Moving on from my 18-200 VR

[BeauJangles]

The time has come for me to replace my favorite lens. It has non-warranty damage that I believe will be incredibly costly to fix, so much so that I don't see why I should bother paying the replacement cost. I've been thinking about moving towards better lenses anyway, so this is just an excuse to do so.

Budgeting is tough simply because I take pictures of everything and I like having the versatility and flexibility to do so. I'm going to say that I have a total budget of about $1,200, which I could stretch to near $1,400 if the right combination is found. Eventually I'd like to move to a better body, but for now a few new lenses will do me very nicely.

Here are a few lenses I was considering:

Tamron 70-200mm ($750): This would basically cover a lot of ground and I've heard nothing buy positives about it. My understanding is that it delivers a close approximation of the Nikon variant, but at a far, far cheaper price. Everything I've read indicates that I'll notice a huge jump in contrast, sharpness, and fewer distortions compared to similar ranges on the 18-200.

Nikon 16-85mm ($650): Heard nothing but good about it.

Tamron 17-50mm ($650): Again, I've heard that despite being an off-brand lens, this one is pretty damn good. Build quality isn't quite as high and I'm aware of some of the CA issues, but it still seems clear that this lens would deliver superior performance in its ranges versus my old 18-200.

I've also been looking at some of the primes from Nikon. I shot almost exclusively with primes when I was using film, but moved away from it in digital. Is it worth going back? Should I consider picking up a few primes?

I guess I haven't really made up my mind about any of this, but I'm trying to get the process started.

Any thoughts, considerations?

 

[Aharami]

I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, but for a Canon. I love this lens, albeit the loud autofocus. I had to send mine in for slight front focusing issues, but it's near perfect after being serviced. The price seems a bit high for the 17-50 though (unless that's the price for the new stabilized variants)

 

[BeauJangles]

Thanks Aharami,

I'm getting in touch with a repair place to see how much fixing my 18-200 will cost. I've been contemplating moving on from it for about two months now. Of course, with an unlimited budget, I'd swap out my D80 and buy $10k worth of lenses, but reality dictates that I've got to do this at a good price.

The Tamron lens seems really interesting. It really seems to divide people between it and the 16-85 from Nikon.

You're right on the price, I must have been looking at something else, because it can be had for about $450. [edit: the VR or whatever Tamron calls it is about $650.] So now the question not only becomes one between Nikon and Tamron, but should I splurge for the VC in the Tamron lens or not. The 18-200 has VR on it, but it wasn't something that I used terribly often and I can save about $200 by not having it at all.

Is that something I'll wind up regretting down the road? (As you can see, big purchases stress me out, even if I basically know what i want).

 

[shocksyde]

I love primes and only own a few zooms (18-55 and 55-200VR) b/c they either came with a camera or I got them at a silly low price. I tend to stay below 100mm, so I'd really have no use for a good +100mm zoom.

With that said, if you really do shoot a huge variety of things, zooms would be your best option. It used to be that primes had far and away better image quality, but that gap has closed greatly. I would recommend the 17-50 2.8 b/c it's sharp and fast. 2.8 comes in handy when you want to get creative with depth of field or need to shoot in low light. That paired with a decent 70/80-200 zoom (f4 or faster would be ideal) should cover you well.

 

[jpeyton]

16-85 vr + 70-300 vr

 

[soydios]

16-85 vr + 70-300 vr

That's the Nikon pair to get. But f/2.8 glass does have its allure, especially for that 17-50mm. It's a toss-up for me.

 

[twistedlogic]

I've also been looking at some of the primes from Nikon. I shot almost exclusively with primes when I was using film, but moved away from it in digital. Is it worth going back? Should I consider picking up a few primes?

Sometimes even f/2.8 glass isn't fast enough. Since I've gotten some primes they haven't left my cameras. You could pick up a 50mm 1.8 for pretty cheap used, or spend the extra $$ and get the excellent 35 1.8, or get both. The contrast and colors are just so pleasing.

Also, don't forget about Tamron's 28-75mm f/2.8. It is slightly cheaper than the 17-50mm and works on FX.(not sure if 17-50 does or not) It will give you the 35mm equivalent of 42-112.5 which I've found works great for candids. Plus this would give you an excuse later for a ultra WA lens, .

Just remember that reviewers biggest complaint about Tamron is the micro-adjust motor, as it can be a little noisy and is not as fast as HSM or AF-S. But I've read nothing but great things about the IQ from the 17-50 and the 70-200.

Also there is some nice older screw driven AF glass (cheap) from Nikon in the push-pull 80-200 2.8. Again AF isn't real fast and the lens is much heavier than Tamron's or Nikon's 70-200, but its built like a tank if thats important to you (you've already broke one lens, ). And I've read that some users prefer push-pull to the two-ring version.

 

[Anubis]

What lenses do you currently have? This will help with the suggestions i think

The 70-200 is a great lens and if you want a zoom in that range anything short of getting another 70-200 really isn't gonna make you happy.

 

[Jawo]

The Tamron 17-50 is amazing for the constant f/2.8. I have been using it as my primary lens (on an XTi) for the past couple of years and have very much enjoyed it. It provides great range and flexibility with the primary downside being the loud AF motor. Also have the Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6, not a perfect lens, but a great telephoto for the price. The 50 f/1.8 doesn't leave my bag much. The biggest problem is changing lenses (but better picture IQ) over the AIO lens you have now.

 

[BeauJangles]

So a quick update:

I agreed to have the lens fixed for about $350 including parts and labor. They told me to call back in a month to get the status. Yesterday I had a VM from them saying that they found the #2 lens group is damaged and it's another ~$180 in parts, bringing the total to $500+ to fix this thing.

At $350, it was a no-brainer to get it fixed. At $500+, I'm thinking it might be more worthwhile to acquire other lenses. Considering the distortion and vignetting were already bothering me, I don't see why I should invest in fixing it. I just picked up a Sigma 10-20 and I was looking at the Sigma 150mm macro. Without the 18-200, though, I don't quite know how I'm going to make up the versatility.

Basically, do you guys think it's worth paying over $500 to fix a lens that I wasn't completely satisfied with in the first place? I like the versatility it offers and it's a great lens for walk-arounds, but I'd like to be moving towards sharper glass with better overall IQ.

 

[jpeyton]

The original 18-200mm VR is barely worth $500 these days. Pass on fixing it.

BTW, what place did you send the lens to have it fixed?

 

[BeauJangles]

The original 18-200mm VR is barely worth $500 these days. Pass on fixing it.

BTW, what place did you send the lens to have it fixed?

Sanford Camera in Arlington, MA.

My thinking exactly regarding the price. Why pay $500 to fix something that is barely worth that amount anyway?

So, now I'm stuck about what lenses to pursue. I've been thinking about the Tamron 17-50 + Nikon 70 - 300 or the 35 mm f/1.8 + 80 mm f/1.8.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I would go for the Tamron 17-50mm and 70-200mm. Slap a 1.4x TC on the telephoto and you've got a 100-300mm f/4. Don't repair the 18-200mm, but DO sell it for parts. I wouldn't risk restricting yourself to just a couple of primes.

 

[BeauJangles]

The Tamron is high on my list, but the 70-200 is way out of my price range. Also, I plan on doing some serious traveling and I'm not sure I want to carry such a heavy lens. I also like the macro capabilities of the Sigma.

 

[MotF Bane]

Sanford Camera in Arlington, MA.

My thinking exactly regarding the price. Why pay $500 to fix something that is barely worth that amount anyway?

So, now I'm stuck about what lenses to pursue. I've been thinking about the Tamron 17-50 + Nikon 70 - 300 or the 35 mm f/1.8 + 80 mm f/1.8.

Did you try Hunt's? Might be worth a look.

http://www.huntsphotoandvideo.com/

 

[jpeyton]

You might want to try this place before giving up on repairing that lens completely:

http://www.nikoncamerarepair.com/

I've used them, and their prices were very good IMO. Turnaround was fast, too. And the estimate is free, but it will run you about $5 to ship your lens to them.

 

[BeauJangles]

Thanks for the links, I'll give Hunt's a call and, JPeyton, I'll give your place a call too. I think I can get a few hundred bucks for the lens as parts, so I may just be inclined to go that way.