Standard Zoom / Wide Angle Recommendations

bandgeekndb

I may be looking for a replacement for my trusty Nikon 18-55 kit lens (maybe selling as part of a kit, and I'd be replacing it with a body only offer), so I'm wondering...

I have a 50mm f/1.8 that I like, I'm just trying to decide whether I should just grab another 18-55 even though it overlaps, or try to get something a bit wider. I'm trying to decide whether I really need to go as wide as 18mm, b/c I could easily get away with the 35mm AF-S prime that is soon to be shipped.

I haven't extensively researched the playing field yet, just putting out some feelers, although I should note, I am currently in the process of reading DPreview's Nikon 35mm review. Ideally, I'd love to save up for a 17-55 f/2.8, but that's a long way down the road! I need to hang out over in the "Mind your own business" forum a bit more and start making some money off this stuff!

So, please, feel free to leave some ideas, I always appreciate the insight. And, if you want to hijack this thread with business tips (only a bit, don't want to agitate the friendly mods), or send them via PM, I'd appreciate that too!

Thanks,
Nick

amg2833

I shoot Canon, but, for what its worth, I really love my Tamron 17-50 2.8. There's a Nikon version, and I'm pretty sure they're of equal quality, aka, sharp as a tack. The only complaint I've had is a slightly buzzy autofocus compared to ultrasonic and slightly more low light hunting, but, after some use with it, I never notice.

catspaw

bandgeekndb wrote:

I may be looking for a replacement for my trusty Nikon 18-55 kit lens (maybe selling as part of a kit, and I'd be replacing it with a body only offer), so I'm wondering...

I have a 50mm f/1.8 that I like, I'm just trying to decide whether I should just grab another 18-55 even though it overlaps, or try to get something a bit wider. I'm trying to decide whether I really need to go as wide as 18mm, b/c I could easily get away with the 35mm AF-S prime that is soon to be shipped.

I've a Nikkor 12-24 DX I'm selling if you think that might meet your needs. FYI

bandgeekndb

Thank you Leah, but sadly, if $700 or a reasonably close offer was in my budget, I'm sure I could swing the extra couple of hundred bucks to get the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. Thank you anyway, and good luck selling!

As for the Tamron, I've read a few reviews now, and some reviewers are talking about 2 different lenses, one with the built-in AF motor, and one without. The better reviews seem to be going to the one without the motor. Although I have a D40 now, I'm moving up to a D80, at least until I can afford a D90 or D300 (or by the time I can afford one....probably a D3000 :cry), so the lack of an AF motor in the lens won't bother me at all. Does anyone have experience with the Nikon version of this lens, either with or without motor?

Off to hunt for more information on the off brand 17-50's...thanks for the suggestion Anthony!

~Nick

amg2833

I bought my lens from jrmyrnsm because he was switching to Nikon, and I know he replaced his Canon version with a Nikon version. He's a really helpful fellow, so you might send him a PM.

Thorntoa

I have the older "screw driver" version of the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. I like it quite a lot on my D300. My primary camera now is a D700 and I picked up a used Tamron 28-75mm. I haven't shot a lot with that one but it seems even better than its DX cousin . . . These Tamron lenses seem to offer good value if you are looking for a step up from the kit lenses without breaking the bank . . . The high end Nikon glass is really nice but I have a hard time justifying its cost . . .

Art Scott

bandgeekndb wrote:

I may be looking for a replacement for my trusty Nikon 18-55 kit lens (maybe selling as part of a kit, and I'd be replacing it with a body only offer), so I'm wondering...

I have a 50mm f/1.8 that I like, I'm just trying to decide whether I should just grab another 18-55 even though it overlaps, or try to get something a bit wider. I'm trying to decide whether I really need to go as wide as 18mm, b/c I could easily get away with the 35mm AF-S prime that is soon to be shipped.

I haven't extensively researched the playing field yet, just putting out some feelers, although I should note, I am currently in the process of reading DPreview's Nikon 35mm review. Ideally, I'd love to save up for a 17-55 f/2.8, but that's a long way down the road! I need to hang out over in the "Mind your own business" forum a bit more and start making some money off this stuff!

So, please, feel free to leave some ideas, I always appreciate the insight. And, if you want to hijack this thread with business tips (only a bit, don't want to agitate the friendly mods), or send them via PM, I'd appreciate that too!

Thanks,
Nick

What ever you get it is = to the lens X1.5 .....so a 35 prime is actually a 52.5 or 53mm.....your beloved 50 is actually a 75mm........personally I love my sigma 24-70 f2.8 [36-105mm]......HOWEVER it is not wide enuff for me and I really want to try a Sigma 17-70 (25/26 to 105MM).....in the end I will get something in the 10/12mm -20 zoomz just to have a bit of actual wide angle...............

So it really depends on waht your shooting that will determine how wide you NEED to go............

ziggy53

Thorntoa wrote:

I have the older "screw driver" version of the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8. I like it quite a lot on my D300. My primary camera now is a D700 and I picked up a used Tamron 28-75mm. I haven't shot a lot with that one but it seems even better than its DX cousin . . . These Tamron lenses seem to offer good value if you are looking for a step up from the kit lenses without breaking the bank . . . The high end Nikon glass is really nice but I have a hard time justifying its cost . . .

Thorntoa, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for your comments.

bandgeekndb

Thank you everyone for the help! As much as it pains me to spend so much money, knowing that the Tamron glass gets good reviews makes me feel better about putting my money there.

Art, you mention the crop factor. Does this occur on Nikon's "DX" specific line, or any acronyms by other manufacturers for "Digital only" lenses?

For example, my 18-55 kit lens, marked with a DX. Does this mean, on my camera, it's equivalent to a 28-88 on a full frame camera? Or, because of the DX notation, is the lens equivalent to an 18-55 on a FF camera? This always confuses me, so I appreciate the clarification.

Either way, I'm comfortable with the reach of the 18-55 and with the wider aperture, I'll be even happier with that range.

Thanks again everyone!

ziggy53

bandgeekndb wrote:

Thank you everyone for the help! As much as it pains me to spend so much money, knowing that the Tamron glass gets good reviews makes me feel better about putting my money there.

Art, you mention the crop factor. Does this occur on Nikon's "DX" specific line, or any acronyms by other manufacturers for "Digital only" lenses?

For example, my 18-55 kit lens, marked with a DX. Does this mean, on my camera, it's equivalent to a 28-88 on a full frame camera? Or, because of the DX notation, is the lens equivalent to an 18-55 on a FF camera? This always confuses me, so I appreciate the clarification.

Either way, I'm comfortable with the reach of the 18-55 and with the wider aperture, I'll be even happier with that range.

Thanks again everyone!

Both full-frame 35mm format and "crop" format lenses are marked in "actual" focal lengths. The "crop factor" is designed to allow the user to approximate FOV of the given lens on the crop camera as compared to the same FOV on a FF body.

A 18-55mm lens on a crop 1.5x body is approximately the same FOV as a 26-72mm lens would have on a FF 35mm format body. The same lens on a crop 1.6x body is roughly equivalent to 29-88mm FOV on a FF body.

If you discuss equivalent FOV it seems less confusing than equivalent focal length.

An even better way to discuss lenses is to talk about them by their classification. An 18-55mm(ish) lens on a crop 1.5x/1.6x body is a "standard zoom" while a 28-80mm lens is a "classic" FF standard zoom range. Both will take you from around twice normal FOV through moderate telephoto, which is a reasonable definition for a standard zoom lens.

A standard zoom for the "Four-Thirds" consortium might be the 14-42mm zoom lens.

Likewise there are "standard" lenses for medium and large format cameras, all with different focal lengths but similar FOV.