Stop the madness!

Bought a Nikon D80 from Costco with two lenses that I took over the Truk. Love the camera, not happy with the lenses (18-55, 55-200 afs). The 200 is especially soft. So it's all getting returned.

For UW I'll definitely get a 60mm Nikkor macro to start. I'll follow with some sort of W/A soon ,but not immediately. Maybe a 10-20 or a 15mm Sigma FE, I hope to be on the Aquarium's research team and shoot 6 gills at night while they're being tagged. But that's another story for a couple of months from now.

I'm going to Phoenix over Xmas, will do some hiking, etc. I need a couple of walking around lenses. I also need a GP lens for my real estate shots of commercial bldgs, simple portraits and stuff. Budget is limited, but I want something sharper than what I have.

So I'm thinking either a Sigma 17-70 macro, or a 15-80 macro. I'm thinking that the Sigma 17-70 or 18-50 would be ok as a GP UW lens too.

Plus some sort of telephoto, preferably to 300mm. I'd love to get one of the new 70-300 VR lenses, but who knows when they'll be out. How bad is the Nikon or Sigma el cheapo 70-300 DG?

I guess my budget for all 3 lenses is around $1-1200.

TIA,

Jack

i have heard all good about the sigma 17-70

not sure about the other stuff you ask, i have also heard people like the 18-200..

there is also the Nikon 80-400 VR

i love my 18-200 VR lens for a general topside lens.

The 18-200 VR is impossible to get unless you want to pay $$ over list. I'd like to find something like a 70-300 zoom for around $500.

Jack

Hey Jack,

The 18-200 is a very handy lens, and definitely a step up in quality from the kit lenses -- but it is slow enough that it hunts in low light, the build quality is only acceptable, the massive amount of slightly wobbly extension is worrisome, and it flares like a fireworks show, in my experience -- finally, it really (despite what Ken Rockwell says) can't deliver at all like the lenses at the next step up (the f2.8 zooms). Yeah, they are pricey and they are heavy, but you really can see a difference. And the 17-55 makes a reasonable "can't get closer" uw lens, though I've not housed it yet; the 18-200 isn't a good candidate for UW.

The Sigma is more attractively priced, but I expect it suffers from the same problems as the Nikon 18-200, maybe even more so. AF just doesn't work very well in deeply shaded woodlands or twilight with lenses that go down below f5 or so at full extension, and the dimmer viewfinder makes MF tougher, too.

The D80 is a great camera. If I were you, I'd really think about getting just one zoom (wide or tele), and deferring the other purchase to later. The 17-55 f2.8 or 80-400 VR would eat your whole budget, but if you shoot in low light, or want to keep it a long time, it's a good investment.

All this said, I love my Sigma 10-20! And the Sigma 15FE and Nikon 16FE are *excellent*: fast, sharp, and wide enough for most uses uw.

All the best,

Chris

(despite what Ken Rockwell says)

I own both the 80-400VR and the 18-200VR and I'll take 18-200 over the 80-400 as a general walkaround lens anytime. Unless you are planning to shoot award winning shots, the 18-200VR is the only lens you need to take on land on most trips. If you plan to take wide angle, the 12-24 is nice, but if you want to combine it with an UW wide angle, try the 10.5. I never use my 12-24 UW anymore.

I actually did some tests a week ago with portraits and different lenses. The 18-200 didnt do nearly as well as the 60mm. So for the portraits you could just take that lens. Or buy a 1.8 50mm lens, they're quite cheap.

Cor

Hey, Jack,

Might be worth a trip north for the 18-200VR. I walked into a photo store and there was one on the shelf. $899 Canadian. Haven't had much chance to try it out with our global freezing lately.

Cheers,

Marli

Although I have a fairly broad range of lenses, including an 18-200 and older 70-200 2.8, and I use them all, If I were to choose one lens for all around sharpness, topside and UW general use, build quality etc it would be the 17-55 2.8

I would put in another vote for the 18-200. It doesn't replace more dedicated lenses with better low light capabilities (f 2.8) but is a fantastic "I need one walk around lens that is really good." Otherwise I have the 70-200 VR lens, the 12-24 (great topside and UW), the 10.5 (I only use UW), the 105 VR.

The new 70-300 lens coming out this week is a bit above your 500 dollar mark and will likely be hard to get for a while, but sound like one you might want to consider.

SD

All good information gang, thanks, keep 'em coming, I think this is an interesting thread.

I'm leaning towards buying the Sigma 17-70 or 18-50 macro, only because its a good, albeit not great, lens for the $$ and has some utility UW. Anybody used the new Sigma 18-50 2.8 Macro? I've read mixed reviews of the non-macro, where everyone seems to like the 17-70 and it has more range.

I definitely will get the Nikon 60mm macro and woody for UW to start soon, and add some sort of W/A, but maybe not for a bit, we don't get much chance to shoot W/A here in the PNW.

I'd love to buy the Nikon 17-55 or whatever, but a $1200 lens isn't in my pocketbook.

I'm still investigating telephotos, and I may buy one of the new 18-200, or 70-300 VRs when the prices get reasonable. I may get an el cheapo 70-300 DG for $125 as almost a disposable to tide me by. Hey Rockwell likes it!

Marli; we only get 11% exchange now, so your $899 lens costs $800, plus a bunch of taxes and maybe duty, not much of a deal...but I'm coming up next weekend and might look around; what stores do you like?

Thanks all!

Jack

I also recommend the sigma 17-70 as an all around UW and topside lens. I compared the sigma vs the nikon 17-55 when I was thinking on buying it and you would be surprised by the results! which I can send you if you want but the sigma was even better in some cases

I also have the nikon 18-200 but I don´t think I will ever use it UW. Another all around lens you may want to check is the Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD if a fixed 2.8 is of importance to you.

I am also interested in buying a tele and considering the nikkor 80-400 or sigma 50-500...

Bought a Nikon D80 from Costco with two lenses that I took over the Truk. Love the camera, not happy with the lenses (18-55, 55-200 afs). The 200 is especially soft. So it's all getting returned.

 

For UW I'll definitely get a 60mm Nikkor macro to start. I'll follow with some sort of W/A soon ,but not immediately. Maybe a 10-20 or a 15mm Sigma FE, I hope to be on the Aquarium's research team and shoot 6 gills at night while they're being tagged. But that's another story for a couple of months from now.

 

I'm going to Phoenix over Xmas, will do some hiking, etc. I need a couple of walking around lenses. I also need a GP lens for my real estate shots of commercial bldgs, simple portraits and stuff. Budget is limited, but I want something sharper than what I have.

 

So I'm thinking either a Sigma 17-70 macro, or a 15-80 macro. I'm thinking that the Sigma 17-70 or 18-50 would be ok as a GP UW lens too.

 

Plus some sort of telephoto, preferably to 300mm. I'd love to get one of the new 70-300 VR lenses, but who knows when they'll be out. How bad is the Nikon or Sigma el cheapo 70-300 DG?

 

I guess my budget for all 3 lenses is around $1-1200.

 

TIA,

Jack

The Sigma 1-70mm macro extends 7-1/2 inchs; can't house this puppy. If you are doing buildings, I suggest 15 to 24 mm focal lengths. I don't think you'll much for $400 a lens unless you go primes. The Nikon 18-200 DX VR is a nice walking around lens, but would be most of your buget. Sell your current glass and buy the good stuff.

Don't think anyone's mentioned it, so I will - I got the Nikon 18-70 DX lens w/ my D70, and now use it on my D80 as a walking around lens. If you're shooting real estate, it's probably wide enough to get by, and (in my limited experience) was sharper and felt better than the 18-55 a friend has. It's not really fast enough for portraits, but the 60mm macro would be fine for that, or you could get a 50mm f/2.4 for cheap (~$100 new). For the long end, I got a used 80-200 f/2.8; it's a big beast, but they're pretty reasonable since the 70-200 VR came out. With the 1.5x sensor you're at 300; you could always add a TC to get out beyond that. Sharp sharp sharp - I love that lens. You could probably get both the 18-70 and an 80-200 for something like the cost of the 18-200. Or you could just buy the 18-200, I probably would if my wife would let me .

Also, when you decide to buy one - for underwater w/a, I haven't even had a twinge of lens lust for other W/A lenses since I got the Tokina 10-17. It's now tied with my 60mm macro for "lens most likely to break up my marriage."

My 2 cents....

Of the couple of handfuls of lenses I've purchased, there are only 3 that I use regularly...

10.5mm Nikon for underwater wide angle

60mm Nikon for underwater macro

18-200mm Nikon VR for land.

I do also have have a

Sigma 15mm that I haven't used since I picked up the 10.5

Nikon 18-70mm that I haven't seen since I bought the 18-200

Nikon 12-24mm that I thought I'd like, but I hate trying to get it in/out of my housing so I never use it.

Nikon 70-300mm for topside that I would rather have not bought.

and at least one other that I'm forgetting, all are back in their boxes waiting to be stolen from my closet and enjoying the good life of not being used...

And count one more vote for the Nikkor 18-200 VR. I've been using mine for about a year and have had terrific results - and some sales from the images. Yes, it does seem a little wobbly at times. But the images don't seem to suffer. I've also recently bought the 80-400 VR which seems very good although its early days yet.

I do think the Nikkor 12-24 is very useful underwater; and I've had results I'm happy with using the 18-70. I'm sure the f2.8 lenses are better. But whether the increase in quality is worth the price for we non full-time pros, I do wonder.

I've had great results with the Nikkor 60mm and I reckon its a terrific starter underwater lens. The 105 is slightly tricky to use but also gets good results. (I'm still on the non-VR model).

I reckon the lenses that produce some of the most spectacular underwater results are the lenses that are not so useful topside: the 10.5mm and 105mm. I've had some excellent results with the 10.5 underwater. But topside? Pretty rare. The Tokina 10-17mm sounds tempting and is likely to be more useful topside as well. Worth checking out maybe.