decent lens for beginner?

[pooQy]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (VC) for around $930 if you have a lover budget you can consider the Non VC version for arounf $620

:thumbsup: I second this.

TS's both cameras are DX bodies, there will be crop factor taken into consideration.

I find the 17mm wide enough for group shots, with additional zoom for the occasional close ups.

End of the day, alot depends on what TS wants to shoot. e.g: No point getting a 'slow' lens if you wanna shoot in low light or fast action stuffs.

 

[pooQy]

16-85 .. on crop body very good lens and range...

But not worth the $. :thumbsd:

 

[DM101]

But not worth the $. :thumbsd:

Why this NIKON 16-85mm not worth the $ ? Review says is a very sharp and good IQ lens

 

[s1221ljc]

Bro, most if not all of Nikon kit & lower range lens are ALL decent lens & more. IMO, IQ differences are only marginal, not heaven & earth, night & day. If you like, why not go try out the 16-85 or 17-55 to see if they suit your requirements & budget since you are using a DX camera. For sure, these are better built if that's one of your main criteria.

There is no general consensus of what the better or best lens for YOU, only you can decide. The 24-120 or 28-300 are very much more ex & are designed for/designated as FX cams/lens. But of course people still can choose to use these after factoring the crop factor/change in focal lengths.

Have fun...

 

[s1221ljc]

Why this NIKON 16-85mm not worth the $ ? Review says is a very sharp and good IQ lens

Because it is 2-4X more ex than the 18-105mm lens & below & some of the competition? When I considered buying it, I was quoted like $980 for the lens & I said the same thing, not worth it. But I still got & love the 16-85 & its definitely sharp but as with all things there are compromises. And it's a fact in life that the more expensive things get, the law of diminishing marginal returns sets in Value & worth is personal, but what a thing can do is factual. And the 16-85 can take great photographs.

 

[TheChef]

Because it is 2-4X more ex than the 18-105mm lens & below & some of the competition? When I considered buying it, I was quoted like $980 for the lens & I said the same thing, not worth it. But I still got & love the 16-85 & its definitely sharp but as with all things there are compromises. And it's a fact in life that the more expensive things get, the law of diminishing marginal returns sets in Value & worth is personal, but what a thing can do is factual. And the 16-85 can take great photographs.

To each his own bro. For me, 16-85 is worth its price. For those on a tight budget, the Nikkor 18-70 is a good lens as well.

 

[TroyP]

The 18-105mm lens is really good. I compared mine to a 28-300mm today, and i'm still happy with the kit lens. I was willing to pay the $1295 for it, but I don't think it's any better (except for the longer reach).
Get a 50mm F1.8 prime lens, they are dirt cheap, good for wide open portrait shots for that nice bokeh effect.

 

[jeff7id]

hey hellos thanks for all the advice! hahas yeah i guess it's true. I'll make do with what i have and perhaps check back here when i've improved. thanks!

Good answer from TS :thumbsup:

Just keep practicing with the lens you already had. 18-105 VR + 70-300mm is a decent lens indeed.

 

[siryargee]

Your lens are good enough..Just get another 50mm f1.8 prime lens..It is cheap and damn good.