Which lens for Alaska?

Looking at buying a Nikon d3300 for this trip. A professional photographer told me to get an 18-300mm lens. I have found bundle packages with an 18-55mm lens and a 55-200mm lens.

The 18-300mm is quite a price jump from the bundle. Would the 200mm be good enough or will I kick myself for not spending the extra money?

Thanks

Kris

Hi Kris, there are two reasons I think you'll be happier with the 18-300. The first is the one you have asked about --- the longer reach. When you are going someplace like Alaska where you have the chance to see whales, eagles, bears, etc. from afar, you'll want that reach.

The second reason is one that you haven't mentioned: not changing lenses. If you are outside and it's wet and/or windy, you won't want to be changing lenses. Also, regardless of the weather conditions, in a place like Alaska, you'll want to be ready immediately for a long shot or a wide one. (If you decide against the 18-300, you may want to consider the 18-200.)

I bought the 18-300 for a trip to Antarctica for both of the above reasons, and was very glad I'd done so. (I would have loved to have had a 400 mm lens on that trip, but it was not in the cards.) Be prepared that the 18-300 a pretty heavy lens.

Have a great trip!

Black Browed Albatross, taken with Nikon D7000 and 18-300mm lens, at 300mm, and Weddell Sea, at 44mm

There are several posts regarding lenses for Alaska. Here’s one. http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=2172363&highlight=lens+for+alaska

You really can’t have a lens that is too long for Alaska until you just can’t handle the lens comfortably. I don’t think purchasing a longer lens just for Alaska would be worth it although renting one might be a good choice. I have the 18-300 and find it can be a little short at times for wildlife.

Disclaimer: my wife and I vacation so we can photograph, we make a good living and we're willing to spend on our photography habit/addiction, and some of our photography spending serves as a writeoff for work that I do.

If you want eagle/bird pictures, longer is absolutely better. I now cruise with a 600 plus a 1.4x converter, making it essentially an 840mm. I'm still disappointed with my eagle pictures (so far...next cruise in 12 days and I'm hoping our excursion choices produce much better opportunities than last time). If you're looking for whales, 200mm is probably fine on a 1.5x crop body such as your D3300.

I'd also STRONGLY suggest that you consider renting. If an 18-300 isn't something you'd use often, or if there's something else you'd consider for Alaska but wouldn't use otherwise, rent. There are several companies out there, but my money goes to LensRentals.com every time. Their quality control, in-house repair capabilities, and testing setups are absolutely second to none; they can repair many lenses better than the factory. You can do a reservation far in advance, and depending on where you're starting/ending your cruise, you could ship to a FedEx Office there instead of having to rent it early enough for your flights to/from the cruise (though I'd suggest that you have the equipment arrive two days before your cruise, so just in case something happens, they could still overnight you a replacement).

Thoughts....

• I'm an 18-300mm superzoom lens lover. The only time it comes off is when I require a f/2.8 or f/1.8 low light option
  
• shoot at f/8 for maximum sharpness
  
• I hate changing lenses outside of the home. This greatly risks sensor dust. 18-300mm lens I don't need to swap lenses as much
  
• don't forget about getting a quality UV or NC filter to protect the front cover. Consider the new Sigma WR filter when conditions are wet.
  
• superzooms may force you get an external flash to avoid lens shadows in your image.
  
• 18-55mm and 55-200mm combo will be slightly sharper. But I've seen many keep their DSLR at home because they can't be bothered by bringing dual lenses and constantly swapping.
  

[YOUTUBE]G8ghz3KuQ-w[/YOUTUBE]

I will make a suggestion that is cheaper, with vastly superior image quality.

The Nikon D3300 with 18-55 kit lens is $500 on Amazon.

I can't find a kit that includes the 18-300, but the 18-300 alone is $900

I strongly strongly recommend that you do not fear changing lenses. If you don't want to change lenses, then buy a camera without interchangeable lenses. Get the Panasonic FZ1000 -- For $800, it gives you an effective focal length of 25-400mm, f2.8-f4. The image quality will be SUPERIOR to the D3300 + 18-300 lens, because you will be shooting at faster apertures.

The D3300 CAN give you better images than the FZ1000. If you are willing to use superior lenses. And that means changing lenses. "Super zoom" "all in one" lenses like the 18-300 are inferior. Looking at a few images on facebook, you might see images that are indeed "good enough." But if you want images better than you can get from the FZ1000, I would suggest:

Either get the D3300 with base lens for $500 and add the Tamron 70-300 usd for $450. Total price, $950 -- So about the same price as the 18-300 lens, without the camera. Yet, this combo will give you superior image quality.

If you do opt for the 18-300, be careful, there are 2 Nikon 18-300 lenses. There is the 3.5-6.3 and the 3.5-5.6. The 5.6 version benefits from slightly faster aperture, but not a huge difference. The 6.3 is actually considered the far sharper lens.

The other reason to go with 2 lenses --- The 18-300, 18-200, and 70-300 are all big heavy lenses. Why keep them on the camera 100% of the time, when you might only need them 25% of the time? Keep the 18-55 on the camera most of the time. It's all you will need, it's light weight, it's pretty high quality. You can use it for your ship board shots, you can use it for your landscapes, use it for your people shots.

You will generally want/need a telephoto for wildlife. You may opt not to shoot wildlife, in which case you don't need it at all. With wildlife, typically, the longer the better.

As mentioned, the Panasonic FZ1000 has a nice range of 25-400. It's smaller than the D3300+18-300, with superior image quality.

The 18-300 has an effective range of 27-450. So slightly longer... 50mm on the long end is not a huge difference. The 2mm you lose on the wide end may actually hurt you more.

The 18-55 has an effective range of 27-82. Combined with a Tamron 70-300, that's another 105-450.

The 18-200 is an effective range of 27-300. That * could* be effective for wildlife. In the days of film, there were very very few lenses that went beyond 200 or 300mm, and photographers still managed to shoot wildlife. But there is certainly a benefit of a longer lens.

So basically, if you want "all in one", then I encourage you to look at different cameras that will be cheaper, smaller, and better, for those purposes. If you want to push the camera potential, then get 2 or more lenses, the right lens for the right job.

[*]shoot at f/8 for maximum sharpness

 

[YOUTUBE]G8ghz3KuQ-w[/YOUTUBE]

That's true of more mediocre lenses. Which is why I avoid them, lol. I prefer lenses with maximum sharpness at F4 or larger.

Thanks so much for all the great information. I don't think I would use the 18-300mm much other than Alaska so renting would be a great option.

havoc315-I will look at the Panasonic. thanks for the suggestion.

Thoughts....

• I'm an 18-300mm superzoom lens lover. The only time it comes off is when I require a f/2.8 or f/1.8 low light option
  
• shoot at f/8 for maximum sharpness
  
• I hate changing lenses outside of the home. This greatly risks sensor dust. 18-300mm lens I don't need to swap lenses as much
  
• don't forget about getting a quality UV or NC filter to protect the front cover. Consider the new Sigma WR filter when conditions are wet.
  
• superzooms may force you get an external flash to avoid lens shadows in your image.
  
• 18-55mm and 55-200mm combo will be slightly sharper. But I've seen many keep their DSLR at home because they can't be bothered by bringing dual lenses and constantly swapping.
  

I'm an 18-300mm superzoom hater. The higher the zoom range, the worse the optics are. Get a better lens, and as havoc315 said, you don't need to shoot at f/8. Everything I use can be shot wide open, and the only lens that I usually stop down is the wide-angle, to bring more of the scene into focus (even though wide lenses natively have deeper DoF).

In my opinion, there's no reason to fear lens changes unless you'll be on a windy desert or a boat in salt water on rough seas. Send your camera in for an annual/bi-annual cleaning if it's that important to you.

As far as filters go, my advice is to forget about the filter unless you're in those same conditions above (desert, salt water). The lens makers have worked extremely hard to determine the perfect curvatures for each lens element...why would you put a piece of flat glass in front of those smooth curves? Also, check out this blog post: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters In particular, scroll down to the example shots of the "crye-leike.com" bumper sticker. That same company did an analysis of their repair rates, and determined that the cost to put a filter on the front of every lens exceeded the typical cost of repairs for front elements. Admittedly, they've got a bigger sample set than you or I, but if on the average it doesn't make sense, why do it for peak?

That's true of more mediocre lenses. Which is why I avoid them, lol. I prefer lenses with maximum sharpness at F4 or larger.

All in all, pick the camera system that makes sense for you long-term. Rent to augment what you'd want for occasional use. My wife and I are making the transition to full-frame cameras, and as a result we're in a state of change regarding lenses as well, so we rent lenses until we're in a position to buy them. I also have no justification to buy the 600/4, so I rent it 1-2 times per year.

All in all, pick the camera system that makes sense for you long-term. Rent to augment what you'd want for occasional use. My wife and I are making the transition to full-frame cameras, and as a result we're in a state of change regarding lenses as well, so we rent lenses until we're in a position to buy them. I also have no justification to buy the 600/4, so I rent it 1-2 times per year.

I essentially completed by transition to full frame. FF lenses are certainly costly compared to APS-C. I'm scared to think of the total I've spent.

For a lens like the 600/4.... That's a $10,000+ lens, certainly makes sense to rent instead of buying. (Though I think even the rental price would shock many people here... about $750 for a 10 day rental?).

On the other hand, for more moderate priced lenses... Think carefully about the value of renting. You may find you can buy a used copy for just a bit more than the rental price (and you are renting a used copy). You could even re-sell a used lens, and basically break even. Ends up being cheaper than renting. Or keep the lens.

For example.... okay, I don't like the 18-300, I wouldn't buy it or rent it personally. You can buy it grey market for $650.

Renting it will run about $85 for 10 days through lensrentals.com -- Plus $25 in shipping, plus another $15 or so for their damage protection plan.

So $125 to rent a lens you can own for $650. If you will really never ever use the lens again, then it certainly makes more sense to just rent it. But if you are looking at the possibility of renting the same lens for 3 or 4 trips over a few years... Suddenly you are paying $500 in rental fees, for a lens you can own for $650.

And the real danger... You rent it, paying $125 for the rental. You return it, then realize you really do wish you owned it after all. So now you are paying for the lens twice -- first to rent, then to own.

On the other hand, for more moderate priced lenses... Think carefully about the value of renting. You may find you can buy a used copy for just a bit more than the rental price (and you are renting a used copy). You could even re-sell a used lens, and basically break even. Ends up being cheaper than renting. Or keep the lens.

 

For example.... okay, I don't like the 18-300, I wouldn't buy it or rent it personally. You can buy it grey market for $650.

Renting it will run about $85 for 10 days through lensrentals.com -- Plus $25 in shipping, plus another $15 or so for their damage protection plan.

So $125 to rent a lens you can own for $650. If you will really never ever use the lens again, then it certainly makes more sense to just rent it. But if you are looking at the possibility of renting the same lens for 3 or 4 trips over a few years... Suddenly you are paying $500 in rental fees, for a lens you can own for $650.

 

And the real danger... You rent it, paying $125 for the rental. You return it, then realize you really do wish you owned it after all. So now you are paying for the lens twice -- first to rent, then to own.

Good points, though I do want to add some relevant counter here. Renting it from lensrentals is a used copy 97.5% of the time, but they have (or at least had) a policy that anything they owned for two years OR had seen 40 weeks of rental service gets sold. Yes, it's used that 97.5% of the time, but it's not beat up. However, their testing and repairs means you could easily be getting a lens that's better (optically) than new. As a result, they have a program called "It's a Keeper" where you can decide to buy THE LENS YOU'RE RENTING (not a different copy, but the one that's in your hands today) for a pre-set price, which includes some credit from your rental fee.

There's also the angle of renting several lenses to broaden your horizons, and using the rental to decide which to buy first. Back when I switched to Canon, I bought the 24-105. I rented the 16-35/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS, and 100-400 for a sailing trip. I came home knowing that I liked the 16-35, loved the 70-200, and hated the 100-400. I bought the 70-200 two months later, bought the 16-35 the following summer, and have never bought the 100-400 (though I'm probably one month away from buying the newer model). We've also rented the 17-55/2.8IS a couple times, and due to the jerky IS both times, we've decided to never buy it.

Good points, though I do want to add some relevant counter here. Renting it from lensrentals is a used copy 97.5% of the time, but they have (or at least had) a policy that anything they owned for two years OR had seen 40 weeks of rental service gets sold. Yes, it's used that 97.5% of the time, but it's not beat up. However, their testing and repairs means you could easily be getting a lens that's better (optically) than new. As a result, they have a program called "It's a Keeper" where you can decide to buy THE LENS YOU'RE RENTING (not a different copy, but the one that's in your hands today) for a pre-set price, which includes some credit from your rental fee.

 

There's also the angle of renting several lenses to broaden your horizons, and using the rental to decide which to buy first. Back when I switched to Canon, I bought the 24-105. I rented the 16-35/2.8, 70-200/2.8IS, and 100-400 for a sailing trip. I came home knowing that I liked the 16-35, loved the 70-200, and hated the 100-400. I bought the 70-200 two months later, bought the 16-35 the following summer, and have never bought the 100-400 (though I'm probably one month away from buying the newer model). We've also rented the 17-55/2.8IS a couple times, and due to the jerky IS both times, we've decided to never buy it.

I *was* intrigued by the keeper program... but then realized that their sale prices are a bit inflated. For example, the Nikon 18-300 that we are discussing... They have it for sale for $660. You can buy it new grey market for $650!

The Nikon 80-400.. you can buy their fair copy for $735. KEH, a very very reputable seller of used camera gear, has it for $650 to $730. Go to forums or ebay, and get good copies for under $730.

And the keeper program doesn't refund fairly expensive shipping.

So you're still paying more than if you just bought it used elsewhere.

I completely agree about using rentals to test out EXPENSIVE gear. I rented the Sony A99 for a few days before buying it. But again, doesn't make much sense for cheaper gear. Particularly, with cheaper lenses, you can often just return them within 30 days if less than satisfied.

I *was* intrigued by the keeper program... but then realized that their sale prices are a bit inflated. For example, the Nikon 18-300 that we are discussing... They have it for sale for $660. You can buy it new grey market for $650!

The Nikon 80-400.. you can buy their fair copy for $735. KEH, a very very reputable seller of used camera gear, has it for $650 to $730. Go to forums or ebay, and get good copies for under $730.

And the keeper program doesn't refund fairly expensive shipping.

So you're still paying more than if you just bought it used elsewhere.

 

I completely agree about using rentals to test out EXPENSIVE gear. I rented the Sony A99 for a few days before buying it. But again, doesn't make much sense for cheaper gear. Particularly, with cheaper lenses, you can often just return them within 30 days if less than satisfied.

What does it cost YOU to buy a grey market lens, discover that it's not up to par, then ship it back and wait for a replacement? Copy-to-copy variation is a known problem; even the best models suffer from it occasionally. I know of someone who tried seven Canon 24-70/2.8II lenses until they got one that had smooth zoom and sharp on both sides. If you buy US-ready, you could send to Canon for repair, but if you buy grey market, you have to ship back to the retailer. Buy a Keeper, and that whole problem goes away.

Somebody new into photography is going to buy US-ready, not grey market, IMHO.

What does it cost YOU to buy a grey market lens, discover that it's not up to par, then ship it back and wait for a replacement? Copy-to-copy variation is a known problem; even the best models suffer from it occasionally. I know of someone who tried seven Canon 24-70/2.8II lenses until they got one that had smooth zoom and sharp on both sides. If you buy US-ready, you could send to Canon for repair, but if you buy grey market, you have to ship back to the retailer. Buy a Keeper, and that whole problem goes away.

 

Somebody new into photography is going to buy US-ready, not grey market, IMHO.

Or not knowing better, someone new would buy grey market! lol.

I will buy new, used, or grey market, depending on the lens, price, confidence in the seller, etc. When dealing with a super expensive lens, I'd rather buy brand new, and get a full 5 year warranty.

Buying grey market... Worst case, you get no protection. But generally, you can rely on a 1-year warranty. Lens rentals, you get a 90 days limited warranty.

So grey market -- You can get a new lemon, but you generally get a year where you can get it fixed or replaced. With lensrentals, you get a used somewhat worn lens, but it is generally at least up to specs... but you only get 90 days of protection.

For me, for the same price, I'd probably take the brand new grey market over the used, if the price is the same. But I've also carefully bought lenses from eBay with virtually no protection. (Figuring if a 20 year old lens is still working just fine, then it should last me a few more years too). Really depends on the prices.

If I want to buy used with caution, then I'd go to KEH -- they give a 6 month warranty, they price fairly, and they carefully inspect their lenses. Might not be tested as thoroughly as lensrentals, but you get twice as long to return the lens, and it will generally be a little cheaper.

Looking at buying a Nikon d3300 for this trip. A professional photographer told me to get an 18-300mm lens. I have found bundle packages with an 18-55mm lens and a 55-200mm lens.

 

The 18-300mm is quite a price jump from the bundle. Would the 200mm be good enough or will I kick myself for not spending the extra money?

 

Thanks

Kris

For Alaska you can't go to long nor to wide. If you are buying a D3300 entry level DSLR ignore the folks who talk about big fast primes. That is like asking for advice about a Honda and have a guy tell you about his AMG / M / S class because he can afford the toys!

A good lens to consider if you want value on the long side is the 70-300 VR from Nikon/Tamron. They can be had for a few hundred on ebay. They are much cheaper than the 18-300 zooms. The 18-300 is a swiss army knife lens but the IQ will be soft much beyond 200mm.

If you can afford it, Sam's Club and Costco are selling a Nikon D5500 bundle for $1099.00. With this bundle the following two lenses are included.

AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm VR II

AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm VR Lens

Have you considered buying a used lens from a reliable store?

B&H store has a couple and you can save around $200.

Or have you considered renting the lens

I ended up getting the Nikon d3300 bundle from Costco. I am going to rent the bigger lens when it's time for our trip. Thank you for all the help and suggestions.

I don't usually buy used things. To me, they were someone else's problem that they wanted to get rid of. I think if I'm going to invest in my camera, I'm going for new.

Kris

I ended up getting the Nikon d3300 bundle from Costco. I am going to rent the bigger lens when it's time for our trip. Thank you for all the help and suggestions.

 

I don't usually buy used things. To me, they were someone else's problem that they wanted to get rid of. I think if I'm going to invest in my camera, I'm going for new.

 

Kris

Congratulations on your purchase, have fun with it.

Used lenses aren't generally "someone else's problem." A used lens is like a used house.... Good lenses are made to be used for 20-30 years. So over the course of 20-30 years, a lens may find different owners... An owner may die, may give up photography, may change systems, may upgrade to something else.

For example, hands down... the best lens I ever owned, was a Minolta 200/2.8 prime. Had a big chip in the outer body, but the glass was perfect. It was built in 1988... Minolta no longer makes camera gear. Sony inherited the Minolta designs, but didn't continue production of the 200/2.8. If the lens was being made today, it would probably retail for $2000 or more. I bought mine, used, about 25 years old at the time of purchase, for $700. Despite being 25 years old, chipped on the body, bought used, it produced the greatest images I have ever gotten from any lens.

Here is an example of a shot with that lens:

April flowers by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Lorikeet by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Anyway... I bought it used.... Then I changed systems, so I sold it, for $700, to a new owner who is loving it now.

So I had this fantastic amazing lens that doesn't even get made anymore, used it for a year, and ultimately it didn't really cost me anything beyond shipping costs.

Another example, I bought a new Nikon 24-85 when I changed systems. It is a good lens, in perfect condition. But I decided I really needed a 24-70/2.8 for more of the professional work I'm doing. So soon, I'll be putting the 24-85 on the used market. Nothing is wrong with the lens, I've simply upgraded to something different.

So buying a used lens isn't like buying a used television or a used camera even. It's more like buying a "used" Picasso portrait, or a "used" house, etc.

.

I don't usually buy used things. To me, they were someone else's problem that they wanted to get rid of. I think if I'm going to invest in my camera, I'm going for new.

 

Kris

That is a poor way of looking at things. It's one thing to think that way for the low end kit lenses, but once you get into better glass you can save big money buying used. I'm talking $1000 in savings for just one lens.

I ended up getting the Nikon d3300 bundle from Costco. I am going to rent the bigger lens when it's time for our trip. Thank you for all the help and suggestions.

 

I don't usually buy used things. To me, they were someone else's problem that they wanted to get rid of. I think if I'm going to invest in my camera, I'm going for new.

 

Kris

Buying used versus new can be like discussing religion. The reality is that many people purchase lenses and find they never use them and selling is better than gathering dust. Sadly unlike camera bodies which depreciate like crazy lenses value on the used market is less than new.

I love buying other people's "problem" as you say. My last round of cameras were / are all used and some later sold, 90% of my lenses are also used. Nothing more expensive than the cost of opening a "new" box :D I have actually had good luck with getting my D4 ( two of them ), D810 and a Df and a 200F2 from ebay. I'm a gear junkie but don't keep them and all but the Df and 200F2 have been sold. BTW I don't think those that bought ever thought they were taking my problem

Buying used versus new can be like discussing religion. The reality is that many people purchase lenses and find they never use them and selling is better than gathering dust. Sadly unlike camera bodies which depreciate like crazy lenses value on the used market is less than new.

 

I love buying other people's "problem" as you say. My last round of cameras were / are all used and some later sold, 90% of my lenses are also used. Nothing more expensive than the cost of opening a "new" box :D I have actually had good luck with getting my D4 ( two of them ), D810 and a Df and a 200F2 from ebay. I'm a gear junkie but don't keep them and all but the Df and 200F2 have been sold. BTW I don't think those that bought ever thought they were taking my problem

When I bought my D610 in Dec I sold my D7000 and all my dx lenses to help fund the purchase. I have been looking at KEH for used lenses to fill in the holes in my fx line up. That $2400 for a new 70-200 is just not going got happen. :eek:

When I bought my D610 in Dec I sold my D7000 and all my dx lenses to help fund the purchase. I have been looking at KEH for used lenses to fill in the holes in my fx line up. That $2400 for a new 70-200 is just not going got happen. :eek:

I just got the Tamron 24-70/2.8 over the Nikon 24-70... Half the price, similar quality. I don't want the weight of a 70-200/2.8, but I've heard the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is very nice. If you don't need VR, the older Nikon 80-200/2.8 lenses are a great value.

The emergence of Tamron and Sigma making super high quality lenses has decreased my reliance on used. Few years ago, the 3rd party lenses were all crap, and you were better off with a 10 year old 1st party lens. No longer the case for some lens types.

When I bought my D610 in Dec I sold my D7000 and all my dx lenses to help fund the purchase. I have been looking at KEH for used lenses to fill in the holes in my fx line up. That $2400 for a new 70-200 is just not going got happen. :eek:

Craigslist? My local craiglist as several Nikon 24-70 2.8 for between 1100-1400. You can get version 1 70-200 for beween 1200-1400 and the version II for between 1600-1800. Buying used CL is a good first option as you can see and test the lense. Takes not more than 5' to figure between the person you are meeting and inspection whether you got an abused or nice value.

Tamron also makes a good product with their new VC stabalized. It has good capability/sharpness for the shorter focal length but on the long side it isn't as good as the nikkor. Also resale on the Tamron is much lower in value.

Rumor is that a new stabalized 24-70 nikkor is coming. It will be both big, heavy and much more than the the current 24-70 if the trend of past lenses is followed. If it happens you'll see a lot of used 24-70 version II come out.

Ebay also has many 24-70, pick sellers carefully and you can do well for value there as well.

I just got the Tamron 24-70/2.8 over the Nikon 24-70... Half the price, similar quality. I don't want the weight of a 70-200/2.8, but I've heard the Tamron 70-200/2.8 is very nice. If you don't need VR, the older Nikon 80-200/2.8 lenses are a great value.

 

The emergence of Tamron and Sigma making super high quality lenses has decreased my reliance on used. Few years ago, the 3rd party lenses were all crap, and you were better off with a 10 year old 1st party lens. No longer the case for some lens types.

The only thing I don't like about the Tamron 24-70 is the filter size. I would like to keep everything at 77mm (and smaller) if possible. I am seriously looking at the Nikon 24-120 f4. I like the range, 77mm filter size and found a refurb direct from nikon direct for about $900 (If memory is correct). Also had my eye on the sigma 24-105 but again bigger filters (plus nobody has it in stock).

My next two are probably going to be the 24-120 f4 and the new 20mm f1.8 (would really like the Zeis 21mm but can't quite choke a $1500 price tag for a prime lens :eek: )

The only thing I don't like about the Tamron 24-70 is the filter size. I would like to keep everything at 77mm (and smaller) if possible. I am seriously looking at the Nikon 24-120 f4. I like the range, 77mm filter size and found a refurb direct from nikon direct for about $900 (If memory is correct). Also had my eye on the sigma 24-105 but again bigger filters (plus nobody has it in stock).

 

My next two are probably going to be the 24-120 f4 and the new 20mm f1.8 (would really like the Zeis 21mm but can't quite choke a $1500 price tag for a prime lens :eek: )

The 24-120F4 is a versatile lense, I owned it once and found it good on 24Meg sensors, less so on the D8xx class bodies. That can be had used on ebay and CL as well as the sale forum on fredmirand for less than 900 bucks;) If you are a zeiss snob break out the big bucks. There is a good read on lensrental by Roger on the QC of lenses, worth a study before you spend the big bucks.