Nikon Lens Recommendation (Page 2): Thanks...

kcooke Loc: Alabama

smussler wrote:

I also have the 70-300 which I don't use much since getting a 100-400. Bought my camera with the 70-300 and an 18-140 - both VR versions. The 18-140 is on my camera most of the time. It was a good choice for me combined with the 70-300. I like having the overlap the focal lengths, others like their trinities, which usually involve faster lens (and quite a bit more expensive)

Thanks

kcooke Loc: Alabama

CO wrote:

Yes, that's the one.

Thanks

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

CO wrote:

That's what I said in my post. It is overpriced. I had actually purchased one and was disappointed. It seems like it's a lens that should cost in the $500 to $600 range. I ended up returning it and purchasing another 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. The older lens has better build quality and a better focusing motor. Don't hesitate to purchase the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. It's worth the money

I was trying to agree with your post. Just didn't write very well.

CO

kcooke wrote:

Thanks Paul. When I showed her these ranges she said How do they do that? I just tell her its modern technology:)

The engineers have to compromise more in the design of superzoom lenses in order to achieve the wide zoom range. They usually have more distortion and more chromatic aberration. If you look at the zoom lenses that pro photographers have used, they are usually 2X or 3X zoom lenses. Those have been lenses such as 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.

kcooke Loc: Alabama

CO wrote:

The engineers have to compromise more in the design of superzoom lenses in order to achieve the wide zoom range. They usually have more distortion and more chromatic aberration. If you look at the zoom lenses that pro photographers have used, they are usually 2X or 3X zoom lenses. Those have been lenses such as 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, and 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.

Yes indeed or sometimes prime lenses. I have a 24-70 f2.8 kind of camped out on my 6D MKII.

CO

kcooke wrote:

Yes indeed or sometimes prime lenses. I have a 24-70 f2.8 kind of camped out on my 6D MKII.

Yes. Like you say, prime lenses are also great. I have a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 that's on my D750 all the time.

smussler Loc: Land O Lakes, FL - Formerly Miller Place, NY

Just another thought, your D3xxx camera like my d5xxx doesn't have a focusing motor, so for auto-focus to work, you need a lens with a focusing motor built-in. Refer to Nikon's site for compatible lenses. For one, AF-S Nikkors do.

kcooke Loc: Alabama

smussler wrote:

Just another thought, your D3xxx camera like my d5xxx doesn't have a focusing motor, so for auto-focus to work, you need a lens with a focusing motor built-in. Refer to Nikon's site for compatible lenses. For one, AF-S Nikkors do.

👍

GPS Phil Loc: Dayton Ohio

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.

DanielJDLM

I bought a refurbished 16-80mm and have been very pleased with it. (Refurbishment brings the lens to better than new) It remains on the camera almost all the time. If I need to use the 10-20, 70-300, 35, 18-55 or 18-300, they go onto my backup camera.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

kcooke wrote:

MPB has that lens for $389 in excellent condition. Thats a good thought. It's the same thing she has now range wise except way better. When I ran some of the superzoom ranges by her she said well what about my 70-300. :)
MPB has a liberal return policy Ive done business with them several times.

I used to own a 24-120 F/4 and it almost never came off my D750. MPB is great to deal with, offers a 6 month warranty and rates conservatively. I would highly recommend this lens.

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

...I would seriously consider the AF-S 18-200mm DX VR-ll...it’s ability to focus at 8 inches for 200mm can be a game changer...it’s sharp and light and right now is on sale at Nikon for $589.95...!

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

There is a super lens that Nikon makes the 18-300.. You can read about it or any other Nikon lens at the following:
www.kenrockwell.com or https://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/thoms-recommended-nikon.html (Thom Hogan)

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

kcooke wrote:

My wife shoots a Nikon D3500. Before that a D3100... (show quote)

The same coverage would be the Nikon 16-80 lens.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1166860-GREY/nikon_af_s_dx_nikkor_16_80mm.html?sts=pi&pim=Y

However, this lens was used as a premium when you bought the D500, it came in at 50% off list.
SO, below is an example of what you can get from Ebay, here is one at 50% off for brand new, you can search Ebay for similar deals. I own this lens and shoot it off a DX body, it is very sharp and much lighter than the FX 24-120 f4 lens.https://www.ebay.com/itm/392572752486?epid=10030521002&hash=item5b6728d266:g:xkwAAOSwSK9d6ZrN:sc:ShippingMethodExpress!16134!US!-1

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

In the first place, I am not of the opinion that the Nikon 18-70 lens is a "stinker." I have been using mine for many years and it has always rendered beautifully sharp images full of details. In spite of having the 18-200 VR I still use the 18-70 very often. I love this lens.
There have been two recommendations to the OP that I like, not meaning they will be to the liking of his wife and they are the 24-85 which is a FX lens and the 18-140 which is the ideal lens for her DX camera because it will cover the whole sensor as it was designed to do.

If money is an issue there are many of these lenses available in the second hand market.