Best AP-Z Lens for a Nikon DX Body - under $500? (Page 3): DAVEO - if you are interested in my other posts, please look for them under Newest Topics

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

DAVEO - if you are interested in my other posts, please look for them under Newest Topics - I have a couple of dozen going ...

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

I think it's the one - New, Used, or Refurbished ... but, I'm not sure ... I've posted so many, and now, it's difficult keeping up.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

ChrisT wrote:

I think it's the one - New, Used, or Refurbished ... but, I'm not sure ... I've posted so many, and now, it's difficult keeping up.

Slow down. Take a deep breath. Recompose.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

GoofyNewfie ... thanks for the recommendation on the 16-80 ... I already have the very similar 16-85 VR ... but, I don't really consider this range to be AP-Z ... it seems to me an AP-Z should go out to around 200, perhaps, 250 or even 300 or 400 ....

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

KMGW9V ... thanks, think I will ... it's way past supper time, anyway ... didn't realize ... catchupwithyouall, later ...

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

ChrisT wrote:

GoofyNewfie ... thanks for the recommendation on the 16-80 ... I already have the very similar 16-85 VR ... but, I don't really consider this range to be AP-Z ... it seems to me an AP-Z should go out to around 200, perhaps, 250 or even 300 or 400 ....

In my experience, going to a longer zoom ratio means you lose lens speed and more compromises in image quality, though that seems to have improved. I have the 16-85 too and it's not too bad but it could be better. Depends on what you are shooting and the expected outcome. I do a lot of indoor events, usually at pretty dark venues, so lens speed is important. Your needs may be different.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

ChrisT wrote:

DAVEO - if you are interested in my other posts, please look for them under Newest Topics - I have a couple of dozen going ...

whitewolfowner

ChrisT wrote:

Used to be the 18-105 was THE kit lens, for Nikon DX Bodies. Then, they came out with this new 18-140. Neither lens has gotten particularly good reviews, has it? In fact, the older 18-105 has actually fared better than this one.
Nikon users, what would be YOUR recommendation for an all-around AP-Z (you can choose a third party one, too!)

If you want quality stay away from the kit lenses and get the better quality FX ones. For very wide angle, you will need a DX wide angle and I'd look at Tokina, Sigma and Tamron.

queencitysanta Loc: Charlotte, North Carolina

I have the 35 1.8, 18-140 and the 70-300. I am very pleased with them. I also have 70-200 2.8, 85 1.4, 20-35 and a105 macron on the FX side. The DX and the FX lens have served me well. Good luck with your choice.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

ChrisT wrote:

Used to be the 18-105 was THE kit lens, for Nikon DX Bodies. Then, they came out with this new 18-140. Neither lens has gotten particularly good reviews, has it? In fact, the older 18-105 has actually fared better than this one.
Nikon users, what would be YOUR recommendation for an all-around AP-Z (you can choose a third party one, too!)

What is an "AP-Z"? I've only been doing, studying, teaching photography for 40 years and haven't heard that term before. (I know Nikon likes to use acronyms... maybe that's one of theirs?)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

ChrisT wrote:

Did I write APS-Z? .... I'm so sorry ... getting unnerved by insults ... AP-Z - for ALL PURPOSE ZOOMS .....

APS - C - for Alternate Proportion Sensor - Canon (or Compact, depending on your leaning) ....

If I combined the terms ... it was an accident ... my apologies ....

Oh, I get it now.

Except that "APS-C" actually refers to one of the user selectable film formats from the rather short lived Kodak "Advanced Photo System" that existed back in the 1990s, which was widely marketed as "APS". They patented and then turned around and licensed the system to other camera and film manufacturers (a money-making trick that Kodak used to thrive for around 100 years). If I recall correctly, Kodak APS was discontinued after only about 8 years.

The "APS-C" image dimensions just happen to be very close in size to the size of sensors used in so-called APS-C digital cameras. Canon also used to make "APS-H" format DSLRs (the 1D-series models, which were discontinued when the 1DX was introduced) cameras, which have a bit larger dimension. There was a third "APS-P" format, where "P" stands for "panoramic", though AFAIK no one has made a digital sensor approximating those film image dimensions.

Likewise, "full frame" is also based on film image dimensions (standard 35mm film). One example of those is the Canon 1Ds-series models.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System

(Seriously? "Alternate Proportion Sensor - Canon" HAH! Methinks you're makin' stuff up!

)

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

amfoto1 wrote:

Oh, I get it now. br br Except that "APS-C&... (show quote)

Whatever you do, don't follow the thread or do a google search.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

APZ. All Purpose Zoom. Damn.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

ChrisT wrote:

Used to be the 18-105 was THE kit lens, for Nikon DX Bodies. Then, they came out with this new 18-140. Neither lens has gotten particularly good reviews, has it? In fact, the older 18-105 has actually fared better than this one.
Nikon users, what would be YOUR recommendation for an all-around AP-Z (you can choose a third party one, too!)

I got my 16-80 DX lens for under $500.00 when it was paired with the D500 body, Nikon also threw in the vertical grip. I believe they will repeat that this holiday season. So, wait for it for a few months and you will be rewarded. I have found the 16-80 to be extremely sharp and very light weight, and the hood is the bomb. Very nicely shaped hood.

ELNikkor

I've always figured a nice outfit for DX would be 10-20 zoom, 18-55 zoom, and 55-300 zoom. None are big and heavy, none are very expensive, all are sharp and focus close, and the focal lengths give continuous coverage from 10-300.