So while shooting today, my 18-55 DX lens crapped out. I know its the D50 kit lens and its after warranty, so I'm not overly surprised and its really not worth it to replace that lens and I can argue an upgrade.

But since it was my "standard" lens, I need a replacement, which I was arguing one anyways.

I went into my local camera shop and I'm now deciding between the:

- 24-130 VR

- 24-85 ED-IF (mind you I just got a 85 f/1.8),

Pros and cons of these two. I've heard both good and terrible things about both.

Thanks,

~ n

I've heard generally good things about the 24-85, and although the initial versions of the 24-120 suffered from some issues, the copies made in the past few years have all the initial bugs ironed out.

Naturally the 24-120 has the huge advantage of VR. I don't know if you're very familiar with it but its a great technology which, although it cannot counter subject motion, can help counteract camera shake when coupled with good technique.
Its main drawbacks are increased battery drain and if you don't let it stabilize a bit before shooting, the potential for a split second lag while it locks on to vibrations. It should always be deactivated on a tripod.

The 24-85 is smaller and lighter, and has the advantage of being f/4.5 at the long end. The 24-120mm is longer, of course, but is f/5.6 at the long end, which is kind of slow. As I said, VR cannot stop subject motion, so a good shutter speed is pretty important.

Is there any particular reason why you aren't considering the 18-70mm DX or the Sigma 17-70mm, 18-50mm EX, or the Tamron 17-50mm?

Is there any particular reason why you aren't considering the 18-70mm DX or the Sigma 17-70mm, 18-50mm EX, or the Tamron 17-50mm?

Well I want to stick with Nikon stuff, quality control and such.

I've heard the 24-120 isn't as sharp, which in my line of work is important and speed is a necessity too. I was considering the 24-85, but since I have an 85 1.8, the range is more important and render the 85 prime useless.

I'll look at the 17-70.

I wouldn't say you're 85 would be useless if you got the 24-85. They would be good for different things. The prime would probably be sharper, and be better for low light, or when you really need to throw the background out of focus. If it were me I would go for a little more reach and VR. Sure the lens is a little slower, but the VR can help with that. I know some one with the Tamron, and he loves it, and the 18-70 is also a nice lens in its own regard, and its wider than the 24-85. The 24-85 isn't that wide on a DSLR, so I would go with the 18-70. I'm sure other Nikon shooters will give other options. What do I know I still shoot a Minolta.

Z

So while shooting today, my 18-55 DX lens crapped out. I know its the D50 kit lens and its after warranty, so I'm not overly surprised and its really not worth it to replace that lens and I can argue an upgrade.

But since it was my "standard" lens, I need a replacement, which I was arguing one anyways.

I went into my local camera shop and I'm now deciding between the:

- 24-130 VR

- 24-85 ED-IF (mind you I just got a 85 f/1.8),

Pros and cons of these two. I've heard both good and terrible things about both.

Thanks,

~ n

I have the 24-85 ED-IF. I was very happy with it for film. When I bought my D70 I compared the 24-85 against the 18-70 and it was way behind on resolution (the 17-35 f2.8 and 28-70 f2.8 were slightly ahead of the 18-70). This lens contributed to my theory that on a DSLR if you want the best results you should either use designed-for-digital lenses or else the very best film lenses but not bottom or middle-range film lenses.

I've never had the 24-120VR. I have both the 18-70DX and the 18-200DX VR and I'm very satisfied with both.

Charles

I'd opt for the 24-120mm VR for two reasons.

One: Wider range. You'll be surprised how much you'll use that extra 35mm.

Two: VR. It is awesome!

My two cents worth.

About 15 years ago I had my 8008s with a nikkor 85 mm 1.8 and I never like the fotos that i took , one day I bought a nikkor 80-200 2.8 and I became famous for the amazing fotos , one day I compared my fotos with the 85 mm and the 80-200 , and I loose my time and money in the 85mm 1.8 , I bought later a 60 mm 2.8 macro that was very good , but the classic lens was the nikkor 105 mm 2.8 micro that I never bought it .The only zoom lens that are good are the 2.8 continuous one , like the classic nikkor 28-70mm 2.8 , and the 80-200 mm 2.8 , I never had seen classic pictures with lens like 3.5 - 5.6 or 3.5 - 4.5 , because the perspective of the image is not in the real space , is like seeing a curve , that's the reason why the image are not classic , also the color and saturation of a lens 2.8 is another thing , Also a continuous lens like the canon 24 -105 mm 4 is an extraordinary lens . Spend more in a good lens if You want great results ,
Now I comming back , I had been upsent for 5 years in the world of fotography and now wiht digital cameras that are not compare with my loved 8008 s , I will try a D80 first and I will buy in circuit city good lense , all 2.8 continuosus and tested , if I don't like it I will returned , that simple ,your eyes and your passion will decide , Nelson
Also I will made my try with that cannon lens 24-105 mm 4 IS