Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Short Lens For Nikon  
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4805 times:

Hi all,

Well, luckily it was not my two best lenses, but two items were stolen from my camera bag over the weekend, and need replacement: my new 1.4 x TC, and my battered old 18-70 DX.

The 18-70 DX, though just a kit lens has served me welll. Another copy might be an option, but can you enlighten me on other options from Nikon or other manufacturers? The principal requirement is about 18-50 mm zoom range. I'll pay more for low light glass or VR (IS) for indoor use, but only to a certain extent, since as you can see I'm not very good in taking care of my stuff.

A lazy associated question, the theft occurd in the field in Belgium, no doubt while I was photographing an aircraft. Am I right in thinking that my travel insurance is never going to pay, claiming negligence on my part?

Thanks

Peter Smile


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4695 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4796 times:



Quoting Ptrjong (Thread starter):

A lazy associated question, the theft occurd in the field in Belgium, no doubt while I was photographing an aircraft. Am I right in thinking that my travel insurance is never going to pay, claiming negligence on my part?

I assume you filed a report with the Belgian Police? if not, do so ASAP and try. You've got a no right now, might become a yes.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4793 times:



Quoting JRadier (Reply 1):

No, Jurgen, since I only found out about it this morning, in fact.  eyepopping  I guess I'd need to go there in person to file a report... that's why I'm asking about my chances.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4788 times:

Quoting Ptrjong (Thread starter):
The principal requirement is about 18-50 mm zoom range. I'll pay more for low light glass or VR (IS) for indoor use, but only to a certain extent, since as you can see I'm not very good in taking care of my stuff.

I know of AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm ED F/3.5-5.6 with VR II, that might fit the bill. It has 17 elements in 11 groups, weighs about 485g, uses 67mm filter attachments and has HB-39 hood. Closest focus distance is 38cm.

I won't suggest the 24-70 F/2.8, that is a great lens, but probably way too expensive for your needs, and it won't give you the wide-angle you want on a DX format Nikon camera body.

I hope the 1.4x TC wasn't the Nikon TC-14E II?  Sad If it was, I can understand your pain.

[Edited 2009-08-19 03:37:34]

User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4695 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4783 times:

Another option is the 17-55 f/2.8


For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4781 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 3):
I know of AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm ED F/3.5-5.6 with VR II, that might fit the bill. It has 17 elements in 11 groups, weighs about 485g, uses 67mm filter attachments and has HB-39 hood. Closest focus distance is 38cm.

I'll look into that, thanks.

Quoting Cpd (Reply 3):
I hope the 1.4x TC wasn't the Nikon TC-14E II?

Unfortunately it was.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineWalter2222 From Belgium, joined Sep 2005, 1299 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4760 times:

Sorry to hear that, Peter! It is a shame that such things happen!

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 2):
I guess I'd need to go there in person to file a report... that's why I'm asking about my chances.

I assume you can always file a report with your local police.

Good luck,

Walter



canon 340d ;-) - EFS10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM - EFS18-55mm - EF28-105mm f3.5/4.5 - EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6l is usm - ...
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4743 times:



Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 6):
Sorry to hear that, Peter! It is a shame that such things happen!

Yes, well, that's life, Walter.

Quoting Walter2222 (Reply 6):
I assume you can always file a report with your local police.

Nah, Dutch police won't accept it, arguing that they can't go after the thieves. That sucks.
However, I just called the friendy local police station in Belgium  thumbsup  and they have at least registered the case, though I'd need to go there for an official report.

Thanks for your help.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 4725 times:

Did you register your gear on the Nikon NL site? Perhaps also try looking at various internet auctions maybe you can issue a warning there.

16-85 I heard is quite OK.

KS/codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineAlberto Riva From United States of America, joined May 2002, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 4720 times:

Peter -- sorry to hear that. The thief might have been another Nikonian who had heard about how great the 18-70 really is. I had one for years and yes, it vignetted slightly at the wide end, but I found it a brilliant general -purpose lens nonetheless. Now Nikon wants to sell you the ridiculously expensive 16-85 VR instead. Just say no and replace your stolen 18-70 with another copy of the same lens; if you don't mind used lenses, the biggies (Adorama, BH) and KEH.com usually have a few copies.

I tried the 18-135 AF-S for a week and frankly I didn't need the extra reach in a walkaround zoom, nor the extra size. When we aviation shooters need that focal length, we pull out the *serious* glass.

Re. the converter: the TC-14e does exactly the same things as the -eII but costs a lot less since it's been discontinued. Optically it's the exact same piece of glass and it works great for me. Get a used TC-14e and I promise you'll be happy. Not to go all Ken Rockwell on you, but used lenses are a great idea and they hold their value forever. Also hurts less when some Belgian steals 'em.  Smile
Good luck!
AR


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 4686 times:

Thanks for all the replies.

An 18-55 VR is about what I feel I need. That lens cheap too - which always raises suspicion. Some people (Rockwell) say it's actually quite good, others say it's not in the same class as the 16-85 VR. I'm hoping for another couple of replies.

I was generally pleased with the 18-70, but it almost seemed to have its off-days in proper focussing, so I have my doubts about buying a secondhand copy. I have less doubts about a secondhand TC-14. I'll look into the basic TC-14E, thanks Alberto.

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineSoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4610 times:



Quoting Ptrjong (Thread starter):

Try homeowners insurance if you have it...here in the US you would be covered...j


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9633 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4604 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Peter - I bought a 18-55 VR along with my D5000, it is a decent, inexpensive lens.

It is quick to focus, seems reasonably sharp, and I like the 52mm filter size, which is the same as many of my primes.

Here are a few shots:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Royal S King



User currently offlineN440ER From Poland, joined Jan 2006, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4550 times:

I have been using the 16-85 VR on the D200 for 1 year now, and I love it. Very solid, sharp, and awesome VR system for shooting action. Some air to air samples to be found here (my shots are 4th, 5th, and first half of the 6th row):

http://www.jetstream.pl/web/galeria/36.Kaszubskie%20Bryzy.html

I was considering the 18-55, But I like the extra reach and better build quality of the 18-65. Highly recommended!

-Maciek Majewski



"You know, back in my day, sex was safe and flying was dangerous." - Gallup
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4536 times:

My first accepted shot was taken with the 18-55 VR

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1529390


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4449 times:

Thanks for all the advice. I made a little detour to Belgium this weekend  Yeah sure and filed a report with the local police.

I'm having second thoughts of not having the 55-70 mm covered. There's a certain a.net crew member who buys too many lenses, so I guess I'll buy his barely used 16-85  Smile

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4695 posts, RR: 50
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4445 times:



Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 15):
I'm having second thoughts of not having the 55-70 mm covered.

I don't have this covered either, but I have never missed it to be honest.



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4429 times:



Quoting JRadier (Reply 16):

It's a small gap of course. But it's also about not having to mount the big 70-200 for every 70mm shot.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineMjlewis From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4386 times:

I love my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. You can get it for about $420.


Flying runs in the family : )
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4350 times:



Quoting Mjlewis (Reply 18):

I do like the f/2.8 bit.

I wonder how this performs against f/3.5 with VR/IS for indoor use... any ideas?

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineIamlucky13 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

The 18-55 VR is definitely sharp, but a little slow to focus, and assuming the build quality is the same as the non-VR version, the wobble in the focus ring bothers me (if you so much as touch the focus ring during a shot, you can throw off the focus a little bit). That's more of a macro issue than a spotting one, as is the poor bokeh.

I damaged my 18-55 and debated for a while between the 18-70, the 16-85 VR, or the 18-105 VR. The extra half stop of aperture at the long end is what sold me on the 18-70. It's a much better built lens than the 18-55, with better AF speed and full AF-S (can adjust focus while in auto mode). I wouldn't mind the extra wide angle of the 16-85, but for twice the cost I decided to skip it. VR is of minor value to me in a wide angle lens. I can easily get sharp shots at 18mm and 1/10.

Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 19):
I do like the f/2.8 bit.

I wonder how this performs against f/3.5 with VR/IS for indoor use... any ideas?

VR, depending on the version, gets 2 to 4 stops (according to the marketing claim...a couple reviewers feel 1.5 to 3 stops is more realistic) slower with the same amount of blur. That's for still objects. VR doesn't stop moving objects, although it can help with panning. A 2.8 lens is half a stop faster at the wide end, but as much as 2 stops faster at the long end.


User currently offlineMjlewis From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 208 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4322 times:

I cannot find one complaint with my Sigma's. They feel strong, and work. Focus may be a tad slower as usual, but its VERY good. My D300 may help with that as well. It's a very good alternative that I will use until it disintegrates. And at that point, once I ever get money to get all Nikkor glass, I'll still keep it!

[Edited 2009-08-27 13:03:38]


Flying runs in the family : )
User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3944 posts, RR: 18
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4194 times:

Hi guys

Good news, my travel insurance is paying me just over 500 euros for the two items, which given the age of my 18-70 is quite reasonable I think. Thanks for urging me to try and claim!

Peter Smile



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineSFO2SVO From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4184 times:

I may get yelled at  Smile
but take a look at 18-200VR. Great walk-around lens - and I got a few shots accepted here which were taken at 18mm.

you can look in the DB searching for "18-200"



318-19-20-21 332 343 717 727 737-234578 743-4 752 763 772 D9/10 M11/8x/90 F70 RJ85 ATR72 SF340 E120 TU34/54 IL18/62/86/9
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Good Lens For Nikon posted Tue Apr 18 2006 14:26:47 by LukasMako
Lens For Nikon Body posted Mon Apr 19 2004 04:53:49 by ChrisThurtell
Lens For Nikon D70? posted Wed Mar 3 2004 20:57:57 by Mdwalkman
Lens For Nikon F70 posted Mon Dec 31 2001 15:50:30 by 747 4-ever
Help - Lens For Nikon N90S posted Sat Oct 13 2001 00:29:03 by Round_engine
Short Lens Suggestion For EOS 10D? posted Mon Jul 14 2003 02:37:56 by Patroni
Macro Lens For Aviation Photography? posted Thu Jun 25 2009 22:00:03 by DL767captain
Looking For A New Lens For My Rebel XTI posted Thu Jun 25 2009 12:14:04 by BlueElephant
Good Sony Zoom Lens For 2,100ft Distance posted Mon Mar 16 2009 17:22:10 by DL767captain
Pics Too Soft/recmd.custom Settings For Nikon D90? posted Tue Feb 10 2009 15:36:38 by FLY2HMO