Typical Lens Question...


May 31, 2007
70
0
0
47
#1
These sort of questions are hard to answer but appreciate a "if I were you" answer ...
If I have a DX format camera say D60 or 90 ... and If I have 1.2K ... what lens should I get as an all rounder ... for taking kids pictures, family outings and holidays...
I already have a 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED but the f4 and 55mm is the limitation... doesnt work in close quarters ...eg. house...

Nikon has a famous all rounder DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II ... looks great ... but f3.5 seems a little slow for no-flash home shots???

But then any faster lens say an FX faster than f3.5 cost more than 1.3K ....primes are impractical

so would you think a D90 + 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II is good enough?
 

Jan 15, 2004
418
0
16
Bukit Batok
www.flickr.com
#2
You can't get a better all rounder than the 18-200. VR II helps alot! You will appreciate the convenience of using one lens.

If you get that lens you should sell off the 55-200 and maybe get a wide angle DX zoom like 10-24

You can also consider the well regarded 16-85 DX VR. Smaller and wider view.
 

Irvine

New Member
Jan 1, 2010
1,037
0
0
North? South? East? West?
#3
These sort of questions are hard to answer but appreciate a "if I were you" answer ...
If I have a DX format camera say D60 or 90 ... and If I have 1.2K ... what lens should I get as an all rounder ... for taking kids pictures, family outings and holidays...
I already have a 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED but the f4 and 55mm is the limitation... doesnt work in close quarters ...eg. house...

Nikon has a famous all rounder DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II ... looks great ... but f3.5 seems a little slow for no-flash home shots???

But then any faster lens say an FX faster than f3.5 cost more than 1.3K ....primes are impractical

so would you think a D90 + 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II is good enough?
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non or with vc
 

May 31, 2007
70
0
0
47
#4
Thanks for the tips!! Appreciate it...

I tested a friend's 18-200
I just have to use macro mode .. and use 18mm for home shots at low light... :)
still okay at 1/60 exposure
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#5
you want big aperture, you want all rounder plus long reach, and you want below $1.3k.

I doubt Nikon or any third party lens manufactures can full fill all your need. be practical, pick one or two aspects which is most important to you.
 

styeoh

New Member
Oct 20, 2009
21
0
0
Singapore
#6
Hang on to your 55-200. Use that for your outdoor and travels photography. Get a 35mm f/1.8G for your indoor low light situations. You don't really need a zoom for indoors. If you like to go wider, any of these; 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8 or 28mm f/2.8 are all below $1.2k. It is light and can double up as your landscape lens for your travels.

Of course if you would like to spend more, replace the 55-200 with an 18-200 and 35mm. These 2-lens combo should be able to cover a wide range of photo situations.
 

May 31, 2007
70
0
0
47
#7
Thanks for the comments...
Managed to get hold of one 18-200 and the focal length range + Compact size... is a good pau-kar-liao lens

 

Apr 26, 2010
727
0
0
34
Telok Blangah
#8
These sort of questions are hard to answer but appreciate a "if I were you" answer ...
If I have a DX format camera say D60 or 90 ... and If I have 1.2K ... what lens should I get as an all rounder ... for taking kids pictures, family outings and holidays...
I already have a 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED but the f4 and 55mm is the limitation... doesnt work in close quarters ...eg. house...

Nikon has a famous all rounder DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II ... looks great ... but f3.5 seems a little slow for no-flash home shots???

But then any faster lens say an FX faster than f3.5 cost more than 1.3K ....primes are impractical

so would you think a D90 + 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II is good enough?
Bro, where's your 18-55 or 18-105mm??
 

tehzeh

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
627
0
0
Thomas More's Vision
#10
Why are primes impractical? If I were you, I would get a 35mm f1.8G, 50mm f1.4/8, and if budget allows, a 24/28mm f1.8. You are shooting family outings, kids and holidays (you can use ur kit lens here...)... so you have all the time to change lenses.... Not like you are shooting events and you need extremely fast zoom lenses... and f2.8 isn't THAT much faster than your f3.5.
 

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#11
tehzeh said:
Why are primes impractical? If I were you, I would get a 35mm f1.8G, 50mm f1.4/8, and if budget allows, a 24/28mm f1.8. You are shooting family outings, kids and holidays (you can use ur kit lens here...)... so you have all the time to change lenses.... Not like you are shooting events and you need extremely fast zoom lenses... and f2.8 isn't THAT much faster than your f3.5.
The 18-200 is not an extremely fast lens. And for your information, f2.8 lenses are definitely ALOT faster than f3.5 lenses. TS is going for a vacation, and changing lens is a hassle. Plus, if he use primes he can't zoom in to the things that are far away. Primes aren't really suitable for travel.
 

Last edited:

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#12
Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM. For most holidays you won't need tele, you need more of wide. If you're taking photos of kids outdoors you MAY need a longer lens, but indoors, definitely the 17-50 f2.8 from Sigma. Reason why I don't recommend the Tamron is that indoors, the AF is a little slow, if you add the fact that kids like to run around a lot, the Tamron will just frustrate you and refuse to focus fast enough.
 

tehzeh

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
627
0
0
Thomas More's Vision
#13
The 18-200 is not an extremely fast lens. And for your information, f2.8 lenses are definitely ALOT faster than f3.5 lenses. TS is going for a vacation, and changing lens is a hassle. Plus, if he use primes he can't zoom in to the things that are far away. Primes aren't really suitable for travel.
Sorry yah... I nverrr use f2.8 lenses before mah.... but i only know that f2.8 lenses are very heavy lor.. and hor, if you talking about tamron 17-50 f2.8, then for your information hor, he also cannot zoom into things that are far away mah... then he must carry one 70-200 for holidays? lyke tat not heavy meh?

That is why I said for holiday, he can use a kit lens. For holiday, I only used the telephoto end when shooting mountains, for everything else, I was using a UWA lens. It was a 11-16mm so it's practically a prime. and 80% of my photos were shot with it.

Everything is about compromising. If changing lens is a hassle in your opinion, I don't think that carrying the nikon trinity around isn't a hassle.

And I wasn't talking about f3.5 lenses, I was talking about f3.5, as compared to f2.8, it isn't THAT fast, when compared to f1.4s or f1.8s.

Why aren't primes suitable for travel? I could just put on a 24mm on a FX and just go out and take photos, if I need to take photos of people, I could go near. If I need to go wide, it is wide enough.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#14
Primes aren't really suitable for travel.
Can be done la ;p.

But I do agree on the hassle of changing lenses. I loved the 18-200mm when i was using D80 while travelling.

Ryan
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#15
If I were you, I would get 16-85 (think 700) + SB600 (think 300). And then give me 300 for this valuable advice. Kidding. Consider getting a wider zoom + flash.
 

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#16
Sorry yah... I nverrr use f2.8 lenses before mah.... but i only know that f2.8 lenses are very heavy lor.. and hor, if you talking about tamron 17-50 f2.8, then for your information hor, he also cannot zoom into things that are far away mah... then he must carry one 70-200 for holidays? lyke tat not heavy meh?

That is why I said for holiday, he can use a kit lens. For holiday, I only used the telephoto end when shooting mountains, for everything else, I was using a UWA lens. It was a 11-16mm so it's practically a prime. and 80% of my photos were shot with it.

Everything is about compromising. If changing lens is a hassle in your opinion, I don't think that carrying the nikon trinity around isn't a hassle.

And I wasn't talking about f3.5 lenses, I was talking about f3.5, as compared to f2.8, it isn't THAT fast, when compared to f1.4s or f1.8s.

Why aren't primes suitable for travel? I could just put on a 24mm on a FX and just go out and take photos, if I need to take photos of people, I could go near. If I need to go wide, it is wide enough.
That is why he should get the 18-200mm. From wide angle all the way to superzoom, Light-weight and easy to carry around. Your 11-16 is not a prime. Prime lenses have fixed focal lengths.

You must be a prime lover based on what you said. But TS just wants something that is easy and convenient. Maybe he can buy the 18-200mm for holidays and sell his 55-200mm and get a 50mm F/1.8.

The 16-85mm is also a good choice. Though the zoom range is lower than the 18-200, optics are superb and 10 times sharper than the 18-200.
 

Last edited:

s1221ljc

New Member
May 7, 2006
821
1
0
#17
If I were you, I did get the 18-200mm thats ideal esp for travels. Can just push up the ISO 1+ stop to use indoors without flash if necessary. I will also sell the 55-200mm & top up to get a 24mm f2.8 afd. This gives a 35mm FOV on DX is an excellent all round prime lens thats that bit faster. Actually f2.8 & f3.5 is less than only 1 stop difference, not that big but for zooms the price is like :bigeyes: Many people in the past has just one cam one lens & this was it. Get the lens preowned & your budget can cover both. Enjoy.


These sort of questions are hard to answer but appreciate a "if I were you" answer ...
If I have a DX format camera say D60 or 90 ... and If I have 1.2K ... what lens should I get as an all rounder ... for taking kids pictures, family outings and holidays...
I already have a 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED but the f4 and 55mm is the limitation... doesnt work in close quarters ...eg. house...

Nikon has a famous all rounder DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II ... looks great ... but f3.5 seems a little slow for no-flash home shots???

But then any faster lens say an FX faster than f3.5 cost more than 1.3K ....primes are impractical

so would you think a D90 + 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II is good enough?
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#18
If I were you, I did get the 18-200mm thats ideal esp for travels. Can just push up the ISO 1+ stop to use indoors without flash if necessary. I will also sell the 55-200mm & top up to get a 24mm f2.8 afd. This gives a 35mm FOV on DX is an excellent all round prime lens thats that bit faster. Actually f2.8 & f3.5 is less than only 1 stop difference, not that big but for zooms the price is like :bigeyes: Many people in the past has just one cam one lens & this was it. Get the lens preowned & your budget can cover both. Enjoy.
Not all f2.8 zooms are that expensive. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC is cheaper than the Nikon 18-200 VR1 and VR2. Indoors, the tele range is seldom ever needed. And, f3.5 is only at 18mm, which is seldom useful for shooting people. Once you zoom, the aperture gets smaller, causing you to bump your ISO way up, degrading image quality. Even when software can remove noise, it will soften the image.

For travels, the 18-200 is definitely a very good lens, but for shooting kids, especially indoors, a f2.8 zoom with fast focusing and subject tracking is essential.
 

tehzeh

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
627
0
0
Thomas More's Vision
#19
That is why he should get the 18-200mm. From wide angle all the way to superzoom, Light-weight and easy to carry around. Your 11-16 is not a prime. Prime lenses have fixed focal lengths.

You must be a prime lover based on what you said. But TS just wants something that is easy and convenient. Maybe he can buy the 18-200mm for holidays and sell his 55-200mm and get a 50mm F/1.8.

The 16-85mm is also a good choice. Though the zoom range is lower than the 18-200, optics are superb and 10 times sharper than the 18-200.
I said it's practically a prime, I did not say that it was a prime.

Something that is easy and convenient could be a prime lens, if we consider the fact that a fast prime lens can be used in most situations, including low light situations, saving you the trouble of getting out your flash, and looking for a ceiling or wall or bounce or getting a flash.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,645
63
48
lil red dot
#20
These sort of questions are hard to answer but appreciate a "if I were you" answer ...
If I have a DX format camera say D60 or 90 ... and If I have 1.2K ... what lens should I get as an all rounder ... for taking kids pictures, family outings and holidays...
I already have a 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED but the f4 and 55mm is the limitation... doesnt work in close quarters ...eg. house...

Nikon has a famous all rounder DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II ... looks great ... but f3.5 seems a little slow for no-flash home shots???

But then any faster lens say an FX faster than f3.5 cost more than 1.3K ....primes are impractical

so would you think a D90 + 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II is good enough?
Looking at you requirements (you frowned on F4),

If you want the best for your budget, buy a used Nikon 17-55/2.8.

If you want value, and save some cash, buy a new or used Tamron 17-50/2.8 (VR or non-VR up to you).

But to really do home, indoors shots in ambient light, you need to go prime with even faster apertures, Sigma 24/1.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Nikon 35/1.8 and Nikon 50/1.8 comes to mind. Pick the focal length you like.
 

Last edited:
Top Bottom