Replacing the 18-70mm Nikkor lens.. better alternative?

Pyrex · Aug 18, 2007

Well... I noticed some crap on my pictures which turned out to be some sort of a metal flake or something on the inner element.. me being the genius I am I decided to take it apart... little did I know that it's just about the hardest element to clean as the entire lens must explode into a billion pieces. I got it apart, cleaned it, and now I can't get the damn thing back together again and to tell you the truth, I never liked the quality of the lens anyway.

What is a good alternative to the lens, preferrably one that is a little sharper and maybe has a little more angle to it. I currently have a 70-300m VR zoom lens, so I'd be happy with something that fills in that 0-70mm optic range.

I appreciate any input.

Sw1tchFX · Aug 18, 2007

if you want sharper, Nikon makes a 17-55 f/2.8. other than that, you'll just have to buy another 18-70 if you want that whole range back.

I have a 17-55 and 80-200 and I don't miss the 25mm between them.

Pyrex · Aug 21, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
if you want sharper, Nikon makes a 17-55 f/2.8. other than that, you'll just have to buy another 18-70 if you want that whole range back.

I have a 17-55 and 80-200 and I don't miss the 25mm between them.

The reviews on the lens seem decent, but they complain about the size and need for even more sharpness. At $1,400 its just ridiculously out of my price range. Does anyone else have some suggestions?

Don Simon · Aug 21, 2007

Large size is pretty much a given on a lens of this designation and quality. Also I can't imagine that Nikon's professional-grade fast zoom would require more sharpness... I expect such a lens to be capable of very high resolution.

Obviously you would be paying for build and mechanical quality as well as optical quality. Not everyone needs the build or focusing of a pro lens, and you could get the same focal length and aperture with excellent optical quality in a much cheaper third-party alternative - the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 seems to be a very popular one.

A bit like Sw1tchFX I have a 'gap' between 50mm and 70mm... I have never found a situation where I needed a length in between, either with film or digital.

Sw1tchFX · Aug 21, 2007

Yeah, sigma and Tamron both make 17-50 f/2.8's, but I dunno, I didn't buy a Nikon camera to use someone else's lenses.

Pyrex · Aug 21, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
Yeah, sigma and Tamron both make 17-50 f/2.8's, but I dunno, I didn't buy a Nikon camera to use someone else's lenses.

Don't get me wrong, I have a plethora of nikon telephoto lenses, and I've never owned a 3rd party lens. Almost all of my photography is through telephoto lenses, it just seems unbelievable that there is just 1 alternative to the 18-70/18-55mm lenses.

Sw1tchFX · Aug 22, 2007

well there isn't

You've got the 18-200VR, 17-55, 18-35, 17-35, all ranging from about $400-$1400

Don Simon · Aug 22, 2007

:thumbup: And as well as those four other zooms, there are at least six primes within that range. How much more choice do you need?

Iron Flatline · Aug 23, 2007

Announced today:

New Nikon lenses

... and probably not viable replacements, but more New Nikon lenses

Pyrex · Aug 23, 2007

Iron Flatline said:
Announced today:

New Nikon lenses

... and probably not viable replacements, but more New Nikon lenses

After checking out both the 17-55mm, 18-55mm, and the 24-124mm VR I chose the 12-24mm.

Sw1tchFX · Aug 23, 2007

ok, the 12-24 is a wide angle, the 18-70 is a midrange. They're in different classes.

Pyrex · Aug 23, 2007

Sw1tchFX said:
ok, the 12-24 is a wide angle, the 18-70 is a midrange. They're in different classes.

I was looking for something with a little more angle, I wish there was a 12-55mm or something like that, unfortunately there is not.

Don Simon · Aug 23, 2007

Actually it's probably a good thing that there is no such lens. If there was one then you would either not want to use it, or not be able to buy it... There is pretty much no way to get a lens to go from that wide to telephoto. Even if it could be done, to design and make such a lens, without it having terrible distortion and various other aberrations, would cost a huge amount of money so that virtually no-one could afford it. It's much simpler to cover that range (and more) with two lenses.

Pyrex · Aug 23, 2007

ZaphodB said:
Actually it's probably a good thing that there is no such lens. If there was one then you would either not want to use it, or not be able to buy it... There is pretty much no way to get a lens to go from that wide to telephoto. Even if it could be done, to design and make such a lens, without it having terrible distortion and various other aberrations, would cost a huge amount of money so that virtually no-one could afford it. It's much simpler to cover that range (and more) with two lenses.

I was removing certain logistics from the statement, simply wishing it would be possible.