18-55mm Nikon Replacement?

[ShaneS]

Thank you everyone! You have given me just what I needed...a lot of well thought out food for thought

I will research my options and let you know what I decide although it will probably be a at least a week as the aforementioned hubby is going in for knee replacement surgery tomorrow and will be in the hospital until Thursday. I will be balancing my time between work and the hospital and then I get to bring him home all drugged up and in a fair bit of pain. I will try and put the drugged up nap times to good use doing this research and there is a good chance he will agree to anything as long as I don't withhold his medicine

[george013]

Thank you everyone! You have given me just what I needed...a lot of well thought out food for thought

I will research my options and let you know what I decide although it will probably be a at least a week as the aforementioned hubby is going in for knee replacement surgery tomorrow and will be in the hospital until Thursday. I will be balancing my time between work and the hospital and then I get to bring him home all drugged up and in a fair bit of pain. I will try and put the drugged up nap times to good use doing this research and there is a good chance he will agree to anything as long as I don't withhold his medicine

Take your change when he is in hospital. By the time he can run after you everything is forgotten.
George

[ShaneS]

So I am definitely leaning towards the Sigma Contemporary 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS Macro HSM. The justification goes as follows:

If I upgrade to the improved kit lens I am looking at the $250 Nikon lens and the Sigma is an additional $250. I have been dabbling in street photography and have faced limitations in the past with hand held indoor shooting so the faster lens will generally come in handy. It doesn't hurt that almost every review I see has an average rating on the lens of 4.5 out of 5 stars. The extra reach will also come in handy as would the quasi macro capabilities although the former weighs more heaving in my thinking.

If I consider the $250 a sunk cost I am investing and additional $250. If the lens lasts as long as the kit lens that the rock broke (7 years) I am looking at an investment of $35-$70 a year (and hopefully the lens will keep me happy and I won't grow out of it for a lot longer that 7 years). Anything wrong with this thinking? My research so far indicates that I am mostly paying for faster glass at $500 and also the incremental image quality that comes with a higher grade lens.

Now, for fun I thought I would share this...

Here is the leaf that rested on the rock that broke the lens (processed today):



Valuable lesson learned: When your camera is pointed downward is is extremely important that your tripod is stable

I don't think that anyone is going to offer me $500 for a print but it sure would be nice

As an aside, the hubby is now home from the hospital and hobbling around the house high as a kite on pain meds

[Mike Buckley]

Whatever model you decide upon, consider buying a used lens from B&H, Adorama, KEH or LensRentals.

Sorry to learn about the need for the hubbie's knee replacement surgery. Hope the recuperation is going well!

I like the photo. That's probably not enough consolation but it is a really nice photo.

[AlwaysOnAuto]

As someone who also shoots a D7000, I can highly recommend looking for a used Nikon 18-200 VR 1 lens. You wouldn't have to worry about taking any other lens with you. Lots of used ones out there (at least here on the mainland) and they aren't that much money now.

[Manfred M]

As someone who also shoots a D7000, I can highly recommend looking for a used Nikon 18-200 VR 1 lens. You wouldn't have to worry about taking any other lens with you. Lots of used ones out there (at least here on the mainland) and they aren't that much money now.

Alan - My wife is like you and the 18-200mm (VRII) and it is her "go to" lens. I have the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm "kit" lenses. My lenses cost half as much, weigh half as much and are (slightly) optically superior to it. The downside are having to change lenses for some shots and the cheap plastic lens mounts.

Shanes requirements (her first post) are for a faster and optically superior lens. While the 18-200mm is a nice lens, I don't think it meets those two key criteria that she is looking for.

[ajohnw]

Nikon lenses are curious in this area especially in the optical quality area. The ones I have had fit in well with technical optical test results. The 18-105 for instance being better than the 18-55mm which seems odd given the usual performance of 3:1 zooms. The 18-85?? or there abouts is more expensive but doesn't seem to offer much from test results.

The only fast lens I am aware of in this range is the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR SP VC. That appears to be better than any of the Nikon 18 to xx especially at the centre.

I never noticed that Shane wanted something faster, only better quality. The 18-105mm is a good reasonably priced BODY cap. Mine is anyway. The 18-55mm was disappointing.

John
-

[ShaneS]

John, what is your take on the Sigma in terms of quality/perfomrance for the money?

[Stagecoach]

Hi Shane,

When purchasing my two Tamrons a few months ago I found it very useful to look at images taken with the actual lenses.

I read reviews of each which varied from 'c**p*', 'decent value' and of course 'not as good as' and one piece of ridiculous advice given here was that if you can pick one up for £35 it would be a good buy

As they say, put a camera and lens in the hands of someone that knows what they are doing and the results will be far superior than that achieved by someone who does not know what they are doing.

Look here to get an idea of what the Sigma can achieve

https://www.flickr.com/groups/1347550@N22/pool/

Grahame

[Manfred M]

I never noticed that Shane wanted something faster, only better quality. The 18-105mm is a good reasonably priced BODY cap. Mine is anyway. The 18-55mm was disappointing.
-

Look at where Shane first asked the question, John...

I don't think that I want to pay for top level professional glass but would like to consider a lens that is a bit faster that the broken lens and something that has better image quality.

[Manfred M]

Shane - when it comes to the third party Japanese lenses, the general view has been that from an optical and build quality:

1. Tokina is the best of the lot, with optical and build quality at or above what Canon and Nikon provide for a similar price point.

2. Sigma was the one in the middle. They usually made lenses that differentiated themselves from Canon and Nikon, feature wise, but both optical and build quality tended to be worse than the OEM lenses. The zoom ring turns in the opposite direction from Nikon, so that is a bit of a pain. I understand that they have agressively cleaned up their act on quality lately; I understand that some of their newer lens designs are quite good both optically and mechanically, but don't have any personal experience with these later designs. The problems we had with our one Sigma lens means I have not bought any more Sigma glass.

3. Tamron has traditionally been the least expensive lens and had the worst build and optical quality of the three. When I was in the market for some lenses, I did look at Tamron products, but never got one because of the way they felt. I understand that like Sigma, they have really cleaned up their act lately and are producing top notch lenses from both an optical and mechanical standpoint. Again, I have no personal experience with the newer glass and am only writing what others have told me. I suspect that if this is the case, I would look at their latest lenses, but would stay away from some of the older models.

[ajohnw]

The Nikon lens is better, hadn't noticed that they did one, 17-55mm F2.8 but it lacks image stability. It has the same sort of problem as the Tamron and Sigma equivalents. Weird things happen around 35mm wide open to the boarders and corners. They need F5.6 to give decent results. They are very similar lenses performance wise. The Sigma might have a slight edge but I'm not convinced anyone would notice.

What these F2.8 lenses seem to offer is better performance in the F5.6 F8 range than the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens at any setting. When they are wide open there wont be much difference, possibly worse. The Nikon F2.8 does gain over them in that area but given what a lens like that might be used for image stability can do away with the need for a tripod.

Overall if I wanted a lens like this I would go for the Sigma - even though I am a Tamron fan. They often come with a long guarantee. A historic thing really. They used to be much better.

Going on the test results though the 18-105mm is no slouch. Not such a high central resolution at the same settings, a bit lower but fairly even across the frame. Fairly good in the corners really and often better than the F2.8's - then it has the extra focal length available. I pixel peep so when I see lenses that drop off lots in the corner I shudder and all of the F2.8's at 35mm are awful wide open in that respect and nvg up to it and past as well. They fix themselves up at F5.6 but don't really look any better than the 18-105mm, often worse actually. So I think you can tell which one I would buy, It's all depends on how important the extra 2 stops being available are and as I see it quality wise one of them isn't really available. That isn't uncommon on fast lenses even primes where it's also possible to go too far, F1.2 rather than F1.4.

Should add that the 18-105mm is about the same wide open at 105mm as the 18-55mm at 55mm so it does drop of like they all do but prior to that it's generally better.

John
-

[ShaneS]

Quick update...one of our local camera rental stores is having a 25% off year end sale so I decided to invest about $40 and rent the Sigma for the week over New Years. I figure it's a small investment that will save me the trouble of making a purchase and then returning it if I don't love it (loving it is a requirement if I am going to spend $500 ). I will report back on the results...

[Mike Buckley]

Good luck with your rental, Shane! If you decide to buy the lens, perhaps the company will apply at least part of your rental fee toward the purchase.

[GrahamS]

Shane, if your passion is landscapes (living on Hawaii, whose wouldn't be?) and you use a Nikon D7000 and shoot Jpg's:

Avoid 3rd party lenses (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) if you wish to take advantage of the in-camera automatic image correction facility, which will correct images for chromatic aberration, curvilinear distortion and vignetting. This can make quite a difference to image quality straight out of the camera.

Buy the highest quality Nikon lenses that you can afford. The D7000 sensor is capable of superb high-resolution detail if used competently with good glass. If you only view your images on a PC screen this may not matter to you, but if you make any decent size prints for wall display, it will make all the difference.

The Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 G VRII AFS DX is perfectly usable at f5.6 to f8 and has a useful close-focus ability, but it does not match the optical performance of the 16-85 f3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AFS Nikkor. The 18-105 f3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AFS Nikkor is also quite a good and consistent performer at all focal lengths but it is not built to the same standard as the 16-85 and it's closest focus distance is only 45cm. I don't recommend the 17-55 f2.8G ED IF AFS for your purposes as it is not image stabilised and requires particular care to obtain the best out of it and the extra speed is not necessary for landscapes.

I recommend the 16-85G. It is a fine lens when used with care on a D7000 and is capable of bringing out the best that the D7000 sensor has to offer.

[Manfred M]

I don't recommend the 17-55 f2.8G ED IF AFS for your purposes as it is not image stabilised and requires particular care to obtain the best out of it and the extra speed is not necessary for landscapes.

Graham, your have made a good, clear and articulate analysis of some of the options. The only one that I question is the need for VR on the shorter focal length lenses. Don't you find it a bit strange that neither Canon nor Nikon include image stabilization in their top of the line /f2.8 24-70mm lenses. On a crop frame camera, the f/2.8 17-55mm has more or less the same performance as the f/2.8 24-70mm on a full frame.

I've never quite figured out any real advantage of VR on wide angle to short telephoto lenses. other than for marketing purposes. I shoot both the Nikkor 18-55mm and the Nikkor 24-70mm lenses, so am quite familiar with their handling and performance.

[ShaneS]

Thank you Graham & Manfred for your additional thoughts. I have one more question which might be pretty basic but I would appreciate it if some of the kind folks here would educate me. Here goes...

Since my only experience with lenses (other than my 50mm prime) has been with my old D40X kit lenses I wonder about high ISO results. I am getting more comfortable shooting at higher ISOs and understand that this comes with some noise. The D7000 is supposed to be better dealing with noise but I don't have a reference point in that regard so it is difficult for me to make an intelligent comparison and understand how better glass will help my photography in low light situations.

So, in my understanding are two ways of dealing with low light (let's assume hand held shooting). The first is to open up the aperture to wide open (say f3.5) and sacrifice some depth of field and the second is the raise the ISO to maintain depth of field (say f8) and all of the combinations in between.

Does better glass (this upgrade I am contemplating) deal better with noise under the same settings than the old kit lenses? What role does the camera sensor play in this regard?

[ShaneS]

Problem solved - I am an IDIOT! I had the camera set to use the remote...

Help please - lens doesn't work and I am heading out the door??? I just mounted the Sigma lens on my camera and all seems to be working fine (focus adjusts, I can change aperture) until press the shutter release and NOTHING happens. I turned the camera off and back on and remounted the lens but I still have the same problem.

[GrahamS]

Shane, one of the drawbacks of the 3rd party lenses is that Nikon does not share anything in the form of technical information with the manufacturers! They have to reverse engineer all of the parameters that are necessary to make their lenses work with Nikon bodies, and each time Nikon release a new model (such as your D7000) some of the existing 3rd party lenses may not work on it unless certain modifications are carried out to the lens. It seems to me that you have picked up a Sigma lens that needs "re-chipping" to make it work with your D7000. I repeat my advice: stick to genuine Nikon lenses.

As for your question regarding image noise, the lens does not have any effect on noise as such. The only advantage as far as noise is concerned is that the faster the lens, the lower the possible ISO setting, and thus the lower the noise. This is, however, a false premise as the only really practical advantage of using a fast lens wide open, in my opinion, is for press work, street photography, candid portraiture or the like, where a shallow depth of field is required. Image noise is a function of the amplification applied to the sensor's analog data signal (ISO setting) before digital conversion, and the sensitivity of the actual photo-sites on the sensor. The larger the photo-sites, the lower the inherent noise, which is one of the primary advantages of a full-frame sensor.

Regarding Manfred's question about image stabilisation in fast lenses, it is not always possible to incorporate IS (or VR or OCR) in a pre-existing lens design without compromising the optical quality of the lens. Most times, a completely new optical design is required. Another difficulty with fast lenses is that, because of the sheer physical size of the optical elements, the gyroscopic stabilisation mechanism has to be quite powerful in order to overcome the inertia of the lens element(s) that need to be moved and therefore require a lot of power which can place a heavy load on the camera battery. It is for these reasons that stabilisation of heavy optics is usually only a feature of lenses intended for professional use, where battery capacity is not a marketing feature. As to whether stabilisation is necessary or not, well, I have been in a situation where the IS feature of my Canon 24-105 f4 IS USM has saved my butt when the use of a tripod was not possible and there was no available object on which to rest my camera. I was forced to use F4 @ 1/15th ISO 800 hand held with a Canon 7D. The resultant image was printed 2000 X 3000mm and looked superb. So, yes, I am hooked on stabilisation if I can get it. I may have done without it for years, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't take advantage of it now.

[Manfred M]

Graham - again I am in agreement with much of what you have written; but comparing a f/4 24-105 to a f/2.8 17-55mm is a bit too apples and oranges to me.

First of all, the Nikkor is a stop faster and much more of a wide angle to short telephoto than your Canon. Let's look at the FF equivalents. Your example of f/4 at 1/15 could have been shot at f/2.8 1/30 at ISO 800; certainly a shot that is more likely to be good.

24-105mm = FF equiv 38 - 168mm (1.6 crop factor)

17-55mm = FF equiv 26 - 83mm (1.5 crop factor)

So, especially at longer focal lengths, I can see how IS would be useful, but at shorter focal lengths; I can certainly handhold that range of focal lengths without IS/VR and get good shots. Wider angles are certainly easier that the longer focal lengths.

I'm not certain you quite understand how IS / VR is implemented; a single optical element is shifted, not the entire optical stack in the camera. Both Nikon and Canon utilize a gimbal mechanism that rotates the element along two axes. So far as I can tell the amount of deflection seems to be controlled by two opposing magnets. Not a lot of current draw there. And no, an existing lens cannot be converted; a total redesign of the optical and mechanical components is required to incorporate both the electronics and mechanical elements.

I can't say I agree with your premise about when shooting wide open is limited to certain types of photography. I bought fast lenses (and a full-frame body) precisely so that I can shoot wide open.

With a modern camera, underexposure is often the reason for a noisy image, rather than high ISO.





Handheld shot with D800 using f/2.8 24-70mm lens at 24mm focal length, 1/20th sec, ISO 2000. No VR / IS in sight...