[Triggaaar]

This question would get side-tracked half way with talk of VR (image stabilisation) so I may as well get that bit out of the way first:

Are Nikon likely to release a DSLR with IS in the next couple of years? I assume not, since they're releasing more VR lenses, but since some of the competition are, I thought they'd have to at some point.

I would like to cover wide angle (10/12mm) upwards. I'd be happy to have a wide fixed, or zoom from 10 - 20mm.
I'm then after a replacement of my Nikkor 18-70 ED kit lens - would anyone suggest alternatives to the expensive Nikkor 17 - 55 f/2.8 G ED, or value Tamron 17-50 2.8? (I'd like the fixed 2.8, although I'm not sure if the IQ is better than the ED kit lens). However, I'd like IS. Ideally, a Nikon body with IS would come out, but if it doesn't, there's currently only the...
Nikkor 18-200MM F3.5-5.6 VR
while this is a great lens if you only carry one lens about (most of the time for me), it would stop me using my old Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED, and I don't want that. I'd also prefer a carry about lens with fixed 2.8.

So, to summarise my questions
Will Nikon bring out an IS body?
Is the IQ of the Tamron 17-50 better than the Nikkor kit 18-70 ED?
and the final all in one question:
What lenses should I own

Thanks

[py6km]

My tuppence worth...

I have the 18-200 VR, and it's a great lens. I'm not sure how the optical quality compares with the 80-200 2.8 you already have, but my take on it was that I would benefit more from the VR than I would the fixed 2.8, and I've been pleased thus far. The way it obviates the need to change lenses 90% of the time for me was the real clincher. Plus, the VR gives more than 1 stop, so is arguably better than a 2.8 anyway.

I would get an 18-200 VR, and something at the wide end (I think the Tokinas are quite good), and sell the 80-200.

I don't think Nikon will bring out a body with IS; it doesn't seem to be their style.

[lmccauley]

I'm hoping that Nikon do a VR version of the 18-70, because I really like the lens and I made good use of my 70-300 VR last night, taking handheld shots of the christmas lights illuminating Northumberland Street at 1/15 sec at 70mm. I didn't have my 50mm f/1.8 with me, but even if I had, the DOF would have been much smaller than I wanted for the shot I was able to get with VR.

For me, VR is like a very convenient monopod.

Camera: Nikon D50
Exposure: 0.1 sec (1/10)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 800

Camera: Nikon D50
Exposure: 0.067 sec (1/15)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 70 mm
ISO Speed: 800

[Triggaaar]

Thanks for the replies. I too think IS is worth having.

Originally Posted by py6km

Plus, the VR gives more than 1 stop, so is arguably better than a 2.8 anyway.

At the telephoto end, the 2.8 is 2 stops lighter. VR will still give you more than that, so for low light, static objects, the VR is probably better. The 2.8 is better for keeping the same aperture through it's focal range, for moving objects (sports, kids), for throwing backgrounds out of focus (which I like) and for giving a brighter viewfinder to look through in the first place. The VR is smaller, lighter, includes another lens worth of zoom. I could always have both, keeping the 80-200 mainly for sports I don't think I could sell the 80-200 lens for enough, and if I did, I'd want the 70-200 f2.8 (over £1k).

I don't think Nikon will bring out a body with IS; it doesn't seem to be their style.

You may be right, but I hope not, it's daft. If Canon or Nikon bring one out, they'll get a good advantage, and the other will have to follow. It's too good a feature.

[Triggaaar]

Any more lens recommendations?

[Biscuit761]

I have a Sigma 17 - 70 which is 2.8 - 4.5, I am very pleased with it.

Bill

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Any more lens recommendations?

I use the sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 lense quite a bit with my D80, I'm more into landscape photography. Pretty sure the photo below was taken with it :

Not great subject matter granted but the one below was taken with my 70-300mm nikkor VR lens :

[JBrown1]

IME the 18-70 is a cracking little lens for what it is. To be honest the only 'upgrade' for it would be the 17-55 2.8, but thats a huge hike in price.

The Tamron 17-50 is a nice enough lens, providing you dont want to use flash at all. For some reason that lens doesnt relay the distance information to the camera body very well when using flash, and the result is over exposure by about stops. Apparently Tamron are aware of the problem, but as of yet, havent done anything about it.

The Sigma 17-70 is a nice enough lens, and even has a (not true) macro capability. It's fast at the wide end, but terribly soft and suffers barrel distortion. Step it down a couple of stops and the distortion goes away and sharpens up a bit. Is it an upgrade to the 18-70 ?... no, not in my opinion.

So, if money is no object, get the 17-55 2.8. If you never use flash, get the Tamron 17-50. Otherwise I'd stick with the 18-70. It's cheap, focuses quite quickly, is sharp (when stopped down), and renders colours accurately.

oh and btw, I'd definitely keep the 80-200 and would never scarifice a fast lens for VR. But as they say YMMV.

[Iain]

How about this http://www.dpreview.com/news/0711/07...nikkor1855.asp
think I'll try it myself
Cheers
Iain