Need a Good Replacement for 18-55

redleash

I shoot mostly outdoors: landscapes, buildings, objects, paths, etc. I have some trips coming up and will have some great opportunities for landscapes (Puerto Rico in Sep and Maine in Oct). I am currently using my kit Nikkor 18-55. I also have a 70-300 and a 50/1.8, but I find that I use the 18-55 more than half the time and I tend to shoot it towards the wider end. I am considering an ultra wide zoom in hopes of really improving my landscape shots. I think the other alternative would be an actual replacement for the 18-55.

I'm considering the Tokina 11-16 2.8 but am open to any suggestions. Looking to spend under $800.

Thanks!

Lauren

Art Scott

how aboutthe Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5.......or do you really need to ahve a constant aperture??

ziggy53

Lauren,

In addition to the Tokina AT-X 11-16mm, f2.8 PRO DX you mentioned, also look at (for third party lenses):

Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Sigma 10-20mm, f/3.5 EX DC HSM
Tokina 12-24mm, f/4 PRO DX
Tamron SP 11-18mm, f4.5-f5.6 Di-II LD Aspherical [IF]
Tamron SP 10-24mm, f3.5-f4.5 Di-II LD Aspherical [IF]

I use the Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 myself and it is a very appropriate lens for vista landscapes and urban architectural. Edges are soft wide open and mine has a slight centering error, again visible wide open. Since I don't use that lens wide open (ever) I am unconcerned and it is a fine producer. More important to me is focus speed and accuracy and the Sigma has been fine in this regard.

It is affordable enough that you could purchase it and a replacement for your "kit" lens, like the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF). The constant, large aperture of this lens, plus the extra sharpness over the zoom you have, would give you a lot of flexibility in shooting when used with the Sigma 10-20mm.

B&H has both lenses in a Nikon mount and collectively they amount to $930USD, which I realize is more than what you wanted to spend, but this would give you very good quality in the super-wide through standard focal lengths.

Alternately, the Sigma 17-70mm, f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro that Art mentioned is a fairly decent alternative to the kit zoom and it, along with the Sigma 10-20mm, would be $850, just above your budget. I do think that the Tamron I mentioned is a better lens in a couple of different ways, but the Sigma 17-70mm gets you closer to budget.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381611-REG/Sigma_201306_10_20mm_f_4_5_6D_EX_DC.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/550954-REG/Tamron_AF016NII_700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di_II.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/419582-REG/Sigma_669101_17_70mm_f_2_8_4_5_DC_Macro.html

Reviews:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/308-sigma-af-10-20mm-f4-56-dc-ex-hsm-lab-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-nikon-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/313-sigma-af-17-70mm-f28-45-dc-nikon-review--lab-test-report

redleash

Art and Ziggy -- thanks to you both for your suggestions. A friend of mine picked up the Tamron 11-18 recently (for Canon) and she really likes it. I have no objection to going above budget if it gets me 2 lenses!

Here is something else I should have put in my original request. I have a LOT of trouble with camera shake and with soft images--even when I do use a tripod or other stabilizer. I am in the market for a new tripod also and will start browsing for suggestions on that. In the meantime, which of the various lenses or lens combinations you guys suggested would help most with image softness? Is that mainly a function of being at the wider end of the zoom? Or is it the quality of lens? Or is it all operator error? Any suggestions will be much appreciated.

Thanks, gentlemen!

Lauren

divamum

Tamron 17-50 is just an all-around fabulous, affordable lens on a crop camera. I picked mine up 2nd-hand for $300 and it would have been good value even if I'd paid full price for a new one. Terrific lens.

ziggy53

redleash wrote:

Art and Ziggy -- thanks to you both for your suggestions. A friend of mine picked up the Tamron 11-18 recently (for Canon) and she really likes it. I have no objection to going above budget if it gets me 2 lenses!

Here is something else I should have put in my original request. I have a LOT of trouble with camera shake and with soft images--even when I do use a tripod or other stabilizer. I am in the market for a new tripod also and will start browsing for suggestions on that. In the meantime, which of the various lenses or lens combinations you guys suggested would help most with image softness? Is that mainly a function of being at the wider end of the zoom? Or is it the quality of lens? Or is it all operator error? Any suggestions will be much appreciated.

Thanks, gentlemen!

Lauren

We can help a lot more if you would provide a couple of full-sized example images, with full EXIF, of the problem. Also include which lens was used and the shooting conditions.

redleash

divamum - Thanks for the thumbs up on the 17-50.

redleash

Ziggy - Here are a couple examples. Do you think these images seem soft? If so, is it from lens quality, wrong settings, instability or just OOF? If you need more info, just let me know. Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated. Thanks!!

1.
Nikon D80 with 70-300 f4.5-5.6
1/60, f5.0, ISO100, focal length 155mm, Aperture Priority, auto exposure, auto focus
Shot on a cold, cloudy afternoon in Maine; rested camera on a fence, used shutter button



2.
Nikon D80 with 18-55 f3.5-5.6
1/25, f18, ISO100, focal length 18mm, Ap Priority, auto exposure, auto focus
Shot on a warm, partly cloudy morning (1030) in CO, 12,000 elevation, some wind, hand-held

ziggy53

1. The Nikkor 70-300mm, f4.5-f5.6 is best thought of as a 70-200mm, f5.6-f8. Used in that range of focal lengths and apertures it can be pretty good but it will never be as sharp as the better and best Nikkor lenses. Resting the lens on a fence was a good idea and I do not see evidence of camera shake. The cloudy conditions do seem to have reduced contrast, so you would need to compensate in post processing.

2. The light is more appropriate to the lens as I see distinct shadows. The clouds in the background add interest but there is some haze in the distant features (not at all unusual.) The shutter speed is too slow for hand-held. The 1/focal-length rule (more of a guideline than a rule) breaks down at wide angles. Use the "hand-held means 1/60th or faster" rule instead. At 1/25th you should be using a tripod/monopod. the newer Nikkor "kit" lens wih IS might work OK.

The f18 aperture is a little too small for optimum results. The 18-55mm kit lens starts to lose visible sharpness beyond f8 or so. See the following link and the MTF results at 18mm for an idea:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/233-nikkor-af-s-18-55mm-f35-56-g-ed-dx-review--test-report?start=1

---

The Nikon D80 does pretty well with up to ISO 400, so try using a higher ISO when needed to allow faster shutter speeds when required. Avoid extremely small apertures but try to stay in the middle apertures for best sharpness, tempered by your desires for DOF, of course. Even ISO 800 and ISO 1600 can often be used if you also allow for noise reduction software, especially with simpler subjects.

redleash

Great info, Ziggy--many thanks!

Based on these shots (typical of what I like to do), do you have any further recommendation for a good lens for me, from your previous list? Obviously, I can continue to use the 70-300 when appropriate--although I have found I use it much less than I anticipated I would.

Which lens on your list would be the best choice for my #2 shot?

Thanks--

ziggy53

redleash wrote:

... Based on these shots (typical of what I like to do), do you have any further recommendation for a good lens for me, from your previous list? Obviously, I can continue to use the 70-300 when appropriate--although I have found I use it much less than I anticipated I would.

...

I suggest you try continuing to use that lens, but within the parameters I mentioned. No sense purchasing anything new that you, "... found I use it much less than I anticipated I would."

redleash wrote:

... Which lens on your list would be the best choice for my #2 shot?

...

No way to tell since I didn't see the scene you saw, only what shows at 18mm. I can't see what else might have been available and would require the wider focal lengths. I suspect that the Tamron 17-50mm could have done slightly better at its optimum aperture than your kit lens at its optimum aperture. How much you would notice the difference would depend on your specific technique and settings, as well as the display size.

If the scene was interesting at a wider focal length then obviously it would require a wider lens yet. The Sigma 10-20mm is great for vista landscapes. ("Vista" is defined here as meaning "very" wide and more than normal vision, approximating peripheral vision.)

Stitched panoramas may also be created using almost any focal length lens, but using multiple, overlapping images, stitched together in post using panoramic software. This has the added benefit of yielding more detail than any single image, but it is much more time consuming and requires more planning and execution.

Art Scott

redleash wrote:

Which lens on your list would be the best choice for my #2 shot?

Thanks--

Sigma 17-70...........

HeatherWB

Another vote for the Sigma 17-70
I had one of these on my Pentax, so I can attest to the fact that it's a great all-around lens for less than $400 brand new. You get wide, you get short-mid tele, and you get good close-up ability all in one package.

Another option worth considering that would fit into your budget is a UWA like the Sigma 10-20 previously mentioned or Tokina 12-24/4 + the Tamron 28-75/2.8. With the constant 2.8, you'll have more low-light ability + the Tamron has decent close-up abilities similar to the Sigma 17-70.

Since you mentioned shooting with Nikon, also take a look at the 16-85 VR, which will fit nicely into your budget, either new or used and it has VR. I don't know a whole lot about the Nikon lens lineup, but from what I understand, the 16-85 is supposed to be a really good lens. Here is a link to the PBase page with pics taken with the 16-85:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/af_s_dx_16_85_35_56g_ed_vr

HTH,
Heather

redleash

Thanks all--I will revisit this thread and the issue next week. I want to buy new glass for the Acadia Shootout, but would like to get it and practice before that!

I will be in New Orleans this week so should have a good chance to use my existing lenses with Ziggy's instructions on their parameters. I'll post some when I return.

Am headed to Puerto Rico the first week in Sep. Seems that would be a good place to use either an UWA or a replacement for the 18-55 kit, or both, has as been suggested also. I am intrigued by Heather's idea of the 28/2.8 for good closeup options also. I do use the 18-55 for closeups quite often but again don't get the best results.

Ziggy - I do shoot some panos and have done so with my 50/1.8 and the 18-55. Limited success because I seldom use a tripod--a habit I really must get into ASAP!

Thanks, all!
Lauren

ziggy53

redleash wrote:

... Ziggy - I do shoot some panos and have done so with my 50/1.8 and the 18-55. Limited success because I seldom use a tripod--a habit I really must get into ASAP!

...

If you have subject matter close to the camera then you need both a tripod and a panoramic head. For more distant scenes you can do with a panning head of any kind. If you are careful, you can also just use the horizon to level and line up the shots freehand. It can give you a very wide field-of-view without new lenses so worth learning how to do.

redleash

Narrowed Down my Choices - More or Less ??
Here is what I am thinking about, would appreciate any comments. My primary goal is to replace my kit 18-55, which I use about 80% of my time. My secondary goal is to add an ultra wide, thinking that I could enhance and expand my landscape shots with both a wider view and a better quality lens. My original budget was $800 but I can be flexible. Based on suggestions and reviews, here are the options I am considering:

1. Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($450) + Tokina 12-24/4 ($400) - Meets both goals now, close to orig budget

2. Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($450) + Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 ($480) - Meets both goals now, but a bit more costly

3. Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 ($370) + either above UWA - Meets both goals now, close to orig budget

or . . .

4. Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6 ($630) - Meets primary goal now, with higher quality glass???

Question: Is the Nikkor 16-85 significantly better than the Tamron or Sigma, such that I would be happier long-term if I got it now and put the UWA off for a little bit? I can actually probably work the finances to get all of this within a couple of months, but I don't want to plop for the Nikkor unless it is really worth the extra money. Also, what about the difference between the constant 2.8 ap in the Tamron v. the variable ap in the Nikkor? In view of my limited shooting experience, should that be a key factor for me?

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 was mentioned to me also, and I was initially intrigued by it because of the possibility of shooting some macro. However, I am not so much interested in shooting 1:1 macro (a la Lord Vetinari) as I am in getting better quality "closer" shots--leaves, flowers, signs, etc. that are on my current subject matter list. I do shoot some of these closer shots with my kit 18-55, so I presume a better lens in that range would help me improve those shots--while still allowing me to improve my landscapes.

I need to decide and order in the next couple of days, to ensure my new lens(es) arrive before my next trip on 1 Sep. I look forward to any thoughts or suggestions that weren't already made above.

Thanks!!!
Lauren

ziggy53

Lauren,

Ideally you would want to get the lenses early enough to test and return/replace if necessary.

My choice for a recommendation is the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) for the standard zoom lens and then the Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for a wide zoom.

The Tamron 17-50mm is a constant aperture f2.8 which means that your camera will perform AF operations at f2.8. This should work much better in low light than a lens without constant large aperture, just as manual focus would be brighter and more discerning at f2.8.

The Sigma 10-20mm is not a constant aperture lens but AF precision is not as necessary at wider/shorter focal lengths. I do recommend this lens used at f5.6 and f8 and that is typical for a super-wide zoom application where extended DOF is usually preferable. The 10mm end is truly wide and is often wonderful for vista landscapes.

redleash

Ziggy-

Thank you, thank you! I was sort of leaning that way but wasn't sure I could explain the rationale so I appreciate your descriptions and also the advice on how to use the 10-20. Good reminder to get them in time to return if need be--so I will be ordering in the AM. That should give me a couple of day to shoot on the Riverwalk here to try them out.

Yea!!!!!

Lauren

ziggy53 wrote:

Lauren,

Ideally you would want to get the lenses early enough to test and return/replace if necessary.

My choice for a recommendation is the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) for the standard zoom lens and then the Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for a wide zoom.

The Tamron 17-50mm is a constant aperture f2.8 which means that your camera will perform AF operations at f2.8. This should work much better in low light than a lens without constant large aperture, just as manual focus would be brighter and more discerning at f2.8.

The Sigma 10-20mm is not a constant aperture lens but AF precision is not as necessary at wider/shorter focal lengths. I do recommend this lens used at f5.6 and f8 and that is typical for a super-wide zoom application where extended DOF is usually preferable. The 10mm end is truly wide and is often wonderful for vista landscapes.