all-day-use lens for nikon

[antongorlin]

hello
I have D7000 body and several lens (all nikkor) - 10-24, 18-135, 70-300
as you see the weak chain here is 18-135. I want to change it for something, but not sure for what exactly.
have anyone tried 18-200 VR, is it good (I do not carry 70-300 all the time coz its heavy) ?
ken rockwell recommends it, but maybe there's something better at the budget below 1000.

[I @ M]

Are you serious?

You are offering advice on your website (http://fotoforge.net/article-how-to-shoot-seascapes-series-golden-hour-side-light.aspx) as to how people should take seascape photos and in the same breath asking others the best lens to use. :rolleyes:

[ricktas]

get a 24-70 f2.8 : fills the gap between the 10-24 and the 70-300

[antongorlin]

of course I'm serious :)
I used to use 10-24 for seascapes 95% of the time.
but suddenly in Ukraine there's no ocean at hand, and it's not a good idea to use ultra-wide for forests for example. And also I becamse interested in creating panoramic images, and ultra wide here doesn't work as well.

[Tommo1965]

i think you need a lens with a constant aperture..and as such Id go with a F2.8 24-70 ....if the Nikon on is out of reach perhaps the Sigma, or wait for the new Tamron that has VR...

I recently had three weeks with a F3.5-F5.6 24-135...it was ok ..but many times I wanted a larger aperture and would have preferred to have moved my feet to zoom

[mongo]

The nikkor 24-70 is a brilliant lens but it is heavy and expensive.

Mongo bought an old AF Tamrom 24-135 (it will start at about 36mm for you) to uSe on hIs D800. It's really cheap and really sharp - the weight is about the same as the 24-70

[arthurking83]

I don't think that the 24-70/2.8 is the type of lens the OP is after!!

if the 700g's of the 70-300 is too heavy to carry all day, then the 900g weight of the 24-70/2.8 is obviously not going to make it any easier!

I think the better lens newly announced 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 VR. It light weight, has decent aperture speed good zoom range and all that.

I personally can't see why the 18-135 is the weak link in the current setup.
From my understanding it's a very good lens, with good image quality for the type of lens that it is(consumer kit type lens).

18-200VR is an OK lens from what I've seen of it, but it's also heavy.
From what I've seen of the lenses image ability tho, you're better off with what you already have.


ps. nothing wrong with shooting forest landscapes with a 10-24mm lens either!! ... but you are right an ultra wide angle is not the best lens to use for panorama... but this is only true if you don't have the correct panorama making tripod accessories, such as sliding rails and panning heads.

[Tommo1965]

The nikkor 24-70 is a brilliant lens but it is heavy and expensive.

Mongo bought an old AF Tamrom 24-135 (it will start at about 36mm for you) to uSe on hIs D800. It's really cheap and really sharp - the weight is about the same as the 24-70


thats the one and only lens I took on me Hols to the UK recently...as I said in my above post I did on occasion want a larger Aperture..but as a good all-round very cheap lens { sub $150 au used} its pretty good ..Im glad I had a D700 to shoot with this lens..as I was quite often in the High ISO for indoor shots ...even though the tamron is cheap to buy..its built pretty damn good with quite a lot of metal tubes etc

heres two images that I took with that lens
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?106187-my-Great-Niece-sky-a-real-cuite