your OP didn't mention anything about your wanting to carry only one lens, as you did mention "add on to" what you already have.

The longer the focal length of a zoom lens, you will usually get a lens with more shortcomings in IQ, or a much higher price - thus the cost of the 18-200mm, which you say is prohibitive to you. I had a 18-200mm VR lens, didn't see is as being worth the additional cost over my combined 18-55mm and 55-200mm "kit" lenses for the same focal lengths.

That is why two of us mentioned the fast Sigma lens as an affordable alternative.

We can't get everything we want (long range of focal length, IQ, and affordability), all in one lens, doesn't work that way.

Zoom lenses ARE convenient, but you give up something in IQ over a prime lens.

For what you ask in your OP, as I understand it now, I don't have an answer for you. In all of the lenses on your list you mention each of them as having some shortcoming or another.

haha sorry about that yeah i kinda just realized later on in the night that i didn't want to carry around different lenses unless i was carrying a set of primes. it's sad that i'm limited to AF-S lenses or i'd pick up that sigma 105mm f2.8 right away haha... i considered the nikon 85mm f.3.5 prime... though i realized theres an AF 85mm f1.8 for a hundred bucks cheaper. it just doesnt seem worth it to me until i have a camera that isn't limited to AF-S.

i also did some more searching and added the Sigma 18-125mm f3.8-5.6 HSM ($470) and tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 to my list.

yeah i realized that with a larger zoom range there'd me more IQ compensation... but that's something i can't avoid as of yet

 

[PatrickHMS]

Are you actually finding shortcomings with what you have, or you just want better.

For many photographers, the 18-55mm "kit" lens, with the 55-200mm VR "kit" lens, will do just fine for most uses.

Two lenses I know, but lens changes are easy, and that has you only $300 deep with focal coverage all the way to 20mm.

I had an 18-200mm, and although it was a nice lens, wasn't worth the extra over the kist lenses for the same focal length.

And for that price you can't get much more focal length coverage than 18-200mm with so few as 2 lenses.

But good luck, whatever you do!

 

[PatrickCheung]

i really just want to add to my focal range, with minimal compensation of image quality. like you said, if i really want to go up to 200mm i'll probably get the 55-200, or a tamron 18-250/18-200 if i REALLY think switching lenses is that big of a hassle.

I'm really interested in the nikon 16-85, nikon 18-135, sigma 18-125, and tamrons 18-200 or 18-250, so if anyone's gott anything to say about that... then please do.

thanks patrick you've been great help so far hahaha