Beyond kit lenses

[jhansman]

I'm on my third dSLR body (D7000) and still shooting with the same kit lenses I got with my first, Nikon's 18-55mm & 55-200mm. Both have provided good images, but I'm thinking of replacing them with a good walk-around, something like:

* Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (new in their lineup)
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC (OS)* MACRO HSM
* Tamron 18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

Your thoughts? Obviously, budget varies, but the Sigma is on sale right now. TIA.

 

[iGas]

Try the 35mm or 50mm if you want something different. Perhaps the 12-24mm or 10-24mm if you have the extra cash burning in your pocket. But, IMHO the 18-55mm Nikkor is arguably the perfect walk around zoom lens for a DX body.

 

[blastingcap]

Try the 35mm or 50mm if you want something different. Perhaps the 12-24mm or 10-24mm if you have the extra cash burning in your pocket. But, IMHO the 18-55mm Nikkor is arguably the perfect walk around zoom lens for a DX body.

I disagree. I think the 16-85 is the best compromise. You get better wideangle, razor sharpness when stopped down a little, and 85mm is actually more than 85mm on DX, plus with so many pixels you can crop and artificially get more telephoto that way at the expense of image size.

If you don't mind losing the wideangle or want even more telephoto, the 18-105mm VR is relatively cheap and sharp.

Personally I gave up trying to do the walkaround-DSLR thing and just got a RX100M2. The DSLR now stays at home unless I know for sure I'll be taking lots of photos and/or telephoto shots and/or shots where thin DOF is amust, and even then I often use it with either a 35mm, 85mm, or 70-300mm and that's it. The RX100M2 takes care of the rest and is about the size of a small DX lens, though it also costs more than a 16-85mm VR, haha.

 

[topher1166]

Pardon my ignorance, i'm new to SLRs and having trouble following. I'm about to buy my first body/lens.

Are 35/50mm lenses considered "macro?" What do they do different than an 18-55mm (35 & 50 are between 18-55, shwoing my ignorance here I bet).

 

[Silenus]

I'm on my third dSLR body (D7000) and still shooting with the same kit lenses I got with my first, Nikon's 18-55mm & 55-200mm. Both have provided good images, but I'm thinking of replacing them with a good walk-around, something like:

* Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (new in their lineup)
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC (OS)* MACRO HSM
* Tamron 18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

Your thoughts? Obviously, budget varies, but the Sigma is on sale right now. TIA.

It sounds like your looking for something more all-in-one, or superzoom. Please understand that none of these are going to really offer better quality than the zooms you have. Just more convenience. So buy for that reason. Generally all the 'slow' consumer zooms (meaning the variable aperture ones, F/3.5-F/5.6 ect) and going to be very similar overall in image quality...with the big range superzooms being probably a little worse than your current zooms...and something like the 16-88 VR being a little bit better. The 16-85 is my personal choice for walk around zoom. The extra few mm on the wide end is actually quite significant, and I don't miss the over 85mm range too much at all. and I still have a telephoto lens for those times I do need to go long.

But iGas makes a good point too. If you really want to try something different, something that could give a much higher image quality....try a prime lens. If you've never tried a fast (wide aperture, F/1.8 or faster) prime you may not know what your missing. The amount of light they can suck in is magical in comparison to the slow zooms. My 35/1.8 is on my camera almost all the time.

 

[AViking]

Pardon my ignorance, i'm new to SLRs and having trouble following. I'm about to buy my first body/lens.

Are 35/50mm lenses considered "macro?" What do they do different than an 18-55mm (35 & 50 are between 18-55, shwoing my ignorance here I bet).

Macro lenses have more complex optics that allow them to focus closer. That's it.

So, no, a 35mm and 50mm lens is just a normal lens. There might be a macro variant but for the most part those two lenses are really good walk arounds on a full frame camera. On a DX (crop camera) a 50mm is a good portrait lens and a 35mm is a decent walkaround although a bit too tight for my taste.

 

[Berliner]

Keep your current lenses. They are better than what a typical zoom with a wider range gives you.

You could consider getting a 50mm 1.8 for a very low price which will provide you with some new options.

 

[jhansman]

If you've never tried a fast (wide aperture, F/1.8 or faster) prime you may not know what your missing.

This did occur to me, but everyone I know with a 50mm prime says it just sits in their bag. I rarely use my 18-55m on the long end; mostly on wide shots, which it does fairly well, but kit lenses are kit lenses for a reason. A friend is going to loan me his Sigma 18-250mm to play with this weekend. That should give me some idea as to the usefulness of such a lens. If I discover anything useful, I'll report back. Thanks for the feedback (can we find a new term for that, BTW?).

 

[NAC]

I agree with Silenus. A superzoom lens will in general give you lower image quality but more convenience. If you dislike carrying two lenses or switching lenses, then it may be a good choice for you. Just because you spent more on a superzoom, it does NOT mean you'll get better image quality, or "different" pictures, than you get now.

Therefore, if you are looking to take better and more interesting photographs – my recommendation is to get a 35mm or 50mm prime. You can shoot with a wide open aperture, allowing more light onto the sensor. This both allows you to take quality pictures indoors in lower light, and allows you to have a narrow "depth of field" – where areas of the photo, usually the background, are out of focus. The 50mm will be good mostly for portraits – just a person's face or maybe two people. The 35mm will be better for getting several people or getting people in context. When I got a 50mm 1.8, after years of using a crappy Tamron 28-200 superzoom, I was amazed. I had the feeling – so THIS is what a DSLR is all about. BUT - I've also dived deep into researching and practicing photography. I'm hooked. I love it.

If you are relatively content with your pictures and just want more convenience, then get a superzoom, or sell your DSLR and buy a superzoom compact camera.

 

[Paladin3]

I'm on my third dSLR body (D7000) and still shooting with the same kit lenses I got with my first, Nikon's 18-55mm & 55-200mm. Both have provided good images, but I'm thinking of replacing them with a good walk-around, something like:

* Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (new in their lineup)
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC (OS)* MACRO HSM
* Tamron 18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

Your thoughts? Obviously, budget varies, but the Sigma is on sale right now. TIA.

Why do you want to switch? What would the new lens do that your current ones don't? Answer that and we can make better, more applicable suggestions.

The only reason to use one of the super zooms is so you only have to carry one lens. That's it. They compromise on image quality and have relatively slow max apertures.

Kit lenses like what you've got don't try to cover such huge focal lengths and usually have somewhat better image quality compared to the super zooms. They are a decent choice for the average shooter. I keep an 18-70/3.5-4.5 on my camera 90% of the time.

Prime lenses have vastly superior image quality and much larger maximum apertures, but limit you to a single focal length. Most of my professional career was spent using high quality primes, because I need the IQ/speed and could afford them. Most zooms kinda sucked back then, too.

If you've got deep pockets and don't mind the weight, you can always get the fast, constant aperture pro zooms that we all drool over.

In the end, only you know what is important in the tools you use for your style of shooting. So exactly what are you trying to do that your current tools can't accomplish?

 

[AkumaX]

no 35mm f/1.8?

 

[Syborg1211]

but kit lenses are kit lenses for a reason

What reason is that? Would it not be in Nikon's best interest to provide a good quality lens with their cameras so that their general users (soccer moms) can be satisfied with them?

Kit lenses are inexpensive because they use plastic in places where they use metal in pricier lenses. The glass optics inside are great.

People have alluded to it but didn't fully drive the point that the more focal range that a lens covers, the more compromises have to be made to make it cover that range. You end up sacrificing image quality, distortion, vignetting, and size/weight in order to cover a bigger focal range.

Prime lenses are optically superior because they only cover one focal length. The optics engineers can make the glass perfectly for that specific focal length instead of having to figure out how to cover a wide range. On top of that prime lenses can open up the aperture bigger than anything you've ever experienced, enabling you to shoot at night in low light levels or blur the background behind subjects.

I've found the 16-85 on DX to be the best balance of focal range and optical quality. It's the sharpest Nikon DX zoom lens outside of their really expensive 17-55. Also, the difference between 16mm and 18mm is enormous. 16mm equals about a 84 degree field of view compared to an 18mm field of view of 77 degrees.

 

[jhansman]

What reason is that? Would it not be in Nikon's best interest to provide a good quality lens with their cameras so that their general users (soccer moms) can be satisfied with them?

Kit lenses are inexpensive because they use plastic in places where they use metal in pricier lenses. The glass optics inside are great.

People have alluded to it but didn't fully drive the point that the more focal range that a lens covers, the more compromises have to be made to make it cover that range. You end up sacrificing image quality, distortion, vignetting, and size/weight in order to cover a bigger focal range.

Prime lenses are optically superior because they only cover one focal length. The optics engineers can make the glass perfectly for that specific focal length instead of having to figure out how to cover a wide range. On top of that prime lenses can open up the aperture bigger than anything you've ever experienced, enabling you to shoot at night in low light levels or blur the background behind subjects.

I've found the 16-85 on DX to be the best balance of focal range and optical quality. It's the sharpest Nikon DX zoom lens outside of their really expensive 17-55. Also, the difference between 16mm and 18mm is enormous. 16mm equals about a 84 degree field of view compared to an 18mm field of view of 77 degrees.

Both my kit lenses have provided me with sharp, color balanced images that I have printed and displayed. Perhaps a prime is the next step. Trouble there is you have to spend quite a bit to get one with decent bokeh. The reviews for the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 rave about its tack sharpness and moan about it failure blur the background when wide open, which must account for the $300 price difference between it and its 1.4 brother. At any rate, thanks for all the opinions.

 

[Paladin3]

What reason is that? Would it not be in Nikon's best interest to provide a good quality lens with their cameras so that their general users (soccer moms) can be satisfied with them?

Soccer moms and 95% of DSLR owners are perfectly happy with and well served by kit lenses. Why would Nikon, Canon or any other manufacturer force those entry level consumers to buy more expensive optics they don't want or need?

While I might own or aspire to better gear, I love kit lenses for the bang vs buck value they provide. A basic body and 18-55mm kit lens is all most casual photographers will ever need.

If someone has a basic setup and asks me what piece of gear to buy next, I tell them to get a good flash that swivels and tilts.

 

[iGas]

I disagree. I think the 16-85 is the best compromise. You get better wideangle, razor sharpness when stopped down a little, and 85mm is actually more than 85mm on DX, plus with so many pixels you can crop and artificially get more telephoto that way at the expense of image size.

If you don't mind losing the wideangle or want even more telephoto, the 18-105mm VR is relatively cheap and sharp.

Personally I gave up trying to do the walkaround-DSLR thing and just got a RX100M2. The DSLR now stays at home unless I know for sure I'll be taking lots of photos and/or telephoto shots and/or shots where thin DOF is amust, and even then I often use it with either a 35mm, 85mm, or 70-300mm and that's it. The RX100M2 takes care of the rest and is about the size of a small DX lens, though it also costs more than a 16-85mm VR, haha.

I agree that the 16-85mm is slightly sharper than the 18-55mm (not enough for the average discerning eyes to notice), but it main advantage is that it is wider and slightly longer focal length. However, IMHO it doesn't warrant spending $650 just to duplicate most of the focal length that the OP already own, and didn't gain any speed.

To me, it would make more sense to spend that hard earn cash on ultra wide focal lengths that the OP do not have, or at the very least get a fast prime for low light, subject separation (bokeh), better colour saturation, lower distortion, and sharper image reproduction.

The lowly 50mm prime can reproduce at least 2X or greater P-Mpix of the zoom from f/2.8-5.6.

 

[CuriousMike]

he reviews for the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 rave about its tack sharpness and moan about it failure blur the background when wide open, .

Uh... no.

Please find some sample photos of the 50mm at f1.8 ( hell, anything f4.0 and wider) and tell me it doesn't blur the shiz out of the background.

 

[blastingcap]

I agree that the 16-85mm is slightly sharper than the 18-55mm (not enough for the average discerning eyes to notice), but it main advantage is that it is wider and slightly longer focal length. However, IMHO it doesn't warrant spending $650 just to duplicate most of the focal length that the OP already own, and didn't gain any speed.

To me, it would make more sense to spend that hard earn cash on ultra wide focal lengths that the OP do not have, or at the very least get a fast prime for low light, subject separation (bokeh), better colour saturation, lower distortion, and sharper image reproduction.

OP said: "...still shooting with the same kit lenses I got with my first, Nikon's 18-55mm & 55-200mm. Both have provided good images, but I'm thinking of replacing them with a good walk-around..."

OP asked for, and I recommended, a different walkaround lens. Your recommendation to keep the 18-55mm as his walkaround lens doesn't comport with what OP asked for. Your suggestion is okay too but leaves him with a walkaround setup that he has already expressed an interest in moving away from. He doesn't seem to want a prime, he wants a walkaround zoom... yes he might benefit from wielding a prime for some time, etc. but by the zoom ranges he listed, he seems far more interested in selling two mediocre lenses and getting a good single walkaround swiss-army-knife lens.

If we're going to stray from his request, then I think a high-end compact is the ultimate walk-around camera. DSLR/high-end mirrorless can be useful for tele and wide and sports and stuff like that, esp. with a good viewfinder, but nothing matches the sheer portable firepower of a high-end compact as an everyday carry walkaround camera.

I don't think there are any wrong answers. It just depends on what OP's needs and preferences are.

 

[Spoooon]

FWIW...

Biggest game changer for me was replacing my kit with a Tamron 17-50 2.8. The extra speed made for a huge difference. I almost never use the telephoto unless I know ahead of time that I'm going to use it. I can't think of a time when I was walking around and wished that I had it.

Before I got the Tamron, my go to walk around "kit" was a 28mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.7.

Tamron has served me well overall, I'd go with the Tamron 18-270 from your list, a bit longer than the Sigma.

 

[Mgz]

I'm on my third dSLR body (D7000) and still shooting with the same kit lenses I got with my first, Nikon's 18-55mm & 55-200mm. Both have provided good images, but I'm thinking of replacing them with a good walk-around, something like:

* Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (new in their lineup)
* Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC (OS)* MACRO HSM
* Tamron 18-270MM F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD

Your thoughts? Obviously, budget varies, but the Sigma is on sale right now. TIA.

I have the Sigma 18-250mm and so far it is great for my purpose , and if u can get that deal from newegg for 279$ then it is a steal. I got mine for 309$/319$ something. It is also better than the Tamron and cheaper, with longer reach than the Nikon.

Lightweight and very convenient when traveling, very sharp if you properly AF your subject and then use Dxo Optics Pro to do some magic after that. I usually bring it to the concert and love the zoom range

 

[slashbinslashbash]

IMO you're going about things all backwards. You should have kept your first body, and bought more lenses first. The D7000 is a beast, you need a great lens for it (and I'm not a Nikon person, but probably they have upgraded the kit lenses since you first bought them, so maybe you're missing out on a bit of image quality and/or VR, in which case it would be helpful just to upgrade to the current version of the kit lens?)

Yes, you need a prime. 35mm f/1.8 for general use, 50mm f/1.8 for portraits. These lenses will change the way you shoot. You will be able to shoot indoors, in dark rooms, without flash. You will be able to shoot a portrait with the person's eyes in perfect focus, and everything behind their ears out of focus.

Other good options would be something like a 17-55 f/2.8.

The "superzoom" lenses you talk about will only give you the convenience of not having to switch out lenses. You will not gain any image quality or be able to do anything with those lenses that you can't do with your current lenses. IMO you should buy a couple of primes that will enable you to do things that you *can't* do with your current lenses... like shoot at f/1.8.

 

[AViking]

I've owned the following lenses

18-55 DX
55-200 DX
70-300 FX
35/1.8 DX
50/1.8 FX
Tokina 16-28/2.8 FX

The last 3 are fast lenses. The first 3 are slow. You'll immediately notice a difference when you get fast glass. Sure bokeh is one reason but for the most part versatility is the big one. On a DX camera if you try to take a hand held picture with slow glass you'll have to bump up the ISO and noise significantly. Say you're shooting at 4 or 5.6 instead of 2.8. While I'm shooting at ISO 400 you're shooting at ISO 800 or 1600 and your images are probably not looking so good with that extra noise. This is less of an issue on full frame but on DX you really have to deal with noise. So if you have any plans on shooting hand held in low light you'll be mostly disappointed with slow glass and wish you had your old point and shoot or had shot with a flash.

Next is sharpness. The difference between the 18-55 and the Tokina are like night and day. The difference between the 55-200 and 70-300 is quite significant. If you want that "wow" feeling after taking a photograph you pretty much need it tack sharp and that's not really going to happen with kit lenses. If you have had a point and shoot with high quality glass then kit lenses might leave you disappointed. The thing that saves them is if you want to post process them all.

The 35/1.8 on DX can give you some really sharp images. You'll have to zoom with your feet though. This is the most affordable way to get sharp images with nice depth of field and little noise.

Buying a super zoom is great for having all those focal lengths but you're going to get problems elsewhere with sharpness, distortion, and vignetting. I don't understand why someone would want to carry around a really heavy and expensive superzoom that's going to give them less picture quality than you can probably get from a much lighter and smaller high end point and shoot. Sure you can put a superzoom on a full frame camera for the larger sensor but it's kinda weird to have a $2000+ camera and a superzoom. Skip this. If you want something with a lot of focal lengths there are plenty of decent lenses in the 24-70 range or 17-50 range. Shooting a soccer match? Go rent a 300mm f2.8 just so you understand how futile your pictures are with a super zoom. That one rental will give you pictures that you can print and cherish and will leave you never wanting to use a superzoom again. Think about it and decide for yourself. Do you want 1500 snapshots of your kid playing soccer or do you want 10 absolutely amazing pictures that you can print and hang on your wall? Maybe you want both.

Even with my 70-300 I tend to only use it at 70 to about 135 or 200 since after that it's soft. I'll take the 300mm shot for posterity but it's not going to ever impress me. Odds are that if you buy a superzoom there is going to be a wide range of focal lengths on it that are practically unusable unless you're just after snapshots and posting on facebook.

 

[AViking]

If image quality if what you're after, and you don't want to spend a king's randsom, then primes are the way to go.

There are a bunch of affordable 1.8 primes from Nikon now. For ultra wide you are stuck with zooms but they're pretty good. After that get something like a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm.

 

[blastingcap]

Except that many people don't use their DSLR that way and just want better image quality than compacts. There is nothing wrong with that.

Fast lenses are good for DOF control and capturing moving objects.

Moving objects: image stabilization will not save you, you need to crank that shutter speed up. This means either flash, ISO, or aperture, and sometimes the first two don't make sense.

DOF: It's difficult to get someone's eyes-only in focus especially with a consumer DSLR, DOF preview or not. I think DOF is way overused, though, especially by rookies who are all like "omg, I can do something you can't do with most compacts, so now I'm going to use it for EVERY PHOTO even if it's not appropriate!"

For nonmoving objects if you are using fast lenses for better low-light INSTEAD of a flash, you may want to consider getting an external bounceflash, preferably with wireless ability so you can place it appropriately. For nonmoving objects, a kit lens can actually match a prime in low light due to image stabilization and how primes often do not have it--and let you keep the additional DOF which is often a good thing.

For people who like prime-like performance but still retain zoom, the Tamron 17-50 without stabilization is sharp and cheap, unfortunately also a little cheaply-made and slightly noisy. The stabilized version isn't as sharp, so get the Sigma 17-50 OS if you want it stabilized. They are all f/2.8 constant max aperture which is often good enough in terms of DOF, plus have zoom. It's possible that this kind of short-range zoom is ideal for OP who did after all want a walkaround lens.

IMO you're going about things all backwards. You should have kept your first body, and bought more lenses first. The D7000 is a beast, you need a great lens for it (and I'm not a Nikon person, but probably they have upgraded the kit lenses since you first bought them, so maybe you're missing out on a bit of image quality and/or VR, in which case it would be helpful just to upgrade to the current version of the kit lens?)

Yes, you need a prime. 35mm f/1.8 for general use, 50mm f/1.8 for portraits. These lenses will change the way you shoot. You will be able to shoot indoors, in dark rooms, without flash. You will be able to shoot a portrait with the person's eyes in perfect focus, and everything behind their ears out of focus.

Other good options would be something like a 17-55 f/2.8.

The "superzoom" lenses you talk about will only give you the convenience of not having to switch out lenses. You will not gain any image quality or be able to do anything with those lenses that you can't do with your current lenses. IMO you should buy a couple of primes that will enable you to do things that you *can't* do with your current lenses... like shoot at f/1.8.

 

[biostud]

I'm very happy with my combo of of 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. Next will be a wide angle lens.

 

[Paladin3]

OP should try putting some tape over the zoom ring on his lens. Lock it at 35mm or 50mm and spend a whole day shooting at just that one focal length. If you aren't happy with just the single focal length then it's not time for you to move to a prime lens, unless you can afford several to cover various focal lengths you need and you are willing to carry around a bag full of glass.

When I got my first job shooting for a newspaper all I had was primes. I carried two 35mm bodies, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 135/2 and a 300/4. That's a lot of glass to carry around, not to mention the shots you miss switching lenses.

Primes are great, but they are not the optimal tool for every type of shooting. I'd rather have an 18-55mm kit lens and a decent speedlight if I was taking photos at a party or casual gathering.

Anyway, the OP hasn't really told us why he wants to replace his kit lenses with a single superzoom. Unless it so you only have to carry one lens, there really is no reason to. What ability are you trying to add with the new lens? Low light shooting? Better IQ? Shallow DOF? More reach on the tele side? Wider focal length?

Please tell us, otherwise this thread will devolve further into each person arguing the merits of they lenses they prefer.