Lens advice Nikon d5600

[jaomul]

Recently went around the block between m43 setup but eventually arrived back to Nikons smallest dslr buying a d5600 as it makes sense to me to be able to use it with existing accessories.

I'd like a really small zoom that has more reach than the regular kit. I'll likely get a Nikon 18-105 or 18-140 but tamron do an 18-200 that is tidy and inexpensive. Does anyone use this lens, if so how do you rate it?

Another thought was the older 16-85 for the wider angle advantage. I don't expect miracles from the lens I buy, just want something light, small and reasonable quality for when I need to go light. I'll use better lenses when portability isn't a concern.

Any suggestions welcome, thanks

 

[stk]

Be sure any third party lenses you buy is working as they should. I have had problems with older lenses from both Sigma and Tarmron with my D5600. They can most likely be updated with newer firmware, but if they're out of warranty you'll have to pay.

 

[jaomul]

Be sure any third party lenses you buy is working as they should. I have had problems with older lenses from both Sigma and Tarmron with my D5600. They can most likely be updated with newer firmware, but if they're out of warranty you'll have to pay.

I'll keep that in mind. Most likely I'll go for either a Nikon or a sigma that can be updated with the dock which I have

 

[ac12]

I have the older 18-70 (from my D70) and the 18-140 (from my D7200)

A wide range zoom is a compromise.

I love the 18-140 much more than I thought I would. I was originally going to buy the 18-105, as I thought 105 was long enough. But the reviews of the 18-140 indicated a better lens. So I went with it.
It is equivalent to a 27-210mm lens on a FX/FF body. That is a nice range in a single lens.
I love the zoom range, for shooting field sports (football and soccer) from on the field (next to the sideline). I can get the close shots that I would miss with a 70-200 on a FX body.
I have not used it as a vacation lens, yet, but I expect it to work out fine based on my current use of it. Just carry ONE lens.

However, all is not perfect.
The longer the zoom, the more the bulk and weight. Although sometimes not much more.
My 18-140 sometimes feels almost too heavy for me on my D7200, which is a heavier body than your D5600.
For shooting family stuff, I rarely use the long end of the lens.
So there have been times where I swapped out the 18-140 for the older 18-70 lens, because it is smaller and lighter.
I was/am even thinking of getting the 18-55 P, for even lighter. I don't need anything longer than 55 inside the house at family parties. So the extra focal length and weight of the 18-140 is wasted.
The 18-140 is a slow lens. I finally broke down and bought a 35mm f/1.8 for low light gym sports, like basketball and soon to be volleyball. I can shoot at ISO 3200, rather than 12800 or 25600.

Rather than longer, I wish I had a wider lens. I used a 24mm for film, so I am comfortable going wide.
So maybe the 10-20?

The 16-85 would require a companion lens to cover the long end, maybe a 70-200 or 70-300.

Comment: As much as I like the Nikon 18-140, the zoom ring on the Canon 18-135 is much smoother and easier to use, especially for sports where I use the zoom ring a LOT. I almost wish I had not tried the Canon zoom, as now I have something else to complain about.

 

[Peeb]

18-140 is a great lens but it is a hefty beast. Really nice lens tho.

 

[Derrel]

The 16-85 is a higher-grade lens than either the 18-105,the 18-135,or the 18-140. I recently saw a 16-85 listed at PPS at a reasonable price. I had Nikon's 2nd-gen 18-200 a decade ago, and it was VERY fun on the then current D70 camera at 6MP; on the 12-MP D2x, it seemed weak to me; the Tamron is likely a newer design and might outperform the older Nikon model. I dunno...depends on what one wants when one evaluates these superzoom lenses.

16-85mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan

 

[ac12]

What I LIKE about the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is the short end of 16mm. That 2mm difference makes a difference, especially to an old guy who used a 24mm lens on film. And the 24-127 FX equivalent is a very good range, similar to the FX 24-120 lens. But the lens speed does not impress me.

Another option is the 16-80mm f/2.8-4 DX lens, which should be good, given the $1,060 price.
The attraction with this lens is the speed, f/2.8-4. None of the other consumer lenses give you this speed, which is like the FX pro/semi-pro lenses.
This is one lens that I am keeping my eye on. But getting it will commit me to DX.
Right now I am still vacillating on upgrading to FX or not.

 

[jaomul]

What I LIKE about the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is the short end of 16mm. That 2mm difference makes a difference, especially to an old guy who used a 24mm lens on film. And the 24-127 FX equivalent is a very good range, similar to the FX 24-120 lens. But the lens speed does not impress me.

Another option is the 16-80mm f/2.8-4 DX lens, which should be good, given the $1,060 price.
The attraction with this lens is the speed, f/2.8-4. None of the other consumer lenses give you this speed, which is like the FX pro/semi-pro lenses.
This is one lens that I am keeping my eye on. But getting it will commit me to DX.
Right now I am still vacillating on upgrading to FX or not.

I kind of have what I need cover wise with my setup. I went m43 for size but found myself getting greedy in my want for better lenses. I bought the d5600 cos it's so small it can be my go everywhere cam, but like a lot of others 18-55 is a lens I'd like to be wider and longer

I've spotted this 16-80. It looks good and is tidy, but I can't justify the cost. Sigma do a 17-70mm f2.8-4 that is about 40% the cost also.

There's a few good suggestions here, I'll consider and see what is my best option

Thanks all for input

 

[ac12]

J
Everything is a compromise.
As with me, you may have to use different lenses, for different situations.
I have yet to find the "perfect" lens; a 10-200mm f/2 DX lens, with PRO grade optical quality, that is no larger and heavier than my 18-140, and a butter smooth zoom ring. HA, dream on.

When you look at lenses, think of a KIT.
IOW, not just that one lens, but also the next lens, and the one after that. Will they fit together as a kit that makes sense.
Example, I can think of a 3 lens kit that has significant overlap, and at first glance does not make sense.
16-80, 18-140, 70-200
Why is the 18-140 in the kit, as it duplicates the 16-80 and 70-200 focal lengths? The reason is travel or similar, where you want to carry only ONE lens. Or where you do not want to change lenses.
If you shoot field sports, the 16-80 is too short on the long end and the 70-200 is too long on the short end. The 18-140 or 24-120 would fit in between and work as the single lens for the sport. This is the realization that I have come to. I was trying to make the 70-200 work, but the short end was just too long for the frequent situations where the players were close to me on the sideline, and I was missing too many shots.

So my cost no object DX kit would be:
10-20, 16-80, 18-140, 70-200, 200-500, 35/1.8, 55 micro, 105 micro
But my affordable DX kit is/would be:
10-20, 18-70, 18-140, 75-300, 500 mirror, 35/1.8, 55 micro, 105 micro (have all but the 10-20 and 105 micro)
- The 18-70 is in the kit only because I have it from my old D70. In your case it might be the 18-55 lens.
- The 500 mirror is in the kit only because I always wanted a mirror lens, not that I needed the focal length.
- Caution some of these older lenses may not be compatible with your D5600. So you have to build your own kit.

Note, that the kit is based on MY wants and needs. Yours may be different and result in a different kit.
Example, if you do a lot of bird or surfing photography, you may have a need for a long zoom 150-600 or 200-500, and the cost may be justified.
I very rarely need that magnification, hence the much cheaper, used, 500mm manual focus mirror lens, instead. And I only got the 500 mirror, because I always wanted one, not because I need it. Otherwise I would and did stop at 300mm. In fact with my 18-140, which replaced the older 18-70, I use the 75-300 very little. I generally have enough reach with the 18-140.
For comparison, in my film days, my longest lens was a 200mm lens, which is equivalent to a 135mm DX lens.

 

[LWW]

The best overall lens combo on a budget IMHO is a 28-105 AG-D macro, a 70-210 f4 AF and a 50 1.8 AF.

 

[jaomul]

The best overall lens combo on a budget IMHO is a 28-105 AG-D macro, a 70-210 f4 AF and a 50 1.8 AF.

I like autofocus and 28 start on a crop is poor for my needs

 

[ac12]

The best overall lens combo on a budget IMHO is a 28-105 AG-D macro, a 70-210 f4 AF and a 50 1.8 AF.

I am not sure, but I think the D5600 does not have an internal AF motor. So it cannot AF a screwdriver lens.

That lens kit sounds like a FX/FF kit, not a DX kit.

 

[SquarePeg]

What I LIKE about the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is the short end of 16mm. That 2mm difference makes a difference, especially to an old guy who used a 24mm lens on film. And the 24-127 FX equivalent is a very good range, similar to the FX 24-120 lens. But the lens speed does not impress me.

Another option is the 16-80mm f/2.8-4 DX lens, which should be good, given the $1,060 price.
The attraction with this lens is the speed, f/2.8-4. None of the other consumer lenses give you this speed, which is like the FX pro/semi-pro lenses.
This is one lens that I am keeping my eye on. But getting it will commit me to DX.
Right now I am still vacillating on upgrading to FX or not.

I kind of have what I need cover wise with my setup. I went m43 for size but found myself getting greedy in my want for better lenses. I bought the d5600 cos it's so small it can be my go everywhere cam, but like a lot of others 18-55 is a lens I'd like to be wider and longer

I've spotted this 16-80. It looks good and is tidy, but I can't justify the cost. Sigma do a 17-70mm f2.8-4 that is about 40% the cost also.

There's a few good suggestions here, I'll consider and see what is my best option

Thanks all for input

Just wanted to chime in that I really enjoyed the Sigma 17-70 that you mentioned above. It’s a great walk around/travel lens. Also it has “macro” capability because of its very short minimum focal distance. It was on my 7100 99% of the time and was used to take sone of my all time favorite family candids.

 

[jaomul]

What I LIKE about the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is the short end of 16mm. That 2mm difference makes a difference, especially to an old guy who used a 24mm lens on film. And the 24-127 FX equivalent is a very good range, similar to the FX 24-120 lens. But the lens speed does not impress me.

Another option is the 16-80mm f/2.8-4 DX lens, which should be good, given the $1,060 price.
The attraction with this lens is the speed, f/2.8-4. None of the other consumer lenses give you this speed, which is like the FX pro/semi-pro lenses.
This is one lens that I am keeping my eye on. But getting it will commit me to DX.
Right now I am still vacillating on upgrading to FX or not.

I kind of have what I need cover wise with my setup. I went m43 for size but found myself getting greedy in my want for better lenses. I bought the d5600 cos it's so small it can be my go everywhere cam, but like a lot of others 18-55 is a lens I'd like to be wider and longer

I've spotted this 16-80. It looks good and is tidy, but I can't justify the cost. Sigma do a 17-70mm f2.8-4 that is about 40% the cost also.

There's a few good suggestions here, I'll consider and see what is my best option

Thanks all for input

Just wanted to chime in that I really enjoyed the Sigma 17-70 that you mentioned above. It’s a great walk around/travel lens. Also it has “macro” capability because of its very short minimum focal distance. It was on my 7100 99% of the time and was used to take sone of my all time favorite family candids.

Thanks. I've a few things awaiting sale. These sales and amount that I get from the sale will dictate what I buy. The 17-70 looks good, I went out today with an 18-55 and I know I prefer shooting at longer focal lengths.

Why do we always want the most expensive option

 

[ac12]

Why do we always want the most expensive option

Ha, been there, still there, drooling . . .

One problems is, were is the gear that meets your need?
In my case it is with the expensive FX lenses, to get more speed f/2.8. f/5.6 at a night game or indoor game sucks, because you have to crank up the ISO to 12800 or 25600, with the lens wide open. f/2.8 is 2 stops faster, so from ISO 12800, I can drop to 3200, for better image quality. Or raise the shutter speed. Or a combination.
But to make best use of the FX lenses, I need to upgrade from a DX body to a FX body. More $$$$
So I get punched not once, but twice.

There is want, and then reality kicks you in the butt.
I wanted the Nikon 200-500, but the $1,400 price tag kicked me in the butt.
So as little as I use a lens that long, I settled for a manual focus 500mm lens for about 10% of the cost. Not as functionally good as the 200-500 (zoom and AF), but does 80% of what I need (magnification).

Is the 17-70 SIGNIFICANTLY better than your 18-55?
In my limited experience, a small/minor change does very little for me. Because afterwards, I usually ask myself, what difference did it make?
Sometimes a small change makes little to no difference, sometimes it make a big difference.

Example1 - Is there a practical difference between f/1.8 and f/2? About 1/3 stop. Back in the film day, the marketing guys made you think there was a BIG difference. Yeah, they could charge you more for the f/1.8 lens than the f/2 lens.

Example2 - 70-300 vs. 70-300 VR. The only difference is the VR, but that can be a BIG difference in real world shooting. Today, I would NOT buy a long lens without VR. VR makes it so much easier to bring home a good pix, when you have to drop the shutter speed because of low light. I once shot a wedding in a DIM church, with a 70-210, at 210mm and 1/60 sec. By the standard guideline, I should have been at 1/500 sec (1/(focal length x crop) rounded up), not down at 1/60 sec. I was expecting an 80% failure rate, because of the slow shutter speed.
The sad thing is, the 2 lens kits that are sold today, are sold with a NON-VR long lens. And that is where VR is needed most. Cuz the average person cannot hold a non-VR 300mm lens on a crop body steady.

Example3 - 43-86 vs. 35-105. Does not seem like a big difference, but for me, that was a huge increase in flexibility. The 43-86 was "just" not wide enough and "just" not long enough. I still had to change lenses, often. The small bump out on both ends made a BIG difference in how much more flexible the 35-105 lens was than the 43-86. I could do more shooting and NOT change lenses.