Nikon DX lenses.
SuperflyTNT wrote:
You continue to beat this dead horse. Unless you’re looking at pretty old lenses it’s rarely an issue. For one thing those old lenses aren’t gone be lighter and in the ranges he wants it’ll be a DX lens anyway. That being said the only real weight savings would be the 18-55 kit lens.
I've only replied to specific comments that ignored the possibility. If 'modern' F-mount lenses are used with designations DX and / or G, the OP has no potential issues with their camera body. But, using these accurate identifying marks were not the comments made; and thus, generated my replies. Certainly no reason for you to be quibbling with my more accurate comments / questions.
amfoto1 wrote:
Wow! I wasn't aware how expensive that Nikkor was! I just looked it up... $1500!
The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is over $600 less expensive AND it has image stabilization!
I suspect the Nikkor is better built. I don't have one but it looks to be top of the line.
The Canon is what I'd call their "good, mid-grade" build quality. Not premium or weather sealed... but quite solid and reliable.
Oh, and the Nikkor comes with its matched hood. The Canon doesn't. It's hood is sold separately for $50 (Overpriced OEM.... 3rd party equiv.: $20).
Even so, that's a huge difference in price!
Wow! I wasn't aware how expensive that Nikkor was!... (
show quote)
The Sigma 17-70 is about $475 NEW.......
.
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
JohnR wrote:
I'm interested in which Nikon DX lenses members find best suited to general photography i.e. bit of landscape, bit of portrait, bit of action and anything else which pops up in the viewfinder - those sometimes referred to as walk about lenses. I just sold my 18-300mm as I was finding it too heavy and I'm looking for something lighter maybe with better IQ. Checking the 20,000+ shots I've taken with various Nikon APS-C cameras over the last 23 years I find over 75% to be at less than 140mm (210mm 35mm Eq.) so I'm thinking smaller lenses anyway.
By the way I DO NOT want links to various web sites giving reviews. I can find those myself quite easily. I want real life opinions not paid for "reviews"
Cheers JohnR
I'm interested in which Nikon DX lenses members fi... (
show quote)
Nikon made a respectable 18-70 F3.5-4.5 - which you can find on ebay used, for around $125. It works well and as a bonus, if you ever decide to get into infrared photography, it is one of the better ones, which does not have the center "hotspot" common to other lenses.
JohnR wrote:
I'm interested in which Nikon DX lenses members find best suited to general photography i.e. bit of landscape, bit of portrait, bit of action and anything else which pops up in the viewfinder - those sometimes referred to as walk about lenses. I just sold my 18-300mm as I was finding it too heavy and I'm looking for something lighter maybe with better IQ. Checking the 20,000+ shots I've taken with various Nikon APS-C cameras over the last 23 years I find over 75% to be at less than 140mm (210mm 35mm Eq.) so I'm thinking smaller lenses anyway.
By the way I DO NOT want links to various web sites giving reviews. I can find those myself quite easily. I want real life opinions not paid for "reviews"
Cheers JohnR
I'm interested in which Nikon DX lenses members fi... (
show quote)
I use my 18-70 and 18-135.
My 18-200mm stays on my D7200 about 90% of the time. Good, sharp lens but might be a little heavier than what you are looking for.
Don
smussler
Loc: Land O Lakes, FL - Formerly Miller Place, NY
When I purchased by D5600, I got it with an 18-140 and 70-300, both VR lenses. The 18-140 is on my camera probably 85% of the time (totally made up number). I have 5 lenses in my kit now. The suggestions about faster lenses, is something that I think about at times. But if my 18-140 went missing, or broke down, I'd probably replace it ASAP.
delder wrote:
I am hoping to find an affordable & faster DX prime lens that will fit my budget sooner or later.
35mm f/1.8 DX
50mm f/1.8 FX
Both under $200.
50mm and 75mm equivalents.
JohnR wrote:
I'm interested in which Nikon DX lenses members find best suited to general photography i.e. bit of landscape, bit of portrait, bit of action and anything else which pops up in the viewfinder - those sometimes referred to as walk about lenses. I just sold my 18-300mm as I was finding it too heavy and I'm looking for something lighter maybe with better IQ. Checking the 20,000+ shots I've taken with various Nikon APS-C cameras over the last 23 years I find over 75% to be at less than 140mm (210mm 35mm Eq.) so I'm thinking smaller lenses anyway.
By the way I DO NOT want links to various web sites giving reviews. I can find those myself quite easily. I want real life opinions not paid for "reviews"
Cheers JohnR
I'm interested in which Nikon DX lenses members fi... (
show quote)
I am impressed with the 18-140 Nikon. Inexpensive light and sharp. Great walk-around lens. Works great on crop sensor
For varieties of uses, on my D7500 I like both my Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4 and Sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 DX designed lenses. Both light in usage and good performance.
My Nikon 18-140 lens is on my camera most of the time. I mostly photograph events and children moving quickly so that range zoom is perfect.
JohnR wrote:
Thanks but that's an FX lens not DX so not going to work on my D5500
Yes, it is FF; and my general purpose Nikon camera is a D850. And yes, it will work on a D5500, just won't be wide angle. It works quite well on my D500 when I want a short telephoto lens. It does like a lot of light, which hasn't been a problem at all.
The Nikkor 28-300 isn't the sharpest lens in my cabinet, but it's sharp enough. I also have the Canon 28-300L, but it's a lot bigger and heavier than the Nikkor, and quite a bit more expensive.
My go to DX lens is the 18-140. Since you seldom shoot images beyond 140 it may work well for you.
tallshooter wrote:
WINNER!!
Jeez! I said the same thing two posts ahead of him! 😜🤪
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.