timefactors watches
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Nikon body/lens advice please

  1. #1
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    1,505

    Nikon body/lens advice please

    Since my recent return to photography I now have a D5200 body and was on the lookout for a better quality wide angle lens for landscapes so picked up an 18-35 G for a good price which seems to get great reviews everywhere.

    Now I know it's designed for full frame, so will turn into something like 26-52mm on my DX but my question to those in the know is will it be wasted on my D5200 or should just use it and enjoy it it. My other lenses are 18-105 VR and 55-300 VR

    Its still in the box, i haven't been brave enough to try it yet. Still very much in the 'all the gear, no idea' phase at the moment.

    Thanks in advance for advice chaps.

  2. #2

    Nikon body/lens advice please

    That's a difficult question to answer.

    Let me start with a confession: I have bags full of Nikon lenses, as I am from the camp that is convinced that you can never have too many lenses. As such I am not perhaps not the perfect person to give advice!

    That aside, there is one important question you need to answer - did you buy the 18-35mm for a specific need or purpose?

    The reason for the question is that you already have the 18-105mm, which is an okay lens and gives you coverage out to 18mm. The 18-35 gets great reviews, but as you say on a DX it will effectively be a 26-52mm, which is a bit of an odd focal range. If you ditch the 18-105 and keep the 18-35 then you will have effective coverage from 26mm to 300mm when shooting DX. So from wide to tele, just losing the ultra-wide between 18mm and 26mm. To decide on whether to keep the lens you probably need to ask yourself how often you think you'll be shooting in that 6mm band of focal range you will no longer have available? If you shoot a lot of interior work or street photography you might find you miss that occasional use of ultrawide, as you can't always take the few steps back from the subject necessary to compensate. On the other hand if you normally take most of your photos from 55mm upwards you might find the new lens - lovely as it is - spends most of the time in your camera bag.

    Regardless, if you keep the 18-35mm you should see a step-up in quality - and once you have seen the quality of image produced from a top Nikon lens it is difficult to go back to using anything else. So if you think you might not keep it, my advice is not to take it out of the box and certainly don't take any photos with it!

    I haven't used the 18-35 myself, but I do have the earlier 20-35. That lens is tack sharp and built like a tank, but can suffer occasionally from flare by comparison to the new 18-35. I bought it because on full frame I had nothing between an 8mm fisheye and a 28mm prime. However most of my photography is wildlife, so I went for the 20-35 as it won't get a lot of use so I didn't see the point of splashing out on a new lens. Having said that, I have actually been surprised how much use I have had from the lens away from my normal wildlife stuff.

    Whatever you decide, enjoy!

    Edit: One other thought. You mention "my recent return to photography". I am not sure how keen you are, or whether you see yourself getting back into photography more seriously, but if you can foresee a growing interest then I would definitely suggest that you keep the 18-35. As your interest increases you are likely to upgrade the camera body at some point, and at that stage going to full-frame might well be an option. If so, then the 18-35 is exactly the type of lens you might find yourself wanting. I mentioned above that I found myself wanting/needing something in that exact focal range, and if I had found the 18-35mm at the right price I would have gone for it.
    Last edited by willie_gunn; 13th June 2018 at 21:34.

  3. #3
    Master
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Hereford
    Posts
    1,505
    Thanks for the detailed reply, its given me some food for thought.

  4. #4
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Surrey, England, or somewhere else
    Posts
    5,937
    Blog Entries
    16
    I have the 17-35mm f2.8. I love it on my FF Nikon bodies but not sure if I would use it on DX - you already have a 18mm so very close coverage.

  5. #5
    Master KavKav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Warwickshire.
    Posts
    5,916
    Blog Entries
    5
    The best value lens I can suggest for your D5200 is the Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX, it is lightweight, fast, and the optics are excellent giving tack-sharp results for under 150. Before I went FX, I considered this 35mm to be the best value DX lens out there. You will not go wrong with this prime lens and remember, if 35mm does not always suit, you have your legs to assist with your framing! If you want range on your lens then the Nikon 16-85 DX will serve you well.
    Last edited by KavKav; 18th June 2018 at 09:31.

  6. #6
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Sudbury Suffolk151
    Posts
    258
    +1 for the Nikon 16-85, I had one with my old D300, an excellent "all rounder" with pro quality sealing.Cheers, John B4

  7. #7
    For landscapes in particular I find having wide isn't necessarily always the best. I'd say 28mm (FF equiv) is as wide as I like in most cases. It could be best to work within your confinements and experiment that way to get good landscape shots?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •