Nikon Lens Recommendation
May 29, 2021 00:44:26 #
mundy-F2 wrote:
How much would a repair of the lens cost as a possible option?
Not sure as it’s so old at 17 years or so
I would assume more than its worth
May 29, 2021 09:53:10 #
kcooke wrote:
My wife shoots a Nikon D3500. Before that a D3100... (show quote)
On my d3400 I use the Nikkor 18-70 3.5-4.5 and the 18-135 3.5-5.6. Neither has VR, both are older lenses and both IMO do a very good job. Also readily available on EBay for under $100.
May 29, 2021 11:33:21 #
DaveyDitzer
Loc: Western PA
I had the much praised Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and sold it because the 70mm upper end was not as useful to me and it was a "brick" to carry.Thus the 16-80 DX or 24-120 FX were less weight and more useful range - to me. Your results may vary.
PS. To me zoom ranges beyond that of these two lenses can often be too compromised.
PS. To me zoom ranges beyond that of these two lenses can often be too compromised.
May 29, 2021 11:55:42 #
larryepage wrote:
This is good advice. Another option would be to look for a nice used 24-120mm f/4 G VR zoom. I paid $425 for mine at my local camera store a couple of years ago. (I did have to find my own hood for another $25.) They may be a little more expensive than that now. You want one with VR in gold letters on the lens.
I found this third party lens hood to equal the quality of the Nikon OEM version.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/151531999871
May 29, 2021 14:05:54 #
kcooke wrote:
My wife shoots a Nikon D3500. Before that a D3100... (show quote)
I agree with two others here. The 18-140 is a great lens is on my camera most of the time for a walk around. It is sharp from one end to the other. Hard to beat in my opinion.
May 29, 2021 15:45:35 #
So many people downgrade the older lenses merely because they are older. The 18-70 in its day was a highly praised lens as so was many older lenses. The 24-120vr 3.5-? was mocked because Ken Rockwell wrote a bad review of it. He later revised his review when he got a different copy of that lens. I actually liked the lens. Many of us still shoot lenses that are older with great success and have no intentions of buying the latest and greatest. Personally I think it much easier to learn how to properly take pictures and learn how to properly use the equipment you have.
May 29, 2021 15:48:04 #
Paul Diamond
Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
reverendray wrote:
This link is a good place to start her looking
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d3400-best-zoom-lenses-review/
https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-d3400-best-zoom-lenses-review/
This is what I was going to suggest. dxomark will show lenses for your camera within a fixed or zoom focal length range. I prefer to see Nikon and 3rd party lenses that dxo as an independent reviewer has tested in their labs. I feel confident in comparing their tests of a great variety of lenses. And I regularly use them when choosing almost any lens to buy.
May 29, 2021 16:31:11 #
Leon S wrote:
So many people downgrade the older lenses merely b... (show quote)
I think the big reason people downgrade the older lenses is, as time gotten on and technology improves, so does the quality of stuff. That includes the manufacturing of quality lenses, and cameras. Not that the old lenses were not good. As you say they were great in their time and can still give sensors great info to record. The problem is that older lenses sometimes will not match/mount to the camera, and when they do not all functions are available.
To some of us out does not matter. Like you I still have some older lenses I use. They are minolta. With an adaptor I mount to my Nikon's, but I loose aperture control, and work around it
May 31, 2021 10:36:13 #
While I have a D750 full frame (FX) camera now with the 24-120 f4 lens as my primary camera, I kept my D7000 crop sensor (DX) camera as a backup and I got rid of all my DX lenses except the 18-200 VR DX lens for the D7000 and it still does an excellent job and is an all-around great flexible lens. My suggestion is to consider that one for your wife's replacement.
May 31, 2021 11:36:22 #
I have the 16-80, 18-105 and 18-140. All are sharp and do a good job. I had an 18-200 and got rid of it, it was not nearly as sharp as any other lens I owned, including the 18-55 kit lenses. Maybe I got a bad copy, I bought it used, so you have to wonder if the previous owner unloaded a lemon.
Of the three, the 18-140 stays on a camera (D5500 and D5600) most of the time. I rarely use the 16-80. We got that as a refurb for my wife's photography business, now closed because of the pandemic. I don't use it because it is an expensive lens, even though it was a refurb. Probably would not have bought it if not for the franchise she signed up with wanting her to have a fast lens for indoor work.
If I had to pick one lens it would be the 18-140. I bought mine from MPB used for under $200. However, they are made in both Thailand and China, so if that matters to you, and it does to me, make sure you see the lens or at least a photograph showing where it was made.
Of the three, the 18-140 stays on a camera (D5500 and D5600) most of the time. I rarely use the 16-80. We got that as a refurb for my wife's photography business, now closed because of the pandemic. I don't use it because it is an expensive lens, even though it was a refurb. Probably would not have bought it if not for the franchise she signed up with wanting her to have a fast lens for indoor work.
If I had to pick one lens it would be the 18-140. I bought mine from MPB used for under $200. However, they are made in both Thailand and China, so if that matters to you, and it does to me, make sure you see the lens or at least a photograph showing where it was made.
May 31, 2021 12:02:34 #
The 18-300 mm VR DX is my favorite go to lens and is rarely off the camera, great for landscape but with the length for moderate wildlife shots.
May 31, 2021 17:34:52 #
CO wrote:
The Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4 DX and Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 DX are both ones to look at. The 16-80mm f/2.8-4 replaced the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 but it's overpriced and has a lower build quality than the older 16-85mm. I have two of the previous 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 DX lenses. It's sharp, is very solidly built, and has one-half the distortion of Nikon's superzoom lenses. I use them on a Nikon D7500 and D500. There are still some new ones available. Amazon has some new ones.
I too like the 16-85mm dx lens and I frequently choose it over the 18-200mm dx unless I plan to need the longer range. The 16-85 is a nice lens and frankly not too heavy so one can shoot all day without fatigue.
May 31, 2021 18:12:01 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
nervous2 wrote:
I too like the 16-85mm dx lens and I frequently choose it over the 18-200mm dx unless I plan to need the longer range. The 16-85 is a nice lens and frankly not too heavy so one can shoot all day without fatigue.
I have an 18-200 VR2. It is occasionally just the lens to use. But I've found that using it is kind of like eating a hot dog. Don't pay too close attention, and don't ask too many questions. It is quite quirky and sometimes does some really weird things.
Jun 1, 2021 01:28:10 #
kcooke wrote:
My wife shoots a Nikon D3500. Before that a D3100... (show quote)
Hands down, the best bang for the buck you could get (in my opinion as well as several other UHHers ) would be the 24-85 Nikon lens. It is very sharp and a used version will be 250-300. It would be the perfect match to go with the 70-300 since there would be very little overlap. I have one of these and have tested it along side my 24-70 2.8 Nikon lens and the sharpness is practically equal. No, it doesn't stop down to 2.8 but you'll pay over twice as much for that action.
Jun 1, 2021 10:24:21 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.