Which is better travel lens: Nikon 18200 or Tokina 1224


Jul 10, 2010
113
0
0
#1
Greetings to all! I would like to seek your opinion.

Currently I alrdy have Nikon 35 mm f1.8 and will be acquiring Nikon D7K. Have previously used Nikon D5k and Nikon 1855, and found the angle frequently not wide enough, and the zoom occasionally limited when I traveled to nature places like jiuzhaigou. For landscape, I shoot mostly during the daytime. If any low light situation, it would be during the sunrise and sunset.

I am deciding between Nikon 18200 and Tokina 1224. I am planning to use the lens when I go visit the various nature places like the Rockies etc. I also would do city photography during the travel as well.

Qn 1: Which is a better lens for travel purposes?
Qn 2: Which is better combo
1) Tokina 1224, Nikon 35 f1.8 ( I may just add Nikon 55200)
2) Nikon 35 f1.8, Nikon 18-200

Many thanks in advance.

I will be acquiring my lens in US/ Japan during my biz trip. From the budget wise, Tokina1224 (499USD) + Nikon 55200 (200 SGD) is slightly cheaper than Nikon 18200 (700 USD). I understand all the lens carry int'l warranty.

What other questions should i ask myself before I make the purchase?
 

Oct 22, 2009
70
0
0
#3
Since you found nikkor 18-55 isn't wide enough, then it's same for nikkor 18-200 except you have more zoom range from it. So you have to set your priority. If you want both ultra wide and telephoto, tokina 124 and nikkor 55-200 will solve your problem.
 

shelomoh

New Member
Mar 17, 2009
846
0
0
#4
Greetings to all! I would like to seek your opinion.

Currently I alrdy have Nikon 35 mm f1.8 and will be acquiring Nikon D7K. Have previously used Nikon D5k and Nikon 1855, and found the angle frequently not wide enough, and the zoom occasionally limited when I traveled to nature places like jiuzhaigou. For landscape, I shoot mostly during the daytime. If any low light situation, it would be during the sunrise and sunset.

I am deciding between Nikon 18200 and Tokina 1224. I am planning to use the lens when I go visit the various nature places like the Rockies etc. I also would do city photography during the travel as well.

Qn 1: Which is a better lens for travel purposes?
Qn 2: Which is better combo
1) Tokina 1224, Nikon 35 f1.8 ( I may just add Nikon 55200)
2) Nikon 35 f1.8, Nikon 18-200

Many thanks in advance.

I will be acquiring my lens in US/ Japan during my biz trip. From the budget wise, Tokina1224 (499USD) + Nikon 55200 (200 SGD) is slightly cheaper than Nikon 18200 (700 USD). I understand all the lens carry int'l warranty.

What other questions should i ask myself before I make the purchase?
Are you going to buy one lens only? If so, I recommend Tokina 11-16.
For landscape, 18mm might not be wide enough. Especially for places like jiuzhaigou with large landscape. However, if that you are only going to buy one lens, then your normal streets will be limited to 35mm.

If you don't mind bringing 3 lens, then I recommend Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8,
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor. There are a few 55-200 versions. If I am not wrong, the latest one with VR should be the one you should be considering.

18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 is good only if you are only going to bring one lens but for this lens, generally you need good lighting as the images are sharpest at f/8. D7000 has good ISO performance, so that might do the trick as well. Version 1 of 18-200 in Buy and Sell section, I have seen it go as low as S$650. I heard optics of 18-200 is not as good as the kit lens 18-55 and 55-200. I own 18-200 and 11-16 but not 18-55 and 55-200, so I can't confirm.
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#5
I think the Tokina 12-24 or 11-16 plus a 35/1.8 and a 55-200 should do the trick.
 

Jan 5, 2010
276
0
0
#6
The 18-200VRII is a little too soft, especially in doors or dim environment. If you're particular in this area, there may be better alternatives.
 

Nubzz

New Member
Dec 31, 2010
192
0
0
32
Singapore
#8
Depends TS is ok with carry around extra lenses and the hassle of changing lenses.
If yes, Tokina 12-24 + Nikkor 55-200 is a very gd combo for your needs.
 

wmayeo

New Member
Feb 11, 2008
1,571
0
0
Singapore
#10
Heh not sure how often would you use to take landscape?
The 16-85 is a much better travel lens (generally for outdoor, you need to take few steps back to get 12mm wide) or the 18-200 for more reach. Between I own the 16-85.

Good to bring along your 35mm for low light/across table snaps.
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#11
Heh not sure how often would you use to take landscape?
The 16-85 is a much better travel lens (generally for outdoor, you need to take few steps back to get 12mm wide) or the 18-200 for more reach. Between I own the 16-85.

Good to bring along your 35mm for low light/across table snaps.
not technically true,
as the perspective from a 12mm and a 16mm
will never be the same.
 

Jan 27, 2010
809
0
0
#12
not technically true,
as the perspective from a 12mm and a 16mm
will never be the same.
I seriously doubt from 18->12mm is just a "few" steps back. At the wider end, every mm wider gets more and more exaggerated.
 

Jul 10, 2010
113
0
0
#14
Thanks for your advice. It helps.

On tokina 11-16, vs tokina 12-24, i thot i derive a greater range with Tokina 124 with lesser money, and whether I need F2.8 with landscape. The diff betw Tok 116 vs 124 is just 1 mm, and F-stop. Tok 124 also serves a better walk around lens than Tok 116?

On Nikon 16-85, thanks for the suggestion. I thot it is a good suggestion. Versus the combo Tokina 124, Nikon 35, and Nik 55200.

cost wise
Nikon 1685 is 620 USD (800 SGD) vs combo
Nikon 35 (250 SGD), Tokina 124 (500 USD or 650 SGD) and Nikon (200 SGD)

With the 3 lens combo, i have greater range, redundancy with more lens. Landscape photos, I assume I have ample time to change photos. But city photos - i would miss opportune moments when i change lens.

With Nikon 1685, I have the convenience of carrying one lens. Would Nikon 16-85 make Nikon 35 F1.8 redundant, since Nikon 1635 covers 35?
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#15
With Nikon 1685, I have the convenience of carrying one lens. Would Nikon 16-85 make Nikon 35 F1.8 redundant, since Nikon 1635 covers 35?
No it doesn't. There is a difference in the f1.8 and f3.5-5.6

It is easier to produce blur backgrounds with a f1.8 than a f3.5, so if you need to isolate our subject, the 35/1.8 is better than the 16-85. It is possible to produce blur backgrounds with the 16-85 at 35mm, but you have to move closer and have your subject further away from the background.
 

wmayeo

New Member
Feb 11, 2008
1,571
0
0
Singapore
#16
Good to bring along your 35mm for low light/across table snaps.
Would Nikon 16-85 make Nikon 35 F1.8 redundant, since Nikon 1635 covers 35?
Nope it won't be redundant, you could use the 35mm lens during night/low light/over the lunch/dinner foodie snaps. The f/1.8 wide aperture suppose to throw your subject with a nice out of focus background. It's very small & lightweighed, so you could leave it in your bag along.
 

Jul 10, 2010
113
0
0
#17
Thanks, I relook the figures.

1) Tokina 124 (650 sgd) and Nikon 55200 (200 sgd)
2) Nikon 1685 (800 sgd)

are about the same cost.

I assume the quality of these lens are not inferior to the other. They are all sharp lens.

I assume in term of value, Choice 1) shld have better value than Choice 2) , because range coverage is wider from 12 - 200 vs 16-85, and redundancy of 2 lens vs 1 lens.

Let me know if i am missing in my assumption.

So basically the question is convenience of carrying 1 lens vs range from 12 - 200..

How do i determine if I need the range from 12-16, and from 85-200, that I am missing when I get Nikon 1685, since my prior experience is only limited to 18-55?
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#18
only you will know your focal length preference,
personally i shoot more at the Wide end, so telephoto is not so important to me.
 

Oct 22, 2009
70
0
0
#19
Tokina 116 vs 124 has 1mm difference but if convert it to angle it's 5 degree, which is quite significant when it comes to landscape. However, it is subjective, some may ignore it to trade off with having better zoom range. IMO, it's better walk about and easier to operate than 116. However, if you want the best in ultra wide angle photo, choose Tokina 116.

No, it's not redundant, each lens serves different purposes and has different features.
So there's no "one lens to rule them all". Take for an example, when choose a Nikkor 18-200mm, you're picking huge zoom range, faster operation and convenience over image quality and feature.

My advice, don't try to cover all the focal length. First, because you have limited budget, you can't cover all lenses. second, you should prioritize the type of photo you want to take but not because of "I'm likely to take that kind of photo, so I should have this lens". If you rarely to take long telephoto at 100-200mm, why bother about it?
 

gyjoe

New Member
Mar 24, 2003
90
0
0
#20
How do i determine if I need the range from 12-16, and from 85-200, that I am missing when I get Nikon 1685, since my prior experience is only limited to 18-55?
Agreed with ortega, only you yourself will know your own preference. Ask yourself if you had wished (in the past) to have a wider coverage, or a tighter crop. How often do this occur? It appears you have thought about have wider angle, but never mention anything about a tighter crop. So why would you need 200mm on DX?

Don't get too uptight about range coverage.
 

Top Bottom