where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Dear all,
Please give your expert comments on the following setup I’m planning on buy to use with the new Nikon D300s:
- AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR;
- Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR;
- Nikon AF-S 35mm F1.8G DX.
The main use will be for trips (landscape, people, interior, night), new born baby, walk around, among others.
Also, do you think the Nikon AF-S 35mm F1.8G DX will be good to shot video with the new D300s?
Thank you so much!!!
Paulo, from Portugal.
I use the lenses you mention on my D90 with the addition of Nikon's 10-24 and a Macro (usually 105, occasionally 60, sometimes none).
I would buy them again in a heartbeat! The 16-85 is my day to day, walking around lens. I like it much better than those that only go down to 18mm, the 16mm makes a big difference for me. While the lens isn't fast, the VR works and allowed me to shoot night shots hand-held from my hotel room in Vancouver. For some trips it's all I take. If I take more it's always the 70-300 and 10-24, then the 35.
I plan to pick up the D300s as a compliment to the D90 next month.
Happy shooting!
The 35mm is one of Nikon's sharpest. For $200 (USD), you simply can't go wrong (don't pay the price gougers wait for it if you have to).
The 70-300 gives you really nice range. Its sharper at 200 than my 18-200, and if you want to go out from there, then you can.
The 16-85 is where I start to have a problem with your set-up. It's a fine lens, but I see it as more of a walk around lens for when you don't know what you are going to be shooting. If that's the kind of shooting you do, I'd go with the 18-200, but that's just me. If you are already OK with carrying around multiple lenses, I'd save your money and grab an 18-55 kit lens (the non-VR version is probably fine.. I own both and can't tell a difference other than my VR version seems to be more prone to ghosting). With the savings, you've almost got enough to grab the Tokina 11-16mm which is one of my favorite lenses. All you give up is the range between 55 & 70... you won't miss it.
If you only plan on carrying one lens at a time, then go for the 16-85. But you will miss out on a lot of fun on the ultra-wide end.
pcristao: Those are good choices for a D300s. The 70-300 as mentioned is a good lens for normal people. In fact, for most it's the best telephoto under 1000 dollars. It's sharper than both the 55-200 and the 18-200. If you need to see some examples of this lens let me know and I can post some sample links from my gallery.
Don't have any web gallaries, I've got a few shots my flickr page here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8980397@N05/
Nothing special... just test shots I uploaded for one reason or another. One gotcha about the Tokina is that it won't auto-focus on the D40. My manual focus skills are a bit... meh (its particularly hard on the D40's tiny viewfinder). This isn't a problem on Nikon's better cameras like the D90 & D300.
I get it pretty close, but if you look to closely, you can see where I went wrong.
I'd go for the 16-85 and the 35 for sure Paulo. The 70-300 is good too, but I'd get the 16-85 first. I'd also like to mention the 18-70 f3.5/4.5 Nikkor. It doesn't have VR but it's an excellent lens for the price.
Hello Willis, thank you for sharing, nice photos!
Dear Gentoo, please send the link for your photos with the Nikon 70-300.
NikoDoby, thank you for the support!
Anyone else would like to contribute please?
Thank you all!!!
I'm anxious to buy my Nikon setup and share my pics with you guys on the monthly post :)
I'm looking forward to seeing your pictures Paulo !
Well download the manual and get familiar with the D300S while we wait :^) Time flies anyway !
I have been searching for the manual but I have not found it yet... Do you know if its out?
Regarding lenses, comparing the setup Nikon 16-85 + Nikon 70-300 with only the new Nikon 18-200 what do you think would produce better results?
Thank you!
I want to say the 16-85 would give you better results but the 18-200 is a good lens. It's just not going to give you great results a the extreme ends like at 200.
This should help you if you haven't all ready read through it. The 16-85 gets a "4" and the 18-200 gets a "4-"
pcristao - Here's the gothca on your question:
The 18-200 is pretty sharp on the wide end of its focal range. It's lack of sharpness doesn't really set in until 100mm or so, and isn't noticeable until about 150mm. Even then its still really good... just a bit soft in some circumstances.
The 16-85 is pretty sharp across its entire range (from what I have read I don't own it). It's softest at 16mm and gets better from there.
If you want to shoot wide angles, the 16-85 is better, but not much better. You get about 7 degrees more (3.5 on each side). If you want to shoot in the mid range... say 85mm, both lenses are about the same. If you want to shoot something far away, the 18-200 is obviously a better choice because the 16-85 doesn't go any further than 85mm. Of course if you knew in advance that you would be taking telephoto shots, you'd be better off with the 70-300 anyway. It is sharper at 200mm then the 18-200, and it has more range still.
That gets me to my point. The reason to own either of these lenses (16-85 or the 18-200) is for the flexibility they offer. If you are only going to carry one lens... it would be one of these two. As part of a set though, I'm not sure I'd use either of them. The 18-55 is sharper across its entire range, and only costs $100 or so ($80 used... and there are lots of them). You could use the savings to grab an ultra-wide angle like the Tokina.
So to summarize, a Tokina 11-16mm + Nikon 18-55 & Nikon 70-300 lets me shoot just about anything (throw in that 35mm prime for times when sharpness matters or you need to shoot in poor light). This is sharper and more versatile as a whole then the 16-85 + the 70-300. It's also better than the 18-200 + the 70-300.
If you like being prepared for the unexpected, then you may not want to be fumbleing around with four different lenses. In that case, one of these zooms will suit you well. The 16-85 is sharper, and the 18-200 is more versatile... pick your poison.
Still confused? Check out these two guys for differing opinions and decide for yourself:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm-vs-18-200mm.htm
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm
pcristao - almost always two lens combination is going to give You better results than a single lens. as for 70-300 vr (as I presume You are writing about this lens, as the 300g non-vr is a black/cheap crap) is great up to 200 - comparable to over $1k lenses, unfortunately once You go above 200mm the IQ drops significantly, but still it's better than one could expect from such inexpensive lens
No !!! Not KR again !!!! :^)
Haha! Return of "the fool".
I wanted to put two contrasting opinions on which lens is better. As it turns out, I side with Ken on this one. Optical Sharpness is important, but it doesn't really matter unti you nail focus, exposure, white balance, and shutter speed. Even if you get all that right, you still have to shoot it on a body that can resolve the extra sharpness. D300 probably can. On my d40 you will have to look very closly to see any difference. Flexibility trumps sharpness for most of my shooting (walk around and shoot whatever speaks to me. My girlfriend shoots professionally with two bodies, and high end cameras. She usually knows what sue will be doing before the shoot and picks her lenses accordingly. Sharpness matters for her. I only care abot my ability to compose. I want expensive zooms for their speed, she wants them for the optics.
So your girlfriend is a pro? And her name is Sue or she calls her camera Sue? Get her to post in here Willis. You get three months of HBO and Showtime for free when you refer a friend to NR fourms. Besides I'd value her opinions more than I would yours, well that is unless she shoots canon :^)
(but seriously it would be good to hear her thoughts as a pro)
The only one I have is the 70-300 f4.5-5.6VR. I use it extensively on my D700 and D60. I highly recommend it, if you get the latest version. I don't own it, but I've heard the 18-200 is a great lens for DX.
Willis I'm like your girlfriend,I get lenses for the optical quality.
As for the 70-300VR, the newest version as mentioned is a great lens and is on par with 1000 dollar lenses up to 200mm. For people shoots it's good almost all around. I got these shots with it on a D40:
http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/112981708 (at 70mm)
http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/112981683 (at 180mm)
and these with it on my D300:
http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/114755577 (at 122mm)
http://www.pbase.com/shonn/image/112885212 (at 300mm)
So for the average person, this lens is almost as good as it gets. If you shoot wildlife, you will see it's limitations more which is why I I rarely use this lens today. However if this isn't an issue for you, you will be satisfied with it for sure.
You must log in to post.
