[Tris]

Had a wee accident over the weekend and dropped my camera... 

Body is ok, however the Nikon 18-55 lens which was on it at the time broke.

Am looking to get a replacement, so was wondering if there are better alternatives, maybe different manufacturers making equivalents or slightly better Nikons in a similar zoom range say 16-85 etc.

For existing zooms - I already own an 11-16, a 55-200 and a 70-300 so not looking for something in the telephoto range like a 18-200 etc...

I have nothing against the Nikon 18-55, just wanted to check if there was something better available without spending a fortune?

[dave]

Doesn't sound to me like you need the 18-55mm anyway. You could look at getting the 35mm f/2 prime to fill the gap.

[slackline]

Read the title and was ready to wade in with a hearty recommendation for the 18-200mm VR, but you've got those bases covered so....

What dave said

[dave]

P.S. i forgot to say, even if your lens is fucked you should still stick it on ebay, some fucker will buy it, you'd be surprised. put that money towards your new lens.

[Tris]

Ok - thanks guys... will start reading some reviews on the 35mm prime. I have the 50mm prime (1.8 not 1.4) and it is one of my favourites...

You reckon someone would buy it? The ring that attaches/locks it onto the body has broken off... bloody plastic crap 

[cofe]

someone bought my old camera even though the autofocus was fucked and the tripod mount loose. you'll be amazed. just be clear about what's up with it.

[dave]

those lenses with broken mounts tend to be quite common on ebay really, its a shit bit of design just to shave the cost down a bit, common for them to break. people still buy them.....on a similar note if either of you 55-200 or 70-300s are the models with plastic mounts you might do well to get rid while you can!

don't expect the 35mm to be quite as sharp at the 50mm 1.8 but its still damn sharp. make sure you buy one under some kind of warranty since some older models do have issues with oil leaking onto the blades (ask JB), you'll no doubt discover this when reading reviews.

you might also look at the 35mm f/2 manual focus, any of the 24mms, or the better 28mm ones. There's also a new 35mm f/1.8 but the size is ridiculous. there's also the sigma 30mm but it reviews a bit non-plus.

[Tris]

You could look at getting the 35mm f/2 prime to fill the gap.

So I've been reading reviews today and general consensus is that the Nikon 35mm 1.8 is better for DX cameras? It looks sharper, has more bokeh (fairly obviously) and is almost £100 cheaper...

[dave]

you can get the f/2 version cheaper second hand than the new 1.8, which you wont see second hand cos its so new. You get a hard infinity stop, focus scale and much more compact size with the f/2. Any sharpness difference wide open will be negligable given how little'll be in focus anyway. I thought the bokeh didn't review great on the 1.8, and the 1/3rd of a stop bigger aperture is fuck all.

[Johnny Brown]

I suspect the f1.8 would appear sharper wide open, my f2 is sharp but suffers from a lot of CA around the highlights. It isn't fuckin massive though, which I like.

Fishy 16mm to 55mm is a big gap to fill with one prime. The AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G is supposed to be very good, and probably smaller than the 35/1.8. if there's one focal length I need to have covered, its 18mm (28mm equiv), plus I use the 22-35 range a lot too. If you've already got a 50 prime I'd be tempted to go for a standard zoom.

[cofe]

Fishy 16mm to 55mm is a big gap to fill with one prime.

tokina 11-16 isn't a fisheye word, just a fast superwide. the 10-17 is the fish.

[dave]

the 35mm 1.8 is about the same girth as the 18-70 but about half the length. the review I read of the 35 1.8 said it had issues with CA.

I don't think 16 to 55 is that big a gap for one prime. Its certainly less of a gap than the 80mm fills between 45-150 in 645, or the classic 24-50-100 in 35mm.

[Johnny Brown]

Maybe, I always preferred 28-50-90 anyway.

Whilst on the subject, I see Nikon have just released another DX prime. Encouraging as it is, the spec seem to have been plucked out of the air. Why is it only f3.5? No doubt it will be fucking mahoosive too...

[dave]

that new 85 does seem odd, especially since they've already got generations of well regarded 60 & 100 mm f/2.8 macro lenses, the most recent ones of which are pretty new and can focus on the cheapo bodies.

I'd sooner they stop fucking around with shit like this and give us something light cheap and sharp in a 14/15/16mm prime ballpark.

[Johnny Brown]

Amen to that. And a small fast tele too...

[cofe]

i'll be a happy man the day canon or nikon grow a pair and do their own 50-150mm 2.8.

[Tris]

I'd sooner they stop fucking around with shit like this and give us something light cheap and sharp in a 14/15/16mm prime ballpark.

That would be amazing, but I don't think it will happen - not the cheap part anyway