18-55mm Nikon Replacement?

[ShaneS]

I had an "oops" moment today when I dropped my 18-55mm 1:35-5.6 GI ED lens on a rock...I dusted it off and took another shot and thought all was well until I tried to rotate the zoom and found it to be stuck The autofocus appears to be in working order and I can force it to zoom past the place where it is stuck with a fair amount of force.

A quick internet search tells me that a replacement lens can be had for as little as $99 at BH photo. Given that we don't have a repair shop on island and I think that it makes sense to replace and/or upgrade the lens.

I shoot with a D7000 and have been thinking about an upgrade for a little while now so if I am trying to look on the bright side of things...I now have my chance I also have a 55-200 (same generation as the 18-55mm which were the two lenses that came with a D40X way back when) and a 50mm prime, and as a aside the 18-55 is currently stuck on 55mm...go figure?

I don't think that I want to pay for top level professional glass but would like to consider a lens that is a bit faster that the broken lens and something that has better image quality. As many of you know I like to shoot landscapes so I would also consider something wider than 18mm.

So, please give me some recommendations and your reasoning behind them. The technicalities of lenses is something that I do not have a really good understanding of so I am hoping that you folks will be able to provide some guidance for me as I make my decision.

Many thanks in advance!

[Shadowman]

Many options available:
1. Used or refurbished 18-55mm. Familiarity.
2. A prime lens, depending on what focal length you typically shoot. Fast, quality.
3. 3rd party, some designed for DSLR, others optimized for DSLR.

What would be your price limit?

[FrankMi]

Hi Shane, I am truly sorry to hear about your loss. I just sold my D3100 with it's 18-55mm VR1 lens and bought a D7100. I looked into getting a replacement 18-55mm lens and although the old non-VR version could be had for just over $100, it would take about $200 to replace the VR1 lens that I had. In the end, I got the Nikon Nikkr AFS DX 18-55mm/3.5-5.6G-VR2 (version 2 of the VR lens) refurbished for $115 where full price was $250.

It isn't as bulky as the VR1 but it seems to perform just fine. I have not done any detailed comparison testing.

Have you gotten any repair estimates? In this zoom range, a 35mm prime may work very well for you and would have a larger aperture to work with.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Shane,

A difficult one. I always found 18mm the widest FL of my now broken 18-200mm extremely useful with land/seascape work but also had the 10-20mm for the rare occasion it was needed.

I went for a 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron to cover the general landscape work FL and give me a fast mid zoom for when needed. I would not have gone for the 28mm if I had not had the additional 10-20mm.

If I could have got one quickly I think I would have gone for the FL of 18-105mm purely on the basis of landscape versatility.

So, not a recommendation of a specific lens but the route perhaps that should be investigated if you want to be shooting land/seascapes with reduced lens swap outs.

Grahame

[dje]

Hi Shane

A couple of suggestions from me :

Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VR if you want to stick with Nikon

Sigma Contemporary 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS Macro HSM if you want something a bit faster

Both these lenses could be considered a step up from the kit lens without being excessive in price and one advantage they have is inner focus which means that the front of the lens does not rotate with focus (allowing easy use of square filter holders and GND filters). I used the predecessor to the Sigma Contempoary 17-70 on my crop Canon for several years before selling up and changing to FF Nikon. I was very happy with the Sigma and was sorry to sell it actually.

Dave

[ShaneS]

Thank you for your suggestions and thoughts. The budget discussion with the hubby was kind of humorous as I made a point of reminding him about the new golf bag and driver he recently purchased after I sheepishly told him about my little mishap and before we talked. I also reminded him, ever so gently, that over time his green fees do add up and most of my outings are free

I have searched around a bit and is seems like Frank was right that the cost to replace what the rock broke would be in the range of $100-250. (Frank I don't think a repair makes sense as it is my understanding that I would have to ship it off island which with shipping and repair costs would likely get me to $100 easily)

I don't want to go the prime lens route as I will have to deal with gaps in the focal range that I have in the bag and I don't think I can always rely on zooming with my feet...

The next step up seems to one of the two lenses that Dave suggested which seem to run $499 (sigma), $569 (Nikon) and $396 for the 18-105 that Grahame suggested (all at B&H). The reviews are for all the upgraded lenses are 4+ stars so can anyone help me understand the pros and cos of each lens technically and/or throw some other options my way?

Nikon (16-85) two different prices for what appear to be the same lens???:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compar...SA_545654-GREY

Nikon (18-105):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._6G_ED_VR.html

Sigma:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._DC_Macro.html

An the slightly improved replacement at $250 here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._5_6g_vr2.html

I have many weak spots in my photography but the technicalities of lenses is not a spot it's a gaping hole! I understand the concept of a faster lens (the Sigma in this case I think), focal length, and better auto focus but when it comes to other aspects of performance you might as well be talking rocket science to me

Any and all assistance would be greatly appreciated as the differences between the $250 and $569 lens (tipping over top of my approved budget) is a bit lost on me to be completely honest. Links to resources would be welcome as well as your comments or suggestions.

I'm willing to spend the money but want to understand what I am getting before I do so...

[dje]

Shane one thing I should correct about my earlier post - I gave the impression that the front of the kit lens rotates with focus but apparently this is not the case.

One lens review site I suggest you have a look at is Lens Tips. It goes into technical detail to some extent but I feel it has a reasonably "down to earth" approach. See what you think.

Performance-wise, the difference between the latest kit lens and the others may not be that great. The extra reach of these two lenses (70mm or 85mm) may be of use and save you changing lenses a bit. The extra speed of the Sigma might be it's biggest plus, especially for your street photography.

Dave

[george013]

Shane,
When I was looking for a new lens I found this site quite helpful. They have a simple list of Nikon and non-Nikon lenses. So you can see what's available. I think it covers the most. http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests.
Analyze your photo's on what focus you used most. There is some software available on the net. You might be surprised how much a certain focus-range is used. That might give you an idea on what you are doing, without knowing that.
Reparation of this lens is throwing money away. But if you buy another lens, you might give it away to somebody who is interested in the mechanics. Maybe he can make something out of it. If the photo's are still ok, then probably it's only mechanical.
George

[ajohnw]

I replaced mine with the 18-105mm as I wasn't all that happy with the 18-55mm which came as part of a kit with the 55-300mm. To be honest I find the 18-105mm to generally be a better lens. It's also not a bad body cap either as it covers a useful focal length range. Actually I feel Nikon could do better on a 3:1 zoom range lens like the 18-55mm. A lot better.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Shane might find this site better than the .de one which I must admit I use a lot.

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...sample_images/

The conclusions are pretty accurate in my view and it's possible to look at the corners of un retouched images to get some idea how well the lens performs.. The 18-55mm is here

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...sample_images/

Look at the lower left corners of the berry shot. This I feel lets it down badly at all focal lengths. I feel that the 18-105m is a touch better and offers a more generally useful focal length range as well. Where you would see softening on the 105mm is if say there was a flower bed in the corner. There is one shot in the 105mm review that shows how mild this is via leaves. At 105mm it tends to soften all over but still isn't too bad.

John
-

[JR1]

sigma 10-20mm

[FrankMi]

I'm willing to spend the money but want to understand what I am getting before I do so...

I sometimes feel that buying a lens is a bit like buying a car. The decision process runs the same gambit of preferences for certain makes and models, to the practical analysis of usage, to the advise of others (whose personal reasons for liking one over another may or may not match your needs), to what you are emotionally attracted to, to what may be on sale while you are in the market.

No lens will be perfect for every use and all lenses will take decent images.

Ignoring cost for the moment, I would look first at what will be your most common usage, taking into account what focal length(s) the majority of your current images were shot at, decide if this is likely to change moving forward, look at the type of photography you prefer (landscapes, portraiture, night scenes, close-ups) as each has certain lens attributes that you would prioritize, or perhaps just a bit of everything in which case this is not a determining factor.

Consider your camera usage and current stable of lenses. Are you trying to fit a 'gap' between an existing wide-angle and telephoto lens? Does if matter if there are gaps in your range? For example, I have 11-16, 18-55, and 55-300mm lenses with almost no gap in focal length coverage. However, that also means more lens swaps in the field. Perhaps a greater overlap would avoid frequently swapping lenses and may have avoided the risk of dropping a lens? Similar to the type of photography you prefer, if most of your photography is done in a particular lens focal length then you may prefer to optimize for that range regardless of what other lenses you have.

Next look at the ergonomics involved. Is lens weight, feel, construction, usage, features (VR, autofocus motor, etc.) or brand a consideration?

At this point you should have a good feeling for what will work best for you and can start shopping for lenses that meet your needs and budget. Don't forget to consider factory refurbished units at significant savings.

One last thought. A month or so after you bought your lens, and particularly if budget is a strong decision factor, the cost will be history but any shortcomings will remind you with every usage that it might have been better to have invested just a bit more and got something that will make you happy. That's when you (if you chose wisely) smile and silently say to yourself 'but it was well worth the little bit extra'. Hope this helps!

[NorthernFocus]

I won't further confuse you with advice on which lens. All I will add it to recommend NOT paying to fix the existing lens. For that price range you're better off just buying a new one. No questions about lingering problems that way. Good luck on your decision.

[ajohnw]

It looks to me that the main gain on the 16-85mm Shane is the 16mm aspect. Costs a lot more and the question is do you need it?

My feeling at that end is that a dedicated wide angle zoom is a better answer at some point - say when your husband buys his next lot of golf clubs. Maybe something like a Sigma 8-16mm but I'm not sure how many golf clubs that would take. There isn't too much need to worry about image stability at this end really which should help on cost. Good wide angle zooms never have much of a focal length range so personally for a general purpose lens I feel it's better to keep the short end as long as you can which in this case is 18mm really. I have shot FF 24mm to what ever on a crop camera. It's fine for many things in practice but there will be times when it's too long.

For a wide angle zoom there is also the Sigma 10-20mm Jeremy mentioned but I feel that this on it's own would be very limited.

Good luck with persuading hubby to spend more on golf.

John
-

[Polar01]

This is just a thought, I do like the idea of the Sigma 10-20mm as I do have it using it on my D7000, until the camera was stolen. Here is a nice little lens the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D, it was made from 1991-1999, it is small and compact, so compact that at 28mm I can use the pop up flash and there is not shadow cased because the lens is not too large like my 16-35mm f/4 lens. You would pick one up at a pawn shop for likely under $100.00, very good build quality and very good optics, I use it all the time on my D600.

Cheers: Allan

[george013]

This is just a thought, I do like the idea of the Sigma 10-20mm as I do have it using it on my D7000, until the camera was stolen. Here is a nice little lens the 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D, it was made from 1991-1999, it is small and compact, so compact that at 28mm I can use the pop up flash and there is not shadow cased because the lens is not too large like my 16-35mm f/4 lens. You would pick one up at a pawn shop for likely under $100.00, very good build quality and very good optics, I use it all the time on my D600.

Cheers: Allan

To my info the D40 doesn't have an internal focusmotor. So it will only work with AF-S lenses.

I just bought an old 28-70 AF-S D 2.8, but that is a heavy one.

George

[Manfred M]

To my info the D40 doesn't have an internal focusmotor. So it will only work with AF-S lenses.

I just bought an old 28-70 AF-S D 2.8, but that is a heavy one.

George

But Shane is shooting the D7000, which does, so it would work for her.

[Polar01]

George did not notice the backup, D40 only that Shane shot with a D7000, that is a problem do you base lens purchases on being able to use lens on an older backup camera (D40) or for use on you main system. I would say based on main camera not the backup, because when you upgrade what was the main will become the backup. That is unless you drop the main, but then again you are going to replace with either the same or upgrade.

Cheers: Allan

[george013]

George did not notice the backup, D40 only that Shane shot with a D7000, that is a problem do you base lens purchases on being able to use lens on an older backup camera (D40) or for use on you main system. I would say based on main camera not the backup, because when you upgrade what was the main will become the backup. That is unless you drop the main, but then again you are going to replace with either the same or upgrade.

Cheers: Allan

My fault. The D7000 was out of my mind.
George

[inkista]

...I don't think that I want to pay for top level professional glass but would like to consider a lens that is a bit faster that the broken lens and something that has better image quality. As many of you know I like to shoot landscapes so I would also consider something wider than 18mm.

I think you basically have two choices. To "upgrade" to a nicer walkaround zoom, or to replace the 18-55 with another one and add an ultrawide. As a Canon shooter, I'll be interpolating, and I may be getting some things wrong here, but moving to the 16-85 probably means in increase in image quality and zoom range, and a little bit in width (and the "little" bit that 24 vs. 28 film equivalence means can be very nice for landscapes) but not in speed. Expensive, but you will at least know you've got an OEM lens, and it's not in the stratosphere with the pro-quality lens prices. Keep in mind it's DX, and if you want to move to FX then maybe it's best to save up and blow the big bucks on an FX ultrawide lens (e.g., 16-35), that can also be used as a DX walkaround. But, obviously, this costs a bomb and has a smaller zoom range.

If cost were no object and you're sticking with DX for a while, possibly the ideal lens would be Nikon's 17-55/2.8. But there are some 3rd party lower-cost alternatives, like the Tamron 17-50/2.8, and the Sigma 17-50/2.8. However, I'd keep in mind that for landscape shooting, if that's where your interest is really centered, rarely needs f/2.8.

On the ultrawide front, the OEM and 3rd party 10-20 lenses are worth a first look, but you may also want to consider the Tokina 11-16/2.8 if you plan on doing a lot of environmental portrait or interior architecture shots with it. There's also the all-manual (no autofocus, no aperture control from the body) Samyang/Rokinon/etc. etc. 10mm f/2.8.