Nikon Lens Dilemma..what to pick

[The 13th Duke of Peckham]

Hello everyone..

I have a D7100 and, after selling my 7000 I am looking at treating myself to a lens..

I currently have a....

18-105 kit lens
10-20 Wide angle
35mm prime
55-200 Zoom

I am considering selling the 18-105 kit lens which is ok...but described as 'not all that' by the guy in the camera shop (A about a year after he told me it was a great lens when I bought it)
Heres my dilemma...is it worth selling that and buying something like an 18-140 lens?..will it be better quality for general pictures?
Or, maybe I should keep it as it covers the range of every day shots and buy something like an 18-35 or 18-70 or 85 lens to cover to middle ground?

Are these lenses generally better quality than the 18-105 kit lenses?

I am not interested in any of the prime lenses at the moment

Does anyone have any other alternatives/suggestions?

I am one a budget of no more than 250 pound...and happy to buy a good second hand lens.

Many thanks..oh and happy new year wherever in the world you are celebrating it

 

[tirediron]

What do you mainly shoot, and what are the issues/gaps with your current gear that a new lens would address?

 

[astroNikon]

Actually the 18-105 is better than the 18-140.

I had one with my d7000 18-105 and for a kit lens it was pretty sharp.
The shorter 16-85 is even sharper overall. Generally a lens that covers less focal length is generally sharper, thus as you increase focal range you decrease quality. But if you take a step up to a more professional lens you increase quality again, but those would require you to save up some money.

There are alternatives but knowing what you like to shoot would help, unless it's generally everything.

fyi, sales ppl will always sell you the "best" at your price range. Until you come back possibly wanting to upgrade then it's not the best. Keep in mind there are many levels which each contain the "best" at each level.

 

[Peeb]

I've read reviews that say the IQ is identical, and a few have thought the 18-140 image quality was actually better.

Haven't shot the 105, but the 140 that I borrowed was quite nice.

The 140 has a metal mount too, which is nice.

 

[jaomul]

I wouldn't worry what the guy in the shop said. What you should be looking at is what your current lenses do NOT do for you, or where you believe they are not as good as you would like.

The 18-105 is the one lens I won't sell even though I do (or did)have the range pretty much covered with other lenses. In my opinion it covers so much and really is not worth selling.

Make a list of what you need but don't have from your lenses and then see what you want or need, if indeed you have any needs there. It is possible to have all you want also, despite what the sales man tells you

 

[Granddad]

I love my Nikor 28 - 300. Outside the studio (and sometimes inside) it's the one that I use most.
It's probably beyond your current budget but not by too much if you go used... I see that fixationuk.com currently has a used one for £380. I bought mine from them a couple of years ago.

 

[fmw]

OP, as a general guideline you should understand that zoom lenses are compromised and the wider the zoom range, the greater the compromise. The tradeoff is convenience vs. lens performance. How much each end of the tradeoff matters to you is up to you. The best zoom lenses are fast, large, heavy and expensive and the compromise of zoom range still applies.

Having said that, modern zoom lenses are quite good and so popular that the manufacturers have pretty much abandoned single focal length lenses for the consumer market. Just think of the wide zoom range as a negative rather than a positive if lens performance is the main issue.

 

[nerwin]

I'd personally look at and recommend the Sigma 17-50 2.8 as a replacement. It would be a HUGE step up from the 18-105...unless you really needed that extra range..then you might be alright with the 18-140 VR but having a faster lens might be useful to you and more versatile.

You can find them used well within your budget at least here in the states..not sure about the UK though. But I'm guessing the market of used lenses is pretty similar.

I doubt you'll find a used Sigma 18-35 1.8 ART used within your budget. But if you sold off the 18-105 and your 35mm prime..it might be possible.

Since you have an ultra wide angle lens and if you don't mind not-so-wide-angle mid-range zoom lenses, then you could take a look at Nikon's 24-85 VR which I have used on my D7000 before and was quite happy, its a very sharp lens and has great contrast and it's really affordable. It's also a 3.5-4.5 and not a 3.5-5.6 like the 18-105/140 lenses. So you get a little bit of extra light at the longer end. But you will lose the wide angle and have a equivalent 36mm full frame field of view. Just set your 18-105 to 24mm and see if it's wide enough for you.

Hope this helps.

 

[The 13th Duke of Peckham]

Thanks all...excellent responses which have given me more to think about..I wil have a look at the ones mention here, thank you

I dont want to overthink this because I will end up with nothing lol...that said I need to get it right first time asthis may well be the last lens I need...(unless someone actually brings out something decent lens for the video facility on cameras...which I find a complete waste of time and money!)

Since writing yesterday I shave checked out the 16-85 the 18-70 and the Sigma 17-70....and looked on comparison sites...this turned into a constant shifting of the sands...first of all the 18-70 looked the best, then the 16-85 appeared better...then the Sigma seemed better than bother...just when I thought I was heading in the right direction someone came along and said their are well documented 'bugs' between the 17-70 and my D7100!!!

What did I say about over thinking!!?

Any thoughts on these lenses guys?

 

[The 13th Duke of Peckham]

What do you mainly shoot, and what are the issues/gaps with your current gear that a new lens would address?

Hi, Scenery mostly...but Im looking for an everyday type lens, one that suits family get togethers, holidays etc...

Although I guess its fair to say with the 18-105 there isnt a gap in my lenses I just fancy something a little smaller/lighter and better quality..and as I understand it it seems these mid distances lens are better..

 

[Derrel]

Difficult to say on longer zooms that span eras...I bought the E-x the 18-105mm with a D40 and SB-600 for Christmas back in 2006 I guess...I felt the 18-105 was a nice zoom back then. The thing is: some of these lenses are reviewed by people who had used them earlier, on 6-,then 10-, then 12-, then 16-, and now on 24-MP APS-C sized sensors...time changes, sensors change, but the lenses stay the same. If somebody says one lens is or was better than another, it might depend on WHAT camera it was shot on, or it could also be improved skill/technique of the shooter, or better and more modern software, or "the big change" Nikon made in its SOOC JPG processing some time back.

Look at the Thom Hogan bythom.com website: he's removed lens ratings on a number of consumer and hobbyist lenses which are now, dated, becasue they are now expected to be used on higher-MP Cameras. Case in point: the older 70-300VR zoom: the newest, "Cheapie" model, the AF-P that tops out at f/6.3 at 300mm...MUCH better than a more-costly, 10 year old lens on nbew, 24-MP cameras. But the 18-140" it does NOT really achieve good corner sharpness on the new, 24-MP APS-C format...the corners never do get really,really sharp.

I think too, you need to realize that the "consumer" zooms, those that have low price, were not intended to be used by critical users with really high expectations of ultimate image quality at the pixel-peeper level. "Better" to some people really means "handier", or "fewer lens swaps being needed", or "easier to use", and so on.

 

[Dave442]

I would not change out any of those lenses for any other lenses that are super zooms or kit lenses. I have the 18-70mm, had the known loose screw issue and fixed that and now have the known issue with the autofocus so the lens is sitting on the shelf. That 35mm is my go to lens for family events, holidays, etc.

So I feel that your 18-105mm and 35mm can both cover a day of general photography. I would look more towards adding a more specialised lens. If you really only want to go with a zoom then adding one that goes to 300mm and also replaces the 55-200mm is an option. Otherwise I would add a prime: 20mm f/2.8D for indoor events, or 85mm f/1.8D for portraits, or 105mm f/2.8D Micro for macro shots. I would rather come home with five shots from one of those lenses than 100 shots from a general purpose lens. Any one of those three are small enough to toss in the bag with the D7100 with the 18-105mm.

 

[PropilotBW]

This is just an idea, but what about the 24-120 f/4? It's not the widest, but you have that taken care of with the 10-20mm.

 

[goodguy]

If I had only DX body then for general use lens I would get the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 hands down.
Its sharp, has constant aperture of 2.8 and its affordable.
For the price I think its the best DX lens in the market today.

 

[Dave442]

I also think that Sigma is a good option in your budget. If you are going to add another zoom then a fixed f/2.8 or f/4 makes more sense over most other kit type zoom lenses. There just are not many out there in your budget.