Morning everyone. New to the forum and pretty new to photography. Last year i purchased a Nikon 5100 as a father's day gift to myself. I have the following "stock" lenses

-18–55mm VR
-Nikon 55–200mm Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens: f/4–5.6


I'm going camping in a couple of weeks and wanted to grab an new lense. I tend to gear towards taking pics of landscape/wildlife. I have been looking at

Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S Zoom Lens

I'm looking for the best all around lense. I have about $600 to spend. Any insight would be appreciated.

-Eric-

Lake Cachuma 2011

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Eric,
My dad has the 16-85, and uses it on his D300. He gets great results with it. It is his favorite lens.

James

Eric, welcome to Nikonians!

The 16-85 is only going to gain you 2mm on the short end over what you already have. For wildlife you might want to look at something that goes out to 300mm.

At least that's my thinking.

Mike in Alaska

Visit Fortymile Photo

The 16-85 will do very nearly nothing that your existing lenses don't already do. It's slightly wider - that's it. Otherwise, it's a bit longer than the 18-55 but you have that covered with the 55-200. It's noticeably larger than the 18-55, although certainly not enormous. It's built better - but I didn't see you complaining about having to use it in a tough environment.

> best all around lens

That would probably be the 18-300 VR, but that's way outside of your budget ($1000). Less extreme would be the 18-200VR, but not only is that still $800, it also doesn't get you much capability that you don't already have.

Other possibilities might be the 55-300VR at around $400, at least it gives you something longer than your 55-200VR. Built better is the 70-300 AFS VR, at around $600, but both of those have a large overlap with your 55-200VR, which carries very little resale value ($120?).

----

Your budget is a constraint, but more of an issue is that your goals are not well defined. Or at least they're not very apparent to me.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

You basically have 18-200mm covered..I like Brian's suggestion of the 70-300mm, or get the 55-300 and grab a prime lens as well? Like the 50mm 1.8g, or the 35mm 1.8? Then I would suggest to sell the 55-200mm if you decide on the 55-300.

I'm saving up for that 85mm 1.4 lens...thing looks awesome..but Xmas is so far away! Choices choices...lol

My Gallery:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/73141335@N06/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ive started down this road as well. Only I set my criteria as FX, Internal focus, as good as what i have now or better. I want internal focusing becasue I would like a rain cover, nothing I have found fits and nothing I have seen works with a lens that moves on the outside while it focuses. FX becasue i woulod like a lens compatible with an FX body if I ever go that route. The lenses we have dont resell for much but were not real expensive to start with so I plan on keeping them for the D3200 if as my second body when I get another body. Anyway hope that helps somehwow. I'm saving of the 16-35mm f/4 AF-S G ED VR becasue ti si internal foucusing has the N coating and should do as well or better then my 18-55 I think. Also looked at the 17-35f/2.8 IF-ED no vr though but it is a bit faster. I like landscapes also and sky shots. but they are expensive the 16 just over 1k. i'm saving. I gues i am just interjecting some thoughts becasue it seems like what you have is going to do everything that what you want to replace it would do. So what are your goals in a lens change?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> I want internal focusing becasue I would like a rain cover, nothing I have found fits and nothing I have seen works with a lens that moves on the outside while it focuses.

Your criteria would exclude, for example, both the 24-70/f2.8 AFS and the 105/f2.8 AFD Micro-Nikkor, since both have parts that face the outside that move when focusing or zooming. However, I claim that your criteria are over-specified. I use a rain cover on both of these lenses without any trouble at all. They both have essentially invariant lens hoods, and that is the item to which a raincover like the ThinkTank Hydrophobia attaches. There's absolutely no issue with that at all. The 105 AFD, for example, has a lens hood that does not move at all; when the lens focuses - by extension - it moves within the lens hood. And I'm picking a bit of a nit on the 24-70 as it changes length during zooming, but only by about a quarter of an inch. There are other lenses like this too, although I am blanking on the specifics of another at the moment.

You're on the right track; it is appropriate to want a lens that works with a rain cover. But use THAT as your criteria, not a proxy. You wouldn't want something like, say, the 35-70/f2.8 AFD that causes its lens hood to rotate when it focuses. That particular lens also changes length when it zooms; that would not be a problem with a rain cover, since such covers are made to work with lenses of fairly widely varying length such as the 50/f1.4 AFS and 70-200/f2.8 AFS.

On the other hand your criteria do NOT exclude something like the Sigma 50-500 HSM EX, which does have internal focusing. However, it changes length by nearly 5" as it zooms, and at least to a first approximation, that doesn't work well with a Hydrophobia, at least a small one. (As I write this it occurs to me that it might be OK with the larger Hydrophobia 300-600, although it would probably be swimming in it.)

> So what are your goals in a lens change?

Bingo. That's the real question for the OP.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Hmm, I ruled out the hydrophobia because I emailed them and the said it wouldn't work with the setup I have. Apparently I need to give it another look. I also didn't realize that some lenses focus inside the le ns hood! Great info thanks!
Later Bertotti

Sorry didn't mean it hijack this thread!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

There might be some issue with the ThinkTank Hydrophobia and the eyepiece - they only have two types of eyepieces, and it is possible (but I don't know) that they don't fit a D3200. But that's the ONLY reason why it wouldn't work. And even if it doesn't for that reason, it doesn't have anything to do with the lens characteristics. If the TT does not work out, try AquaTech, although they may have the same issue as they too use eyepieces. (My cameras all have the standard round threaded eyepiece used on Nikon pro cameras since the F5/F100 in the mid-90s.)

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

I just checked ThinkTank and Nikon web sites, and TT uses an eyepiece called the EP-N, which is notes fits the D7000, D5100 and some other models. On the Nikon web site, both the D5100 and D3200 accept the same eyepiece accessories such as the DK-5 and DK-20, so I'm pretty sure that the Hydrophobia with EP-N works with a D3200. They couldn't have been complaining about your lens as you're changing lenses...

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

This is the last reply but I am going to try it anyway. I'll wait a couple months but I will try it then.

"Hi John,

I'm sorry to say the Hydrophobia will be too large for the 55-200 and the
18-55 especially.  At this point we don't have a solution for shorter
lenses, in part because the rain cover relies upon a non-rotating lens
hood to attach to and protect the front element.  Though the 55-200 goes
to a 200mm focal length, it functions quite differently than an internally
focusing 70-200 2.8 and therefore will not work with the Hydrophobia.  If
I can be of any further assistance please let me know."


Thanks for helping me out! I appreciate it! Later Bertotti


As to the original post I thin I would consider the 10-24 for landscape stuff. Might be interesting or the 10.5 fisheye, those roots on the tree above would have been bizarre!

Later Bertotti

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks for some insight guys. I think that the ultimate goal is to start diversifying my lenses. I'm just not sure what hte next step is.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

> I think that the ultimate goal is to start diversifying my lenses.

The 16-85, and 18-200 don't accomplish that goal. They basically do not do anything that your current gear does not do already.

> I'm just not sure what hte next step is.

Here's my completely honest opinion. Don't get another lens. Go shoot with your current lenses. Carry a note pad, and mark down every time your current lenses can't get the shot that you want to make, and why. Do you need to focus more closely to frame it properly, say from that insect or flower? Are you too far away for that bird to be recognizable as anything other than a pretty yellow dot in middle of the frame? (I hope it isn't that one, that nearly always runs into the shocking amounts of money!) Do you need to exaggerate perspective more? After a while it will be obvious what problem you need to solve, and we can help solve THAT problem or THOSE problems.

Unsolicited advice: don't buy ANYTHING unless you've actually missed a shot because you didn't have it. Yeah, you'll miss a (or more likely, some) shots, but unless you're a professional, that probably doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things. Once that happens, ask yourself if that circumstance is going to happen often enough to warrant an investment of hundreds or very possibly thousands of dollars. There are thousands of products and even hundreds of lenses available, and it is way, way, WAY too easy to buy stuff that doesn't have a clear and actionable purpose. For those of us with incomes not in the seven digits, that's a problem. A pro may have to speculate in order to be sure that the missed opportunity doesn't mean missing meals for his/her kids, but they also have the advantage of a LOT more experience.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Of course we finally started to get rain last night! Doh, the clouds were very cool with a crazy luminance around the edges! I will be ready next time?

E1v1artin, BLW posted this in a thread of mine not to long ago, sadly it seems very true!
"Also keep in mind that Fast Glass is very addicting." I drool over lenses every day! But these people here help maintain some willpower and common sense! Thanks everyone!
Later Bertotti



Also, mods, on my display when trying to touch the forums button at the bottom I may have hit the alert button, I know I wound up on the home page somehow, and obviously there is nothing in this thread that needs alerted, sorry!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I agree very much with Brian's post above.

I took a look at your profile and notice that you didn't have much posted as far as equipment, so my assumption is that you have the camera and the two zooms.

I would recommend that you use your equipment and get familiar with technique. If you are looking for something to buy, I would look at 1) a good quality tripod and head; 2) an accessory speedlight (SB700 or SB910); 3) wider angle lens (10/12-24mm f/4); 4) a "fast" normal lens - though with the improvement in low light sensitivity this may not be as important.

(I remember camping at Lake Cachuma and Lake Casitas when I was kid oh, so long ago. Great times.)


Anthony

The Moderator Page and My Gallery
The important things in life are simple; the simple things are hard.

John- yes that's true of lenses with rotating front elements. Very short lenses are also problematic as the covers tend to be designed to secure to the lens hood, and the smallest lenses have very tiny lens hoods. Both the 10-24 and the 10.5 fall into that category. Your camera, though, should be fine rain cover and with a suitable lens. I will certainly admit that I haven't used my Hydrophobia or other rain covers with itsty-bitsy lenses like a fisheye or even 50/f1.8. This is one of those cases were bigger is unfortunately better. Things are fine with a lens like the 24-70/f2.8, although it's a little baggy.

Don't forget that there are other ways to attack this problem. An umbrella does a pretty nice job in most conditions. A rain cover is the just the ultimate resort. If I had to use, say, my Sigma 8/f4 circular fisheye (which has NO lens hood whatever, and can't) in the driving rain, I'd use a plastic grocery bag and rubber band it around the lens as best as possible, then use an umbrella - carefully in order to keep it out of the field of view.

The other thing to remember about rain covers is that it doesn't really rain that often. These days I have rain covers so to a degree I'm itching to go shoot even when the weather isn't optimal. I particularly don't mind the situations where usually other photographers are competing for the business. But I don't get to use them all that often! (They don't help against lightning, for example.)

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

As a beginner and amateur who upgraded a few months ago, I would really recommend the 1. Tokina 12-24 ($449 new from Adorama) and 2. the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 AF-S($199 new from Amazon)or the 50mm 1.8OG AF-S ($219 from Amazon). The Tokina is simply stunning for its value and, in my modest opinion, the best lens for the money for landascape and wide angle photography. The 35mm is also brilliant for a normal lens and I rarely take it off my D90 now. Both lenses will provide you with years of amazing shots to take and learn and will open new horizons for you. Since you have both the 18-55 and 55-200 (which I have both) then I don't think you need anything else in that range, at least not for now. I would also sell the 18-55 when I get those or keep it for the "dirty jobs"!

The 16-85 is great but it gives you the same focal range and as fast as what you already have! So why buy it? The 35mm and 50mm taught me how lens speed makes a huge difference in quality, creativity and learning potential. Your sunset picture are great but with a fast lens it will nothing close to that. I regretted not getting the primes earlier (I got the 35mm first then the 50mm). The 35mm is excellent for street, indoor and any "normal" photography and the 50mm is great for portraits and many other types of photography. Along with the Tokina you will have everything you need for many years to come (for me it's all I need!). I wish you the best of luck!

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

hey again everyone,

I ended up selling a few toys/prints and have some extra funds. What is everyone's take on this little bad boy:

--Nikon - 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF Zoom--

Pass?

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

It's a good enough lens. But few prefer it for anything any more, since it is kind of obsolete. Its VR implementation is behind the times, the optics are good but not great, and most of all the focusing speed does not make people happy. On the other hand, the VR is certainly competent if not state of the art, and while focusing speed is not in truth blindingly quick, it is not in fact as slow as people perceive. Most people pass on this one and seriously consider the Sigma 150-500/f4-6.3 HSM OS or the Sigma 50-500/f4-6.3 HSM OS. These usually end up at lower or similar price, carry up to date OS (like VR), are of similar or better IQ, and most importantly are quicker focusing due to their HSM.

But the real deal killer for you is that the Nikkor requires an in-body focusing motor, which your D5100 does not have. As such it is a manual focus only lens for you.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

^^Thanks for the input Brian. Yeah i was looking into those as well, but as you stated it was the lack of AF that steered me away. I was hoping to stick with Nikon lenses for the time being. I wanted to get a little more comfortable with my 5100 before venturing out.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Sticking with Nikon here means a 70-200/2.8 + tc20eiii at $2400 + $550, or the 300/f4 + tc14e at $1600+$450 or more expensive options. I have one of the sigmas and it works well on all of my cameras.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

decided to pick up this guy, $800 used

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS APO HSM

Visit my Nikonians gallery.