9 replies to this topic

[DavidWell]

I would like to get a zoom and/or telephoto lens for a D3400.

 

For the zoom, I’m considering the Nikon 16-80mm VR f/2.8

AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR | DX-format zoom lens | Nikon

 

So far, I’ve only read a few negative comments on this lens. A reviewer on Amazon says there is “barreling” at 16mm. Another reviewer that likes the lens says to avoid both the low and high limits. Someone else considers it too bulky for a smaller DX camera. Another comment indicates it might not perform well in difficult lighting.

What are the thoughts on this lens on the forum? Are there other recommendations?

I might upgrade to an FX in the future. If there is an FX zoom that works well with a D3400, please mention that as well. I might consider that lens instead.

 

I am also considering a telephoto and would like recommendations on that as well. Again, you can recommend an FX if it works well with my camera.

 

I’ve also been looking at the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G.

https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-dx-nikkor-35mm-f%252f1.8g.html

 

That lens would have to be better than the 18-55mm that came with the camera. What are the advantages of having this lens in addition to the 16-80mm or whatever zoom I decide on? The price is right, so it wouldn’t be too much for me to have both.

 

I know it depends on what types of pictures I take. I definitely want a zoom for the versatility. I would use a telephoto for shots of birds and other animals. I’ll probably go with a zoom first and wait on the telephoto.

 

Thanks for any recommendations.

 

[DavidWell]

I would specifically like to know if there is any sacrifice in quality using an FX lens on a DX. 

I am considering the 24-120mm instead of the 16-80mm mentioned above.

 

AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR | Nikon

 

Will the 24-120mm work just as well as the 16-10mm on the D3400? Is the image quality the same with both lenses on a DX?

 

Thanks.

[ScottinPollock]

I haven't used either of those two lenses (I did have the previous 24-120 and it was a dog, even on a 6MP sensor), but no... there is no sacrifice to using FX lenses on a DX body, other than size, weight, and sometimes cost.

 

In fact, since your only using 66% of the image circle of an FX lens on a DX body, corner sharpness is usually better.

[Jerry_]

I have been starting to use the 24-120/4 on a D5100 and ever since it is one of my preferred walkaround lenses, using it nowadays mostly on my FX bodies.

When my wife wanted a better walkaround lens for her D7200 she opted for the lighter 16-80/2.8-4. She was always happy with that lens and never complained about those aspects.

However any zoom is slightly weaker at its extreme values, as a matter of design compromises. The better, and more expensive, the lens, the more has been done to correct those weaker spots. However if you are f.i. in architecture photography with long straight lines, you might still be identifying slight distortions which you wouldn’t notice while photographing nature (which my wife mostly does).

So comparing the 16-80/2.8-4 to the 24-120/4 the main differences are (put it in any priority order you want):
- different focal lengths *
- weight
- size
- costs
(* even so it is said that the 16-80/2.8-4 is the equivalent on DX to the 24-120/4 on FX, this only applies when comparing their use on DX and FX sensors respectively)
The advantage of using an FX aimed lenses on a DX bodies is what Scott already explained as well as the fact that it offers a longer upgrade path if you intend to go from DX to FX

Reasons for getting a 35/1.8 on top of the zoom lens are:
- slightly larger aperture, so better in low light
- smaller ( ideal for street photography)
- weight

[DavidWell]

Thank you Scott and Jerry. Your replies are helpful. I might have some followup questions later.

[ScottinPollock]

That lens would have to be better than the 18-55mm that came with the camera

Just curious… the 18-55 kit lens is a good performer. What improvement are you looking for?

[DavidWell]

Just curious… the 18-55 kit lens is a good performer. What improvement are you looking for?

I've read that the 35mm I linked to above has greater DOF and clarity on close-ups than the 18-55. I believe it will perform better in lower light conditions. Plus, I've seen several glowing reviews on that 35mm lens. Some say it's a no brainer for the price.

I'm sure I'll find occasions to switch back and forth between the two in the future.

Please correct me if any of my statements are incorrect. I still have a lot to learn. Feel free to give the positives and negatives of both lenses.

[ScottinPollock]

I've read that the 35mm I linked to above has greater DOF

Actually, shallower depth of field. The wider the aperture (smaller number), the shallower the depth of field is given equal focal lengths. The shallower depth of field is useful for blurring the background behind your subjects, and is currently sought after for portraits.

However, focal length also contributes to shallower depth of field, and if you're considering an f/1.8 lens for this purpose, you might consider the 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8.

The 35mm is a "normal" view on DX (52.5mm full frame equivalent), and is cheap, sharp, and good for low light use. It's price to performance ratio is practically the best there is in the Nikon lineup (which is why so many say this is a must have lens). But if you don't need the low light performance and shallower depth of field, I think you will be disappointed in the perceived improvement over the 18-55 at 35mm.

With all of that said, I have always owned a fast, cheap 50mm equivalent lens in any system I have owned.

Hope this helps,

-SiP

[DavidWell]

Yes, that helps. I apparently misunderstood something I read regarding DOF on that lens. I know about aperture size and wrongly assumed that the lens had some other quality to increase DOF. I probably should have been clearer about why I desire greater DOF in some situations. It is for still lifes and scenes when I want a foreground object in focus as well as the background. I don’t always have my tripod handy.

[fallout666]

if your not sure on lens your look at getting do what me and two buddy's do. we hit local camera store in orlando area. and test the lenses out before we buy to see if fits our needs or works for what we want. how i picked out 2 lens over years from it. also how found good buy on used nikon gen 1 70-200mm for 1k 2 years ago.