jcspics

Gotcha... Take a look at one of these: Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G

Nikon made like a million of them and they are sharp and inexpensive. I find them being sold on Facebook with old film cameras because they were kit lenses. Since the camera isn't a DSLR they sell for $30-50 with this lens (come in silver but standard slate ones are out there). There are three in my "backyard" going for that price range and you can test/inspect before you pay.

No VR but who cares? the first 75 years of photography didn't have VR and some of my all-time favorite photos are just monochrome portraits from Life Magazine.

-Jim

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Using the “Quote Reply” option, as I just did here, will help us understand which post you are addressing.

markjay

whats the problem - just buy them all.

geodowns Loc: Yale, Michigan

Ok, I could not figure that out
I hit reply because it made sense. Thanks

Pixljockey Loc: Southeast Pa.

Hi geodowns, I've had good results with my D7200 and the following gear: 16-85mm f3.5vr, 35mmf1.8 and the 55-300mm f4.5-5.6G ED. I shoved the 18-55mm lens back in the box after using it for a short while, had no idea it was such a poor kit lens. I had better kit lenses on an Olympus e-510, but that was back in 2007. The 55-300 lens is not that sharp either, I guess because I'm always shooting wide open. I also find myself going for the longest focal length on it as well. I hope to get a better long zoom, maybe used is the way to go. The only other lens I would consider getting is a decent macro. Hope this helps.

geodowns Loc: Yale, Michigan

[quote=jcspics]I always recommend buying true Nikon (Nikkor) lenses if you can afford it. There are cheaper non-Nikon lenses of course but you get a lens that will not have an "in-camera" profile so distortion correction can't be done and no metering data that helps ensure auto-corrected exposure (even WB can have issues).

I know people buy/use non-Nikon lenses all the time. I am a systems engineer that knows that an "engineered solution" is going to produce consistent results, and no I promise I do not work for Nikon. The way I see it bodies are fleeting but lenses are, or at least were, forever. I.E. invest in lenses and buy bodies that can do what you require.

Having said all of that I use D7200s and LOVE them with FX lenses since most of the issues with vignetting, distortion, etc are literally beyond the physical sensor edge and what remains can are auto corrected. I literally just bought another one to replace the one I bought in Aug 2017 with 314028 shutter clicks (and still working btw).

Back to lenses eh-um: If you have a focus screw (D7000-D7500) then I like the older lenses but I bang mine around so older non-plastic lenses like 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF and AF-D and 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D are not super expensive and work but my go to lens is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. I have two and can't recommend them enough.

Hope that this helps a little. I know I went off topic a bit but felt it needed to be said.

Thanks,
Jim Cameron

After reading every one comments that have been very helpful, I'm now leaning toward the Nikon 24-85mm non vr lenses. Its an FX lense in dx would be 36-128mm or so. I would be loosing some at the wide end but would be right where the 35mm prime lense would be anyway. 35/36mm. All the review on this lense are real good, also earlier Japan AF medal versions are available. It would go on a D300 for now and would make easy to get into a D700 later. What's your thoughts.?

geodowns Loc: Yale, Michigan

I had a 18-70 once on a D100. It did a very good job in France on 6 mp camera. I've printed 13x19 prints that are very good. 16-85 vr would be good step up. But also I'm very curious about using the 24-85mm FX lenses on a DX camera. Would around 36-128mm. Its a very highly rated lenses. Still looking..

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

I was never too happy with the 18-55 kit lens either on my 7200...also never been too happy with the 28-300 lens at the extremes and it's a much more expensive lens....I've come across this list of lenses recommended for DX Nikons....the comments are not mine - the Angry Photographer. There are many versions of the 70-300 from Nikon - the one he recommends is the ED VR G FX first version AF-S not AF-P or DX versions....it's about 300-500 used or refurbished. I've been very happy with the Tammy 90mm macro SP and 150-600 G2 even though not on his list. I will eventually get the 60mm 2.8, 70-300, 300 f/4 and a wide prime or two such as the 20 1.8 and 10.5 fisheye. I can feel the weight of the glass

nikkor 16mm f/2.8 D
Beats the hell out of every other fisheye.

nikkor 105mm f/2 D-C
King of portraits lens. Produces the best bokeh. This is the best lens that Nikon makes.

tamron 15-30mm f/2.8
The nikon 14-24 its an exelent lens but this lens beats it, its sharper and have better corner to corner. Who would think Tamron would come out with a better version that nikon?

nikkor 300mm f/4 AF-S
It has better color saturation, better rendition, makes better images than the 300mm frasnel lens. It´s not as fast but it´s more than fast enough for anything you want to do. For 600 dollars this is the best value. No one has ever complain about it for birds in flight or any action work.

nikkor 85mm f/1.8 G
The sharpest, best purchase 85mm. However the best 85mm is the Zeiss planar 85mm f/1.4

Zeiss planar 85mm f/1.4
This lens is still made, silk sex and sugar. I got two of these for a reason. Usually you can grave them for like 850 dollares used.

nikon 35mm f/2 D
This lens is 200 dollars all day long, produces the most amazing, beatifull saturation, best rendition images you have ever seen. Usually you can get them for 180 dollars on ebay. Anyone that has this lens and is less than extremely happy about the output, its just a falt out idiot. Either that or they got aa broken copy of it. This is still made for a reason, this lens is absolutelly pure silk sex and sugar. Its incredible, the cats ass. Its a screwdrive. Is this the actual ultimate 35mm? No, the utimate is the Zeiss distagon f/2. They dont make that lens anymore, you can grave them used for like 8 or 9 hundred dollars. The melvis its not replacement for it, they decided to change it "upgrade it" and they killed that lens.

Tokina 100mm f/2.8
I love dual purpose lens, great portrait lens, great macro lens.

nikkor 20mm f/1.8 G
Absolutely the best ultra wide angle lens you can buy, regardless of price. Zeiss absolutely sucks ass when it comes to ultra wide lenses. I dont care how much money you spend, you are not gonna finer lens for astro or landscape use. It just kick you in the ass, its that great.

nikkor 24mm f/1.8 G
This is not only a perfect street lens, wide angle, this is also the perfect normal lens to use on DX crop sensor, 38mm, whatever to use on the crop sensor. Actually this is the lens i like to keep on my D500.

nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 G
You dont want the current version, you dont want the VR version, it has more elements and its bigger. They took a prefectly fine lens and made it worse. Dumbasses.

nikkor 180mm f/2.8
You can find them all day long. I got 6 of these for a reason. Do i need 6 of these? Absolutely not. Finest prime lens imaginable.

nikkor 60mm f/2.8 D
Quad-purpose lens. Its a macro lens, its a normal, its a portrait lens on DX. Its sharp as crap, it is just razor sharp. lens Its a The best lens for a full frame. The most usefull damn lens. Not the G series, the D series, doesnt matter if its a pre D or a regular D. One lens to keep on the camara that never leaves the camera. If you dont own this lends you are an idiot.

nikkor 70-300mm f/(missing) VR-G
Fast as snot. Pretty damn cheap, not cheaply made, cheap. The problem is sometimes people buy the wrong lens, ONLY GET THE VR-G VERSION. No one that has this lens complains.

tamron 70-200 f/2.8 V-C
All nikons 70-200 f/2.8 SUCK. Even if money its not concern this is the recomendation, even if money its no object this is the recomendation.

nikkor 200-500mm f/(missing) VR
Here is the behimot. This is the only lens i made a misktake on, i just thought "another super zoom nikon lens". Now i have two of these. What is so amazing of these lens? The VR alone its just pornographic. Its just pornographic the level of VR, i think its like 5 stops of VR. I took a picture at 500mm, handheld, very lowlight, indoors, at 1/13 of a second, tack ass sharp, this lens is the tits. I enmediatly bought a second one. But is it worth the money? Yes, its that damn good. It is that damn good.

DX Lenses
80-200mm 2.8D ED - Just don't use it for portraits because of Iron face
18-200mm DX - One lens that covers a large spectrum
12-24 DX - Good Wide Zoom
135mm 3.5 OR 2.8 - Great glass and good for portraits
60mm 2.8 - Bee's Knees, Macro/portrait/general you're an idiot if you don't have this.
35mm 1.8 DX - Chinese BUT still fantastic and CHEAP. Everyone must own one of these.
The following are optional:
70-300 ED VR - Cheap, Silent AF, has VR, Sharp!!
10.5 Fisheye DX - fun fun fun and works fine on FX in APC-S mode
24-85 FX VR ED - underrated, Cheap, Tack Sharp

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

The "Angry Photographer"'s spelling is almost as competent as his lens reviews. Just saying.

Andy

For our DX 7100s, my wife and I have:

Sigma 8 mm fisheye. Just for fun.

Sigma 10-20mm , an excellent WA zoom.

Sigma 18-300mm, my wife's favorite, and the best of this range for an "all in one"

Nikon 35mm F/1.7 - "normal" lens.

Nikon 50mm macro - a good length for DX and uber sharp.

Nikon 18-70mm, my walkaround all purpose lens.

Nikon 70-300mm with VR, my longest telephoto.


Obviously, your needs may differ, but this is a great all around outfit for us.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Actually the spelling isn't his, one of his followers "transcribed" his spoken comments in the comments section. But the vernacular is certainly his

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

[quote=jerryc41]I wouldn't rule out Tokina.



"I wouldn't rule out Tokina." neither would I. :-)

geodowns Loc: Yale, Michigan

Looks like for now I'm going for a Japan made 24-85mm AF-s "NO VR", its the one before vr, plastic. I'm using it on DX D300 , later to upgrade to a D700. What's your thoughts on VR on this lens.

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Lack of VR not too critical on that range of focal length if you're working 1/60-1/125++ or using tripods. Sometimes VR does more harm than good, even on longer telephoto lenses, but it's nice to have in many cases. I look at many of the AF-D lenses as better made so I usually don't weigh lack of VR too highly.