Posted by Rene de Heer on August 26, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I am not a wide angle lens user but is there anyone who has experience with this lens? I am looking at this lens, i know it is DX, so will see little use on the D3 but i suppose for the D300 it would be pretty good.Any alternatives?
Rene de Heer
Posted by Paul Gibbs on August 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Non which cover such a wide to long standard range. closest on DX would be 18-70 or 17-55. But neither have VR. On FF the closest would probably be the 28-105.
Posted by Rene de Heer on August 26, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Thanks Paul, i forgot about the 28-105. Do you have any experience with the 16-85? I dont care that it isn t that suitable for a D3, but for the occassional landscape picture, i am tempted byt he 16-85. Apparantly it is on par with the 17-55 2.8..so i have been told
Rene de Heer
Posted by Paul Gibbs on August 26, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Only by glowing review, a few friends have recommended the lens but i havent used it my self. I do have and use the 18-70 and 28-105 though.
There's the 14-24 Rene. One of the first lenses I bought when I changed to Nikon and absolutely superb. Filters are a pain but possible
EDIT: Misread the lens you were talking about and realise you are looking for a wide to mid ranger.
I have heard that Nikon are going to be producing a new version of the 18-200 which would be nice
Barrie
Posted by Ian Andrews on August 27, 2008 at 2:31 AM
There is also the new (announced today) 18-105mm DX VR which has been launched along with the Nikon D90!
Ian
Posted by Paul Inglis on August 27, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Hi Rene,
I use a 28-70mm which is great the newer 24-70mm would be a corker. Not tried the lens you've mentioned though.
EDIT: For wides I love the 12-24mm which is a DX but the newer 14-24mm works well on the D3.
Posted by Mike Smith on August 29, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Rene
have you perused Ken Rockwells web site, he reviewed the lens here.
Recently Ken has suffered from detractors on some of his comparison essays, but he still is consistantly one of the more prolific and respected independant Nikon lens reviewers.
The Nikon 14-42 is now starting to reach a cult status as highly rated in the 'alternative lens' users market, still not as good as the infamous Zeiss 21mm F2.8, there again few lenses can match that lens's performance... or it's price. But the 14-42 may be too specialist for you
Discussion
7 repliesRene de Heer
Rene de Heer
EDIT: Misread the lens you were talking about and realise you are looking for a wide to mid ranger.
I have heard that Nikon are going to be producing a new version of the 18-200 which would be nice
Barrie
Ian
I use a 28-70mm which is great the newer 24-70mm would be a corker. Not tried the lens you've mentioned though.
EDIT: For wides I love the 12-24mm which is a DX but the newer 14-24mm works well on the D3.
have you perused Ken Rockwells web site, he reviewed the lens here.
Recently Ken has suffered from detractors on some of his comparison essays, but he still is consistantly one of the more prolific and respected independant Nikon lens reviewers.
The Nikon 14-42 is now starting to reach a cult status as highly rated in the 'alternative lens' users market, still not as good as the infamous Zeiss 21mm F2.8, there again few lenses can match that lens's performance... or it's price. But the 14-42 may be too specialist for you
Mike