Need advice on lens purchase

[JohnCoates]

I wish to purchase a travel lens. By that I mean a wide angle, compact, late afternoon (low light) lens. I am torn between the Nikon 24mm f/2.8 and the 18-55 3.5-5.6 VR lense.

Both are similar in cost. I'm looking for an opinion: which will be better in low light without a tripod... I need to travel lite and will not have time to setup lengthly shots. I am thinking the VR makes up for the difference in apeture plus gives me some zoom....?

Mostly this will be a daylight lens but I would like to photograph at dusk as well... mostly landscapes and cityscapes...also tight quarters such as restaurants and auditoriums.

I also have a 28-105 3.5-5.6 (not good handheld in low light)
and a 70-200 f/2.8 VR which is wonderful in low light at a distance.

The camera is a Nikon D80.

help?

[jorgemonkey]

Since you already have the 28-105, I'd pick up the 18-55 VR. I just picked one up for my wife to use on her D70.

So far I've noticed its a pretty slow focusing lens, but for landscape/cityscapes its not a problem. In the next day or so I'll download the photos off of her card and post a couple so you can see some image samples with that lens.

[fx101]

I would also take a look at the tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that recently came out. It's supposed to have stellar reviews and it's faster than any lens nikon makes of that wide an angle. If not, go for the 24mm f/2.8, the issue is that with the D80 24mm=36mm (in 35mm equivelent) due to the crop factor. I'd recommend the tokina in that case, even above the nikkor 12-24mm. The Tokina is also pretty light while maintaining great build quality. I'd definitely go for that.

[another view]

Since you have used the D80 you're familiar with the crop factor, and that 24mm isn't very wide. The 24 f2.8 is a great lens (all primes generally are) but not very versatile. Sometimes VR is more important than fast lens speed, although f2.8 isn't exactly fast either. Sigma has a 30 f1.4 (something along those lines) that you might want to check out too.

Landscapes and cityscapes really need a tripod for good results (or a luckily placed table or railing) but inside restaurants and auditoriums you'll probably be handheld. One or two stops of extra lens speed might not make enough of a difference seeing as you'll lose DOF. I'd pick VR for that but obviously it's a moot point with the camera on a tripod.

I'll put in a plug for Nikon's 18-200 VR. It's a really cool lens although not cheap. Sometimes you'd like to have a long (200mm) lens but wouldn't drag the 80-200 f2.8 along - with this you're all set. I have a road trip coming up and might bring just this lens and my Sigma 10-20. Keep it simple...

[freygr]

I would say, get the Nikon 17-70 F2.8 lens. It's the same focal length as the original D70 kit lens but much faster. The focal length equivalent is 25mm to 105mm a graet range, an its F2.8 is what I consider a minimum for low light photography. The only problem is fast lenses are heavier than over lenses and larger in diameter, example at 105mm an F 3.5 lens is 30mm entry lens but a F2.8 is 37.5 mm entry lens, and a 1.8 is 58 mm entry lens.

[another view]

get the Nikon 17-70 F2.8 lens

They have a 17-55 f2.8, is this what you're thinking? Great lens, but basically it's an upgrade of the lens the OP already has without the VR. A friend has it and I've heard a lot of good things about this lens, and I'm sure it's much better wide open than something like my 18-200 VR, the 18-55 VR or the 18-70. So, the advantage may actually be more like two stops (gain sharpness in the other lenses by closing down one stop), so to speak. If it were me, I really think I'd want the VR - now that I've had a chance to really use it and see what it does. VR isn't a magic bullet, but I do think it's very nice to have for a travel lens when you might not have your tripod with you at every moment (as is the case with most of my travels).

If Nikon had VR in the 17-55 it'd be a great choice. However, I think it comes down to personal preference - and budget of course.