What's the Cheapest "Strong" NIKKOR?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

What's the Cheapest "Strong" NIKKOR?

(36 posts) (12 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Some of you may remember my classmate who got a D90.

Well, now he's come to me asking about what the cheapest weather-sealed NIKKOR that can put up with misuse. He's going camping or something, and he says it's going to be pretty rough on the camera (I think I'm a bad influence on him ;^) ).

Anyway, I wasn't quite sure of what to tell him, so instead I told him a joke till tomorrow. I promised him that the lens I was about to recommend would never fail to function even under the most extreme conditions: an old manual focus lens. Yeah, I guess I kinda recommended it for Chris's sake ;^) Anyway, he didn't really like the idea, so I'm asking you guys.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

AF-S 35mm f/1.8, trust me ... you do not need breakable mechanics where you are going

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

I don't think I'd feel comfortable banging around any piece of precision optics. I'd grab one of those shockproof \ waterproof P&S cameras if I were going to be out in the wild for a few days.

Who wants to lug a SLR around on a hiking trip anyway?

Oh that's right... you guys do. I like the 35mm 1.8 recomendation. Its small, light, and there isn't much to go wrong with it.

Definitely avoid any lens that extends as you zoom it (like the 18-200 for instance). You don't want dirt to creep in between the sections of your lens.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

mb said:
AF-S 35mm f/1.8, trust me ... you do not need breakable mechanics where you are going

Hmmm, thanks mb. It came to my mind, but I wasn't sure not having owned one.

Willis said:
Who wants to lug a SLR around on a hiking trip anyway?

Do me a favor and tell that to him. I agree with you, but I think he kind of has his mind set on bringing his D90.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

To be more specific it is very well build, better then D90 for sure and you will more likely break the D90 then this little lens.
It has almost no movable exterior so no dust will go into the lens, and the front glass is retracted so it will not be easily scratched.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Thanks mb, I'll let him know. Anything cheaper?

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

At $200, probably not. I suppose there is the old 50mm 1.8 which is about $108.

The only other cheaper lens I can think of is the 18-55. Its not all that durable, but at that price you can afford to break one.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Willis said:
At $200, probably not. I suppose there is the old 50mm 1.8 which is about $108.

I also thought about that one. Can somebody comment on the build quality? I don't own one of those either!

I don't think he'll be crazy about the 18-55. He's already had a pretty bad experience with the plastic mount on the 18-105.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

The 50mm 1.8 is solid, but unlike the 35mm it has an aperture ring which is just one more place for something to go wrong.

I'd opt for the 35mm for the focal length alone.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Other than the aperture ring what do you think about the build quality versus the 35mm?

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

The front moves on the 50, which means not only do you have an avenue for dirt/water to enter that you don't on the 35, it is also many times more susceptible to interior damage through force applied to the front of the lens. Outside that one issue the build quality is pretty comparable - but it's a big issue IMHO, it is _why_ the 35 is so tough. Worrying about the aperture ring (which will remain locked) is not needed. I never saw an aperture ring related failure back when they got used, and can't imaging what you'd do to cause an aperture ring related failure now that we leave them locked.

On the 18-55...
Any blow which breaks the plastic mount is a blow I'd be glad the plastic mount sacrificed itself for.
On the other hand, the 18-55 is a beautiful conduit for dirt/water into your camera itself.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

The 50 has about the same build quality as the 35.

Posted 3 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

Willis said:
I'd opt for the 35mm for the focal length alone.

yes.

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

So from what you've suggested, looks like 35mm is the best decision. Everything else: too many moving parts, not good enough build quality, etc.

So, my final question:

How does the 35mm compare to pro-build lenses like the 70-200mm?

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

I'd call it a draw.
It isn't built as tough, but it has much less mass, so the material strength needed to deaccelerate it safely is much less. It doesn't act as a bellows, so the internals have no reason to get dirty if you treat it right. Because of its low mass, polycarbonate (?) body, and IF design it is likely near the top of the list of "Most Likely to Survive a 2 Meter Fall To Concrete".

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

OK, that's all that I wanted to know. Thanks everybody! I'll recommend the 35mm to him then!

Posted 3 years ago #
ChrisLange

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 359
offline

35/2 Ai or 50/1.4 Ai, anything else is for pansies :E

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

ChrisLange said:
35/2 Ai or 50/1.4 Ai, anything else is for pansies :E

Jo-ho!

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

LOL how did I guess? :^)

Yeah...no. He said he can't work without AF, guess he's a pansie then :^P

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

alphanikonrex said:
Yeah...no. He said he can't work without AF, guess he's a pansie then :^P

On a D90 he won't have a meter, either.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Willis said:
...
Who wants to lug a SLR around on a hiking trip anyway?
...

I do :)
my standard trekking/traveling pack is d200 or d90, 24-70, 70-200, sigma 10-20, sb-800, grip and some additional accessories + all the wires, chargers - all in a lowepro toploader, two lens cases, one accessory bag, waist belt... did I mention 55l backpack :)

when I want to go really light, I'm leaving my sigma, flash and cables at home.

alpha - 35/1.8 sounds good, at least it's cheap so it will not hurt him too much if something will happen to it anyway.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

Willis said:

Who wants to lug a SLR around on a hiking trip anyway?

Hahaha...this makes me laugh!

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

adamz said:
I do :)
my standard trekking/traveling pack is d200 or d90, 24-70, 70-200, sigma 10-20, sb-800, grip and some additional accessories + all the wires, chargers - all in a lowepro toploader, two lens cases, one accessory bag, waist belt... did I mention 55l backpack :)

when I want to go really light, I'm leaving my sigma, flash and cables at home.

alpha - 35/1.8 sounds good, at least it's cheap so it will not hurt him too much if something will happen to it anyway.

Now that's how you pack! I walked about 4 miles a day up hills through the city and the woods when I was in the Bay Area over Christmas. Here's what I had:

D300 AND D90. 300mm2.8, 70-200mm2.8, 35mm1.8, 12-24mmF4, Spare battery, spare CF cards, Two Kenko TC's and other accessories.

The only thing I would change next time is leaving the 70-200 at home as I did not use it. Otherwise, I cannot make sense of the mentality of spending good money on gear just to have it sit at home LOL

Posted 3 years ago #
alphanikonrex

I'm under 18!
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,999
offline

Well, I guess I carry my stuff on hiking trips too. Except now I don't even bother to carry my 18-70mm, it's too slow and I suck at wide angles anyway. I just slap my 80-200mm on my D300, pocket the 50mm ƒ/1.2, and I'm all set. Great combo for what I like to do. Maybe I'll add a macro reversal ring and my SB-400. But I'm not going to be operating in temperatures 20° below 0, like he said he would be (I wished him luck with his batteries). Whatever.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

gentoo - I forgot about TC's and spare flash cards :), when I'm travelling with my kit it usually is for at least 1-2 weeks, sometimes 3, and I'm wearing this stuff all the time (except for sleeping and toilette: ) ).... I hope that this year, I'll also add 300/2.8 to my kit :)... and a bigger lens case :)

alpha - as for batteries in cold temperatures, if You are not using the camera, take them out, and put into internal pocket.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

What's the Cheapest "Strong" NIKKOR?

Reply »