File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
need a good all-purpose lens with decent zoom capability for a Nikon. what type would you recommend? new to lenses, still using kit lens.
>> Anonymous
When I think all purpose I think f2.8
when I think decent zoom I think 18-105ish

Problem is lens doesn't exist

Nikon 18-135 f3.5-5.6 is an alright lens, prob a bit higher quality than the 18-55mm (kit), and a bit worse than the 18-70 (kit)
Cost = approx 350$ USD

That said, I think the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is a fantastic lens for the price, Cost 360$ USD
And not only does it appear to be sharper lighter and smaller than the Nikon, It is 1/3rd of the price and Can also fit full frame camera's.
Its what I would call a budget wedding lens, good for portraits and decent focal length for group and single shots, but flexible enough with f2.8 to work in low lighting!

18-200mm vr f3.5-5.6 = most flexible but also quite expensive, also image quality is sacrificed at the edges (near 18 and near 200mm)
cost = 700$ USD, but it has vibration reduction so its good for landscapes and other stationary subjects.
>> Anonymous
If you're considering off-brand 28-70~ish lenses, I'd recommend the Tokina ATX-Pro 28-80 f/2.8 above any of the other manufacturers. It's build quality is much better than the Tamron (which I think is terrible) and the Sigma (I've owned one, decent but not as good as the Tokina), and stopped down to f/4 it's fantastically sharp.
>> Anonymous
>>31337

Shouldn't 18-135mm, with its huge zoom capability, be MUCH better than the 18-55 kit lens?

Obligatory salute to your post being # 31337.
>> Anonymous
>>31364
lol I didn't even realize that until you pointed it out

the 18-135 is a lot better for being "Flexible" but the truth is, the more zoom range you have on a lens generally the worse quality the pictures you take with it are going to be. There are exceptions of course, but you generally get barrel distortion, or pincoushioning at the focal range edges (18 and 135) Also the sharpness and contrast usually suffers some serious degredation near the edges wide open, and even at like F/f

Also the 18-135 is a f3.5-5.6 lens, so wide open isn't very "wide"
So you generally want something closer to f2.8 (or f2.8-4 something like that)
Lets you get brighter pictures in low light, and controll the DOF more.

Problem is f2.8 zoom lenses are usually quite expensive and you won't find one with such a large zoom range, (17-55, 24-70 that sort of range, not like an 18-135, or 18-200)
>> Anonymous
>>31367

Do you consistently get distortion on those lenses, and it gets worse the more you zoom or expand? Or does it only occur once you get to the maximum zoom and maximum wide angle?
>> Anonymous
How does the aperture, (ex: f2.8, f3.5, etc) relate to lens performance or zoom?

Obviously I have some learning to do about lenses; do you know where I could find a good source of information on the subject?
>> Anonymous
>>Do you consistently get distortion on those lenses, and it gets worse the more you zoom or expand?
distortion is mostly visible at the widest and the longest zoom setting. in-between (let's say 25-120mm), it's less visible.

>>How does the aperture, (ex: f2.8, f3.5, etc) relate to lens performance or zoom?
the higher the aperture, the brighter and more expensive the lens. usually, the quality is a lot better then lenses with smaller apertures

low and mid-end lenses lose brightness when you zoom in. on a 18-135 f3.5-5.6 the aperture at 18mm is f/3.5, and at 135mm f/5.6. professional lenses like the 70-200 2.8 don't lose brightness when zooming in
>> Anonymous
>>31367
I have the Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6
Focal range is nice, price was okay, but there is some hardcore vignetting when zoomed in, and I often find myself wanting larger apertures.
>> Anonymous
>>31338
Reviving an old thread, But I managed to snag a Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 (ATX Pro, Not the new SV or the Pro II, but the older Pro) And i got it used for only 185$ CAD. Much cheaper than the new Tamron 28-75 that would have cost 529$ before tax and shipping.!

So ya, lucky me?
>> Anonymous
>>31795

Yeah, lucky you. Especially since the Tokina is a better lens than the Tamron.
>> Anonymous
The 18-135mm has serious barrel distortion issues, and you can't really correct it with CS2. Chromatic aberrations abound. And it's rather slow.

Go with a constant f/2.8 zoomer, I've heard Tamron's are good at that aperture value. Personally, I've heard the 18-200mm VR is a good all around walking lens, as it has VR when you encounter that low light situation.