Next lens selection

playtothebeat

Hello forum, hoping to get some input from the experts here.
I'm a casual photographer, mainly taking pictures of my toddler kid running around and some landscape shots. Currently have a D5100, which at some point will be replaced either with a D7xxx series or possibly an FX camera like the 750. My go to lens right now is the 50mm 1.8 which has served me quite well.

I'm looking for another lens, and am thinking that the Nikon 24-120 f/4 would be a good choice for me. On the DX body, it should give me a longer reach that might be beneficial once the kid starts playing sports and such. The cost is a tad more than I want to spend at this point, so I'm thinking of buying refurbished.

So, a couple of questions.
I've read a lot about the 24-120 lens, and I think I'm comfortable with it in terms of its quality. Do you feel it will do well on a 5100, for the purposes I described? Are there any other lenses in the general price range that I should explore?
If I buy refurb, I've noticed that prices vary slightly between various retailers. Nikonusa.com is ~$900, BPHotos is closer to $820, and Cameta camera is around $750. Any specific retailer you'd recommend over another?
I've looked at gray market, which would be cheaper than refurb. I'm not sure I'm comfortable going that route, but can be convinced..

Thanks all

tcole1983

The problem with the 24-120 if you don't go FX is it isn't really wide enough. Is the only lens you have the 50 F1.8? If you were staying DX the new 16-80 F2.8-F4 is probably a really good option for you.

That being said the 24-120 would be good for FX down the road. I will highly recommend buying refurbished as almost all of my gear is refurbished and comes like new and has been great. Directly from Nikon is usually the highest priced. I am unsure about cameta although I have heard about them. I would just make sure you are getting what you think you are getting...IE a USA lens that was manufacturer refurbished.

spraynpray

Hi playtothebeat, welcome to NR.

The D5100 is a good body. I would consider the 18-300 as 120mm will not be long enough for a lot of sports.

sevencrossing

The problem with the 24-120 if you don't go FX is it isn't really wide enough. Is the only lens you have the 50 F1.8? If you were staying DX the new 16-80 F2.8-F4 is probably a really good option for you.

That being said the 24-120 would be good for FX down the road.

+1

Photobug

+1 to the comments on the 24-120 lens.

heartyfisher

If you are going to get refurbished gear I would consider the 18-140. It is a nice cheap lense(< $250?) and it is currently the best kit lense IQ wise, at least until the 16-80 arrives .. you should be able to sell the 18-140 easily and not loose too much if you ever go FX .. as you may have seen in the FX vs DX IQ test thread we recently had, there is not much difference between FX and DX at optimal settings..

BVS

+1 on the 18-140. This is a good lens for general outdoor use. It's got a useful focal range, focuses quickly, is smaller and lighter than the 24-120, decent sharpness, refurbs are cheap and plentiful, and you only have to carry one lens around. It's too 'slow' for low light/indoor use though, except maybe on the wide end, but that's what your 50 1.8 is for.

For outdoor sports you might consider the 70-200 f4. It has good image quality and snappy focusing. It's bigger and heavier than something like the 18-300 f6.3, but if you're just sitting on the sidelines or in the bleachers it shouldn't be too much of a problem. The 18-300 f6.3 is a nice compact way to get to 300mm, but I found the focusing to be slow, and it doesn't have as good image quality as the 70-200. Also, the 18-300 is pretty pricey at around $900 new. For that kind of money I'd rather get a refurb 70-200 f4 instead.

Honestly, unless you're dead set on going FX in the very near future I'd avoid the 24-120. It's pricey, relatively big and heavy, probably not long enough for sports, and its sharpness rates lower overall than the 18-140 when used on DX cameras.

Also, don't forget that you'll lose 1/3 of your range by going to FX, so 120mm FX will be like 80mm on your current camera. In fact, what you're getting from your 50mm right now is similar to 75mm FX, so 120mm FX gives you almost no range increase over what you have right now. So, you'd need even bigger and heavier lenses to make up the difference.

spraynpray

...and more expensive too. The 18-300 is an FX lens though, so could go to FX if the OP is really set on it.

BVS

Just to avoid confusion, the 18-300s are DX lenses, and the 28-300 is an FX lens.

PB_PM

The 18-300 is an FX lens though, so could go to FX if the OP is really set on it.

The 18-300mm is DX. The 28-300mm is FX.

spraynpray

*in stereo!* Thanks guys, my mistake.

playtothebeat

Thanks for the input thus far, everyone.
I don't think I've considered 18-140 since it's a kit lens, and perhaps in my mind I thought of it to be low quality (I understand 24-120 is a kit lens for d750 as well..). However the reviews on it seem to be generally positive and it's obviously much cheaper which is an added bonus.

18-300 might be more zoom than I would need to be honest. I have a 55-300 lens if j ever need that reach, although I think I've only used it once when attending an MLS game. Plus I tens to think that mega zoom lenses are too big of a compromise in quality.

BVS

If you don't need reach or want an all-in-one, I'd second the idea of waiting for some reviews on the new 16-80.

Also, don't discount having a lens that can go wide. I've gotten a lot of great shots of my son using my 12-28 and the wide end of the 18-140. Yeah, you gotta be pretty close, but it gives a more in-your-face energy to the shots. Also good for slides and tunnels and such.

Ryan_in_AZ

I have a brand new 24-120 (ended up buying two, don't ask) It's still in the box. If you are interested, message me. The other 24-120 stays on my camera 90% of the time since I got it.

KnockKnock

I'd start by recommending you don't go to FX. What you gain won't serve your primary targets much better: kids, landscapes, sports. Certainly if money is not unlimited. Also, don't be put off by the Kit term either. These days, the modern kit glass is quite good.

Considering you already have the fine 55-300mm DX, you're covered for telephoto reach and those sports shoots you're planning on. Working back, if the 50mm f/1.8 is your favorite, should I assume you also have an 18-55mm DX kit lens?

I guess I'd agree with tcole1983 and wait for the the release of the 16-80 F2.8-F4. It would be a significant upgrade over the 18-55mm, would parter the focal length from near to far well with the 55-300mm, and your 50mm f/1.8 will get you out of low light issues and give you the art-looking shallow depth-of-field. Unfortunately it's just announced and you won't see refurbs until ~ this fall.

Anyway, save the FX money. If you really start demanding faster glass, the 70-200mm f/4 would be a nice bump also.

NSXTypeR

I agree with the above statements, unless you're planning to move to FX, buying the 24-120 won't be very flexible for your purposes.

If you're really budget conscious, you can get the Nikkor 18-105 for very cheap probably, as that's out of production.

playtothebeat

There is no guarantee that I'll upgrade to FX soon, so I guess I should consider targeting the purchase more towards a DX set up.
The new 16-80 looks intriguing, but I'm not sure it will have enough reach if I want to do some photography from the sidelines.
As far as my budget, I'm willing to go up to about $1,000 (so the 16-80 is right at the edge).

For those who asked, yes I have the kit 18-55 (which I never use at this point; the 50 sits on my camera 99% of the time), as well as the 55-300. So this purchase would be my second "upgrade" so to say

Ironheart

The 18-55 is a decent lens, you should blow the dust off of it, esp. if you have the VR or VR II version. Does gather low light? No, but you can always crank the ISO. Just sayin'

spraynpray

+1 ironheart.

Before going FX, be sure to look at this thread:

http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/4330/fx-vs-dx-image-quality-comparison-yes-this-again-your-thoughts/p8

It will cost you more, make your bag heavier and lose you 1/3rd of your apparent focal length. You will gain - um, very little.

NSXTypeR

There is no guarantee that I'll upgrade to FX soon, so I guess I should consider targeting the purchase more towards a DX set up.
The new 16-80 looks intriguing, but I'm not sure it will have enough reach if I want to do some photography from the sidelines.
As far as my budget, I'm willing to go up to about $1,000 (so the 16-80 is right at the edge).

For those who asked, yes I have the kit 18-55 (which I never use at this point; the 50 sits on my camera 99% of the time), as well as the 55-300. So this purchase would be my second "upgrade" so to say

The lenses you were interested in covers the ranges of the lenses you own now. Unless you're intending on covering more overlap to avoid swapping lenses too frequently, what was the purpose of your lens purchase?

I would personally buy other lenses instead, say maybe a macro or a super wide, depending on your interests. Maybe a wide prime, say a Sigma 18-35mm 1.8.

playtothebeat

The lenses you were interested in covers the ranges of the lenses you own now. Unless you're intending on covering more overlap to avoid swapping lenses too frequently, what was the purpose of your lens purchase?

I would personally buy other lenses instead, say maybe a macro or a super wide, depending on your interests. Maybe a wide prime, say a Sigma 18-35mm 1.8.

I guess I don't feel like the 18-55 or 55-300 produce too great of a result. Maybe it's because I've become spoiled with the quality of the 50/1.8, but should give the other two a shot again..

spraynpray

It may be worth taking the exact same shot (as near the same focal length as poss on the zooms) and seeing a/ if you can tell the difference and b/ if you can nail the difference down to the quality of the lens.

KnockKnock

The new 16-80 looks intriguing, but I'm not sure it will have enough reach if I want to do some photography from the sidelines.

Putting on your 55-300 is a better solution than trying to get a standard zoom to do everything. It'll be faster at 100mm, f/4.5-4.8, than the 18-140mm DX @ f/5-5.6. So think about your sport priority and if it's the driving factor. If it is, then keep your kit lenses for focal length coverage, and look at the 70-200mm f/4 @-)

tcole1983

Yeah I will reassess my thoughts since you already have the two zooms. If you like primes you could get a couple more or the 70-200 f4 would be a really good addition for portraits/kid photos and sports.

Although if you haven't used them I would say try the zooms you already have some. Although I eventually got rid of my 18-200 I loved it. The 18-55 is actually pretty decent.

Here are some 18-200 shots which are probably pretty comparable to the zooms you have. And the shots probably lack some skills as I was just starting when I had it. I wouldn't discount them because they are "kit" lenses though.

avrflr

Terrible advice in this thread so far:
1. OP says he shoots landscapes and his toddler, everyone says "you need a 300mm superzoom with horrible iq so you can shoot sports". OP says he already has one and only used it once. Everyone agrees "you need more reach!".
2. Somebody actually said you don't gain anything for landscapes by going to fx. OMFG, I can't even.
3. Everyone agrees fx is pointless, and make sure you look at the pictures of plants in broad daylight because that proves it.
Thanks for the laughs. If the op ever buys a d750 he will soon figure out for himself what it can do.

WestEndFoto

Terrible advice in this thread so far:
1. OP says he shoots landscapes and his toddler, everyone says "you need a 300mm superzoom with horrible iq so you can shoot sports". OP says he already has one and only used it once. Everyone agrees "you need more reach!".
2. Somebody actually said you don't gain anything for landscapes by going to fx. OMFG, I can't even.
3. Everyone agrees fx is pointless, and make sure you look at the pictures of plants in broad daylight because that proves it.
Thanks for the laughs. If the op ever buys a d750 he will soon figure out for himself what it can do.

Avrflr, welcome to Nikon Rumours.

You might be over the top on a few items. The OP started out thinking 24 and wider. It is also obvious that the OP has a very limited budget which they are pushing to the max. The wider options are more expensive. Normally, the 16-35 would be a good option to bring up, but it seems out of his budget range.

I do agree that sacrificing IQ for "occasional sports" is not advice I would give. I also think that you have a point in your FX comment. That comparison was done in a situation where the difference between FX and DX would be the smallest. However, we are talking about a photographer with a limited budget here that does some fairly basic levels of photography. While FX is certainly better than DX for landscapes, as an avid FX landscape shooter myself, I will attest that a lot can be done at 36mm or longer (FX equivalent). As far as low light is concerned, an inexpensive tripod is much more economical than going to FX. The garden shot in broad daylight, while somewhat contrived and almost designed to be easy on DX, it is still a common theme of many amateur photographers.

Could have we offered better advice? Likely. Could it have been a little more organized? Likely, but this is a forum on the internet, not a formal debate. Did we say things that could be taken out of context and lead people to make poor decisions in other situations (say, FX vs DX)? Sure. However, I think that good feedback was given in this thread and the OP, assuming he is not a bumpkin and he does not seem like it, should have the ability to separate the good from the bad and can ask further questions if they so wish.