I am hoping to find some deals around on some used better quality lenses. Canon users have the L label to help them distinguish, and obviously Nikon does not do this. I want to make sure I am on the right track. I "believe" the pro grade lenses are generally thought to be designated as ED, and are fixed aperature with the most common being the f/2.8. Is this correct or am I way off?


Also, while I have my Nikon friend's here, I thought I'd share this. I'm not a coffee drinker but maybe some of you guys are. I thought it is pretty cool:

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKKOR-Camera-Le...ht_1235wt_1398

 

Canon's "L" is a marketing "thing".

When I switched to Nikon I was a little stunned as to the good glass that Nikon didn't sell for a fortune, ie 18-200, 18-70, 16-85 and 70-300VR. I didn't really see this with Canon, but any lens used correctly will give you a great image. I mean you don't want a 5.6 lens when you're trying to shoot just before dark.

You have to buy glass for what you want to use it for. Sure the 2.8 glass is good, but do you really need it? If you need the 2.8 then buy it. The newer glass that Nikon has been putting out the last few years with the nano coating, is their top glass, noted as as "G". I have a few, and it's needed when using a body such as the D700, D3, D3s and D3x. That's why they made the newer lenses for the FX bodies.

But Nikon has some kick ass DX lenses, 17-55 and their newer 35G and 50G (though 50G can be used on FX as well).

 

Ha...I have that Nikon lens mug!

You're generally correct when it comes the "pro" level lenses that Nikon produces: 2.8 constant aperture zoom lenses tend to be their "pro" level (1.8 or faster on their non-zoom lenses). High price is also generally a big indicator too!

Several places that I look for used Nikon lenses are: www.keh.com, www.bhphotovideo.com, www.adorama.com and the Nikon Outlet store which has pretty good deals on refurbished lenses (cameras and flashes too).

However, the question remains: what kind of lens or lenses were you thinking about? Getting a pro level lens may or may not be suited for what you're intending to shoot, especially when it comes to your wallet!

 

Right now I am just trying to learn and figure out what lenses I want to shoot for. I would like to replace some of my lenses with some better glass over time. The 18-105mm kit lens is decent, but I wouldn't say it's great. I would like something similar in focal range if possible. I like the ability to go wide and zoom out a decent amount. Makes for a great walk around lens. I also want a decent zoom. I have seen the 80-200mm f/2.8 is pretty popular. Something that goes a bit farther would be nice, but if it degrades the quality at the farther length like my Tamron 75-300 does, then I would be ok with going up to a 200mm. I really want the 105mm Macro lens. I have a Sigma f/2.8 Macro that is a decent lens, but would love to have a the added length. Really I am still trying to decide, but want to research well before jumping into anything. I was thinking once I figure out more or less what I will want to go with, I will rent that lens for a week and play around first.

 

The Nikon 18-105 is a decent kit lens but I can understand wanting more. Although I've never used it personally, I've heard good things about the Nikon 16-85 but it's not really any faster than the 18-105. However, it does represent a good "bang for you buck" and is considered a step-up quality-wise from the 18-105.

I shoot indoor sports (most recently fencing) so having 2.8 lenses is a must (and sometimes even that's not quite enough!). I currently shoot with the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and can vouch for its outstanding quality although it is heavy and expensive. Another caveat is that it's a DX lens only so if I were to go full frame in the future, I'd have to get another lens. You can find this lens used for just under $1000 if you look hard enough.

I also have the Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED (not the AF-s version). It's not the fastest focusing lens since it does not have a silent wave motor (your camera must have a focusing motor built in). However, it's tack sharp, has great bokeh, and snappy color & contrast. Again, you can find these for around $1000 used. The AF-s version (built in focusing motor) is harder to find and is pretty expensive - approaches the price of the newer 70-200 2.8 VRI. If you're not going to need the fast glass (2.8), you might consider the Nikon 70-300 ED IF AF-S. It's supposed to have very good sharpness and overall quality for the money. Of course, indoor sports is not going to be realistic for this lens but for everything else, it will probably be fine.

Finally, I'd suggest something really wide. I have the Tokina 11-16 2.8 and love it! I don't shoot sports with it much but shooting wide angle is just a lot of fun and pushes the creativity envelope. This lens is really sharp too although it does suffer from some chromatic aberration.

Whatever you decide on, let us know what you get!

 

2001AudiS4,
See the Fred Miranda site for Nikon Canon Other lens ratings ... www.fredmiranda.com.
I am a Canon L shooter but you can't always say L is best.
Choose wise ..

 

Of course L is not always best, its Canon

Sorry, couldn't help myself. Thanks for the link, I will take a look.

 

Zing !!!

 

When I was back East and hanging out with some friends I hadn't seen awhile, I was talking about how I rented the Nikkor 24-70 and LOVED the lens.

They all started complaining that the Canon L 24-70 is not that great.

 

The 24-70 was the first lens that I shot when I switched over to Nikon. It blew me away compared to Canon's. Nikon's zoom are the reason I don't shoot primes, don't need to with their IQ.

 

Do you rent for shoots or just to mess around with? I was thinking about renting a lens or two just to try out and see if with my limited abilities if I can really see a difference with better glass.

 

I rented the 24-70 for two reasons...I was shooting a friend's band play...and few days later I was becoming a dad. And I wanted/needed more than my 24mm prime could give me for my kids' birth.

 

But renting lenses is a great and inexpensive way to test and play around...I'm also lucky to literally live about a mile from Samys Camera's Rental Dept.

 

I went from a nikon 18-135 then 18-200 then 17-55 2.8 oh it made a hell of a difference in quality and sharpness. It took quite a big beating and it held a good resell value. I bought it for 700 and sold it for 950... lol

I'm now on the 24-70 2.8 man I didn't think it make a difference, but even on my d300 its a step up from the 17-55 2.8.

Now i just need to wait for another fx body before upgrading the d300 =( come on nikon !

 

I've been asking so many questions about lenses, I think I am ready to rent a couple and really try them out. With the nice change in color of the leaves and a nice week of weather and a slow work schedule, I think I will rent one for the week. Should I go for the 17-55 or the 24-70? I am interested in both. I like have both the ability to go wide with my 18-105 and the ability to zoom out. So I am not sure which I would prefer. According to the last post, the 24-70 is sharper then the 17-55. Has anyone else found this to be true as well? I may possibly rent both before I end up buying anything anyway, but the more input the better. As a amateur, either lens will be a big investment.

 

Keep in mind that the 17-55 2.8 is a DX only lens so if you're planning to go to FX in the near future, the 24-70 2.8 might be a better investment.

 

Being that this is a hobby, and already an expensive one at that, I do not foresee myself going full frame in the near future and probably ever. I love my D7000 and will probably have it for at the very least several more years to come.

 

I would like wide of 18-105 then get 17-55, 24 though not much, starts you at 36mm.

 

I know that the 24 is not quite as wide obviously, and with the crop factor, even less wide. The would only be of major concern during indoor shooting. This may be a issue when photographing systems for work. However, I loved having more reach then I had with the 18-55 that I had on my D60. So I am torn between whether to go wide or have more reach. Also, I really would prefer to go with whichever will offer the best picture quality. That is the overall goal afterall. I would just stick with the 18-105 otherwise. So I really would like to know which offers the better picture quality.

 

Well I finally got around to renting a lens. I got the 24-70 today from Lenstrental.com. I will have it for a week. The initial thoughts are that my skills need to improve or I need a steadier hand. I am now wondering how much the VR as played a role in my pictures so far. I never turn it off. The few pictures I have taken have not been sharp, and in fact most somewhat blurry. I welcome and advise anyone has, or tips on how to use this lens. I look forward to playing with it for the next week. Once I send this back, I will probably rent the 17-55 to see which I like more.