Question for the group

[Adsos Letter]

Pretty sure I've asked this question before but now that Ive pulled the trigger on one, and been dissatisfied, I thought I would ask again.

I have a DX format Nikon, the D7100. I'm very happy with this camera, and don't plan on moving up to FX. Now, the question:

Today I purchased the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus. It was $766.00 out the door. I am dissatisfied with the image quality of this lens, and unhappy with the function of the zoom ring (too tight, barrel shudders somewhat when zooming, which it didn't do on the display copy). It may just be a bad copy, but I am heading out to return it tonight.

Does anyone shoot DX or equivalent, and do you have a zoom with this range that you are happy with? Sigma or Tamron would be fine if you are pleased with what you get. I am willing to go as high as about $1400.00 bucks (trust me, I would much rather spend less). Any suggestions?

I would settle for less overall zoom range, say an 18-200mm or something, if the image quality is there. Just trying to find something to take the place of the 18-55 and 55-300 I already own. As it looked today, my 55-300mm had better image quality and smoother zoom operation.

Let me be clear: I'm not asking anyone to do any research for me. I am asking for advise on something you already know about. I don't want anyone to put any work into this. I'm just a little confused from what I've seen online so far.

If you are still reading this...thank you.

If anyone has suggestions, I will be away from the board this evening as I have to drive a couple hours round trip to return this thing.

Thanks in advance.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. My dear Adsos Letter, I cannot really answer your question directly, but I can indirectly.

I'm using Tamron's 16--300mm zoom with image stabilization, and I love it.

Mine is not too tight, and as far as I can tell, there's no shudder when zooming. I use it all the time, and I could not be happier.

I'm sure I used this lens when I took this photo:



If there's anything I can answer, please don't hesitate to ask!

[Adsos Letter]

2. Thank you CaliforniaPeggy.

I will take a look at the Tamron.

That photo is gorgeous!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Glad I could help! And thank you for your kind words on my photo!

[Major Nikon]

4. The image quality from super zooms isn't that great

With optics there are all sorts of compromises. Building a relatively compact zoom with a large range generally means several tradeoffs which usually include poor image quality, especially at the extents of the zoom range, and a variable aperture that gets pretty narrow on the long end.

The 55-300 is a much different lens. The difference between 18 and 55mm is much bigger than the difference between 200 and 300mm. This may seem counterintuitive. At a fixed 15' subject distance the horizontal field of view at 18mm (for a Nikon FX DSLR) is 67 degrees. At 55mm it's less than 25 degrees. For 200 and 300mm the numbers are 6.9 and 4.6. You can see this for yourself by taking the 18-300 lens and taking pictures at all these focal lengths, then comparing the field of view. You may be surprised by the results. Rather than focal length sometimes it's better to think in terms of FOV.

I have the Niikon 18-200. The only thing I use it for is my infrared converted D5000. Not all lenses work well with infrared and the 18-200 just seems to work very well with this camera for whatever reason. The reason I don't use this lens on my other Nikon bodies is because there's just more compromises with it than I'm not willing to accept for the convenience of having such a wide focal range.

When someone asks for a lens suggestion, the first thing I ask is what kind of subjects and in what situations do you intend to photograph with it? Many amateur photographers buy a lens and then figure out what kind of subjects to take with it, but this is exactly the opposite way to go about it.

To answer your first question, the answer is no, I really don't have a zoom in that range I'm happy with and I don't think I ever would be happy with a zoom of that range. I can't really answer your second question without knowing the specifics of what you are looking for. What I can say is that when I'm looking for a single lens that will offer the greatest versatility, without question that lens is my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. This lens is not as good as the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, but it's about 1/2 to 1/3rd of the price and it's still a damn good lens. It does have a few shortcomings like ergonomics and the image stabilization isn't that great, but for my money it does what I want it to do. The difference in size and weight between the Tamron and Nikon is my main consideration, not to mention the price.

So what will the 17-50mm do? First the FOV range is quite large. At the same parameters as above it covers 70 degrees at the short end and 27 degrees at the long end. This makes it a moderate wide angle and a short telephoto. You also get a f/2.8 fixed aperture which is much faster than the super zooms and image quality is going to be better across it's entire range. This lens is also pretty light which is a big consideration if you're going to be carrying it around on your camera all day. This lens works great when I'm on vacation because it does most landscape and people pictures quite well which is usually about 90% of the shots I want. With this lens I will often pair it with my Nikon 180mm f/2.8. The reason is because this lens is actually pretty light and compact for a long telephoto even though it's a Nikon pro lens that's all metal. So it's easy to carry in a backpack or some other bag and because it's built like a tank, I don't have to worry about it too much. If these are the only two lenses I have, it leaves me with a big gap between 50 and 180mm, but there's not that many shots I'd want to take that I'd miss in that range.

[Adsos Letter]

6. I was hoping you would respond, Major Nikon.

Last edited Sat Sep 17, 2016, 08:33 PM - Edit history (1)

You've always been very generous with sharing your knowledge. You gave me excellent advice on the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8, which has proven to be one of my favorite primes, alongside the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8.

First, I apologize for taking so long to respond; I was on the road to San Diego yesterday, and didn't get here until late last night.

Most of the negative comments I've read on super-zooms caution against the same things you observed, and it makes sense.

I appreciate your heads up on the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I've also been looking at the Nikkor16-80mm f/2.8-4E; not sure if it's really worth twice the price of the Tamron, but I'm going to check it out. Probably rent both to see how I like them.

I am really, really trying to resist the urge to invest in the FX format kit. I think I might be better served by trying to master what is possible with what I have, which really means understanding the principles of photography better.

I haven't noticed you posting in the photo group lately, and I'm glad to see that you're still around!

[Major Nikon]

8. One of the reasons I like the DX format is because of lenses like my Tamron 17-50/2.8

Fast FX zoom lenses tend to be large and heavy. While I love my Nikon 70-200/2.8, this is not a lens I take with me on vacation very often simply because of the effort required to hump it everywhere I go. You can also forget leaving the camera around your neck all day.

Unless you plan on upgrading to FX in the near future, DX lenses probably deserve your first consideration. As far as versatility goes, I think most serious amateurs or pros are going to be best served by a 2 or 3 lens strategy when it comes to planning what goes in the bag.

For my purposes, I love my Nikon 180/2.8 for vacation photography. It really complements the 17-50/2.8 quite well. I'm not familiar with the 16-80, but it might do even better with that lens. There's a good reason Nikon still makes this lens virtually unchanged in the last 20 years or so and not many changes since the manual focus version. IMO, it's one of the more underrated lenses that Nikon makes and they are generally a great value on the used market. If you want to know more, I can go on and on about why I love this lens.

[Adsos Letter]

9. Thank you for all of the info. One last question...

What do you think about Nikon's refurbished lenses? Do you have an opinion on whether they perform, and hold up, well enough to be worth the investment?

[Major Nikon]

10. Never had a problem with Nikon refurbished anything

I've bought a few bodies, lenses, and flashes that were Nikon refurbished. All of them were completely indistinguishable from new. They come factory sealed, in the same box with all the manuals and accessories just like new other than the box is marked refurbished. Never had a bit of problem with any of it. I've also bought Nikon stuff on the used market through ebay, along with through Adorama and B&H's used department. Never had a bit of problem doing that either. Nikon makes good stuff that's made to last.

So my opinion is I wouldn't hesitate to buy Nikon refurbished stuff. You can sometimes save a lot of money doing that. You can buy Nikon refurbished stuff from their website or Cameta used to be their sole outlet for Nikon refurbs. There may be others now. Beware of stuff that claims to be "refurbished", but isn't Nikon refurbished.

[Adsos Letter]

12. Thank you.

I'm going back and forth between the Tamron 17-50/2.8 new, the Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8 G refurbished, and the Nikon 16-80 F/2.8-4 E ED new or refurbished.

I'm a bit hesitant of the 17-55 because it has no VR, and I can be Mr. Shaky Hands; still, it isn't a long telephoto, so maybe it would be alright.

Pulling the trigger is the part I hate...after that, everything is usually fine.

[Major Nikon]

14. Tamron 17-50/2.8 vs Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8 G

I rented the Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8 and ultimately decided on the Tamron. At the time refurbs weren't available and the cost was significantly higher for the Nikon. Probably the biggest thing about the Nikon is the handling is a lot better. I like lenses that I can manually focus and the Tamron really sucks in this regard. You can't just grab it and override the autofocus like with a lot of lenses although you can't do this with the Nikon 17-55 either so it's a wash here. The focus ring is also quite tiny and moves when the autofocus is used so you can't keep your hand on it, which presents another problem if you like to keep your hand positions consistent. There's also not much resistance to moving the focus ring manually, so there's almost zero manual focus feel to it. In contrast the Nikon has a much bigger focus ring, it has a much better feel. If you don't ever manually focus, this wouldn't be a big deal but it was almost a dealbreaker for me. This is especially a problem on the wide end because manually focusing a wide angle lens is almost a must if you want to make use of hyperfocal distances, and you should, especially if you are using it on the wide end quite a bit.

If I had it to do over again and the prices were closer together, I'd probably go with the Nikon. The reason I went with the Tamron is I just couldn't tell much difference optically. They both take good pictures. The Nikon does feel much more substantial, probably because there's considerably more metal. This comes with the penalty of weight if you carry it around all day on the camera and with this lens, I often do. Sometimes I kick around the idea of picking up the Nikon on the used market and trying it for a while to see if I can ditch the Tamron. The great thing about buying Nikon lenses on the used market is you can unload them on ebay for about what you paid for them, so it makes trying out lenses for a few weeks or months entirely doable without much buyer's remorse. If the Nikon had the autofocus override like some do, this would be a no brainer.

There's a few other competing lenses you might want to consider. Sigma makes a 17-50 which is very similar to the Tamron. I haven't used the Sigma so I can't say much about it other than that. Tokina used to make a 16-50 and I'm not sure if they still do, but may still be available on the used market. The nice thing about Tokina is many of their lenses have a clutch that switches from autofocus to manual by moving the focus ring in and out. My Tokina 12-24/4 does this and I love it, although it's not quite as good as the auto override you get on some Nikon lenses (but not on the Nikon 17-55). My advice is to not ever buy a superwide that doesn't at least have decent manual focus capabilities. At 17mm, you are getting close to superwide on a DX, so this may or may not be a big factor to consider depending on how you are using the lens. I'm usually using mine in the 24-50 range. If I plan on doing much wide angle, then I grab the Tokina 12-24/4 or my Nikon fisheye.

[Adsos Letter]

15. Thanks again for taking time to share some of your knowledge.

I have the Tokina 11-16mm, and I love it! And the clutch ring for manual focus is very simple to operate.

I didn't know about the concept of hyperfocal distances. There is a whole lot about the principles of photography that I have yet to learn. I read a short tutorial on hyperfocal distances after reading your post, and I'm going to try to remember to use it next time I use the 11-16mm.

I'll check out the Sigma and Tokina. I've been really happy with the build and image quality of the Tokina 11-16mm, so I'll give that one an extra look.

I'm glad you and ManiacJoe sort of directed me back toward the shorter zooms. That is really the range I most often use, with my 85mm prime being about the max. I was originally looking for something out to 300mm because my current longer telephoto is the kit lens that came with my old D5100, the 55-300mm 4.5-5.6G. The image quality on that one isn't so bad (I used it for the seagull shots in my Odds and Ends post) but it can be very, very slow, and that has been pretty frustrating at times. That said, if I'm going to plunk down $1,000+ for a lens for my DX format camera, then I want to get the best I can for the range I normally shoot in.

Thanks again for your help!

[ManiacJoe]

16. For hyperfocus data,

take a look at what is available for your smart phone.

On Android, I like "hyperfocal pro" and "DOF calculator".

[ManiacJoe]

5. MajorNikon has you pointed in the right direction.

To keep superzooms reasonably priced, there does need to be some compromises in the lens design.

Are the superzooms good lenses? Yes, within their designed performance envelope.
Are they great lenses? No.
If you are looking for a one-lens travel kit, sure, a superzoom will do a good job.

That said, your two-lens combo is a better option optically. Whether or not one will see the difference will depend on your subjects and your shooting style. However, in your case you are seeing the difference.

Personally, I will always take a two-lens combo over any superzoom. I have been shooting SLR/DSLR cameras since 1980. I don't mind changing lenses as needed.

[Adsos Letter]

7. I think I will also stick with changing lenses.

So far, the negative stuff I've read about superzooms has been right in line with what you and Major Nikon have cautioned against.

While it is really tempting to move into the FX kit, I think I'll be much better served by trying to really understand the principles that make good images. My D7100 is very capable, I think, and any shortcomings are a result of my lack of understanding.

I do want to add some better lenses to my kit, but I also have to balance what costs (including the overall cost) make sense for a DX format.

Thanks so much for your response. I always welcome constructive comments on my photos!

[ManiacJoe]

11. Your D7100 is very capable.

If you get a chance, come on over to Nikonians.org for all things Nikon.
Lots of friendly, knowledgeable people there.

[Adsos Letter]

13. Thanks!

I will check it out.

[GliderGuider]

17. I've recently changed away from the Nikon 17-55 to smaller lenses.

I've been a DX shooter since I stopped using Leica M's after buying a Nikon D70 (I got more interesting pictures with the Nikon than the Leica.) When I bought my D300 I also got a 17-55 and a 70-200 VR. I now shoot a D7100, and still have those two lenses. I am utterly in love with the imagery from the 70-200. The quality of the 17-55 is also very high - I've shot weddings with it, and it's everything I want for that application. It's a workhorse lens.

Unfortunately, it weighs as much as a workhorse too. As a walk-around lens it sucks. Like tying a millstone around my neck. It drastically unbalances the camera, and requires a lot of conscious effort to hold up and frame. It's also really obvious. I like to do a lot of street shooting (hence the old film Leicas), and the 17-55 is too much, both ergonomically and visually. I found I was losing shots because I was was unconsciously reluctant to lift the heavy camera to my eye, and then I was spending too much time fiddling with the framing. Overall I found the 17-55 slowed my shooting down, and not in a good way. Good for weddings, but a (very) poor choice for a street shooter.

So I picked up a 35/1.8 and a 50/1.8 along with a Tokina 11-20, and I couldn't be happier. The camera is light and lightning fast again, and I have no hesitation about lifting the camera and shooting. I don't miss the zoom. With the primes I find myself framing the shot before I lift the camera - no twisting the zoom ring with the camera at eye level. With the 35 mounted, the experience is reminiscent of Cartier-Bresson walking around with just his 50 on a Leica M3.

I hardly ever shoot much wider than a 28mm FX equivalent, so I tend to leave the Tokina set at 20mm and use it that way most of the time - but I have a wider view available if a shot needs it. I'm never going to get rid of the long zoom - it has given me some spectacular images. However, I'm getting a Tokina 100/2.8 macro to put in my walkaround bag as a short tele.

Small, light, fixed-focal lenses have a whole lot to recommend them.

[Adsos Letter]

19. Thank you for your thoughtful advice.

I have the 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8, and 85mm f/1.8 (which is one of my favorite lenses, even without VR). I use them a lot.

I did end up purchasing the 17-55mm DX from a very reputable seller on ebay; I paid a bit less than half of what they cost new, and it was in E+ condition. So far it seems to function perfectly; images are sharp, and I love the way it renders color. I took the images in my "Six Flags" post with it.

I certainly agree that it is heavy/bulky, and I find I need to pay a bit more attention to my technique because of the lack of VR. I have a battery grip, and that helps a lot for mister shaky hands here. AF is very, very quiet, fast, and accurate. I like it better, overall, than the lighter (and newer) 16-80mm DX I was also considering (purchased one, then returned it).

I also considered the Nikkor 24-70mm, but it really seems like a lot of lens for someone at my skill level. Perhaps if I live long enough I'll improve enough to justify the cost.

Again, thanks for your reply.

[GliderGuider]

21. It sounds like your well set!

Despite my carping about the weight and balance, it's a remarkable lens. You're right that it works much better with a battery grip. Sounds like you have the right lens. Enjoy!

[justiceischeap]

18. One of my favorite DX lenses is the Nikon 12-24 f/4

Lovely lens, fairly lightweight and can be gotten used for a decent price from KEH.com

Just another tip: I use pixelpeeper.com to research lenses on specific bodies and how they perform.

[Adsos Letter]

20. Thanks for the tips!

I checked DXOMark, but I'll also take a look at pixelpeeper.com