Need advice on lens

JulieLawsonPhotography

I'm looking to get a new lens. I bought the Sigma 17-70mm lens and am just not real happy with what results I'm getting. So, at any rate I'm looking to sell it, but before I do I would like to get a lens that will give me a nice range, low light abilites. At first I thought the 35mm 1.8 lens from nikon would be good because I love the results my 50mm give me. So I love prime lenses, but also would like some zoom. My friend thought that I might want to just get the 18-200 vr lens, but I've also heard 24-70mm 2.8 sigma was good too.

Any help or advice?

ziggy53

The Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical is a very nice "standard" zoom and compares fairly well to the best lenses in the same range and aperture.

The Nikkor 17-55mm, f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX is somewhat better than the Tamron and demonstrably much better than the Nikkor 18-200mm in image quality and usability in low-light.

The Nikkor 18-200mm, f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF DX AF-S VR is more of a consumer lens with good, but not great, image quality, a wonderful range, but relatively slow aperture.

The Sigma 24-70mm, f/2.8 EX DG Macro Aspherical is a relatively good zoom lens but there may be considerable sample variation. Be sure to purchase from a supplier that has liberal return/exchange privileges.

Similarly, the Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G ED AF-S is a wonderful standard zoom for FF Nikon cameras but may not be wide enough by itself for a crop (DX) camera body.

Remember that your D40x body lacks a focus screw mechanism so you need lenses with a built-in motor for AF on that body. The D90 will work with any lens with Nikon AF, "F" mount.

KrawDaddy

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

I'm looking to get a new lens. I bought the Sigma 17-70mm lens and am just not real happy with what results I'm getting. So, at any rate I'm looking to sell it, but before I do I would like to get a lens that will give me a nice range, low light abilites. At first I thought the 35mm 1.8 lens from nikon would be good because I love the results my 50mm give me. So I love prime lenses, but also would like some zoom. My friend thought that I might want to just get the 18-200 vr lens, but I've also heard 24-70mm 2.8 sigma was good too.

Any help or advice?

For low light, I use a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and a 80-200 f/2.8 for sports in low light or indoors. Both of these are older lenses I bought off Ebay but they work extremely well in low light.

bloomphotog

+1 for the 80-200...crazy good value!

ziggy53

KrawDaddy wrote:

For low light, I use a Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and a 80-200 f/2.8 for sports in low light or indoors. Both of these are older lenses I bought off Ebay but they work extremely well in low light.

KrawDaddy, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for your comments and I agree.

JulieLawsonPhotography

ziggy53 wrote:

KrawDaddy, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for your comments and I agree.

I appreciate your input. I guess what I'm needing to know is more for my photo needs. I don't have a store where I can go and try out different lenses.

I have been shooting more weddings and I shoot families, portraits...etc.

I need a lens that will work well in low light, but have some zoom...not necessary to zoom way in though, (probably at least 70mm or 80mm).

As I mentioned I bought the 17-70 mm lens but it's not a constant 2.8 and I'm finding that I need to shoot in RAW because the images are constantly hot in the face and that is not what I want.

So for what I shoot, what would you think would be the best lens. I don't want to spend $ on something that I will find I don't need or like.

ziggy53

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

... I have been shooting more weddings and I shoot families, portraits...etc.

I need a lens that will work well in low light, but have some zoom...not necessary to zoom way in though, (probably at least 70mm or 80mm).

As I mentioned I bought the 17-70 mm lens but it's not a constant 2.8 and I'm finding that I need to shoot in RAW because the images are constantly hot in the face and that is not what I want.

So for what I shoot, what would you think would be the best lens. I don't want to spend $ on something that I will find I don't need or like.

If you're sure about needing the 70mm then the Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G ED AF-S is a great choice. Fast enough aperture for weddings, reasonably sharp wide open and very, very sharp by f4 (the aperture I generally use for candids with a flash). It's fairly heavy but rewards you with nice images.

Reviews:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/236-nikkor-af-s-24-70mm-f28g-ed-review--test-report

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_02.html#AFS24-70FX

Qarik

the nikkor 24-70mm is superb but pricey at near $2k. The next best in that zoom range in my estimation and after a lot of research is the sigma 24-70mm HSM (not the macro) at about 1/2 the price. But I had to get a 2nd copy to get a good one. If you have the patience for this possibility then that is my reccomendation. It will AF on both your bodies.

craig_d

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

I don't have a store where I can go and try out different lenses.

You can rent them online, though. Check out BorrowLenses.com.

JulieLawsonPhotography

Qarik wrote:

the nikkor 24-70mm is superb but pricey at near $2k. The next best in that zoom range in my estimation and after a lot of research is the sigma 24-70mm HSM (not the macro) at about 1/2 the price. But I had to get a 2nd copy to get a good one. If you have the patience for this possibility then that is my reccomendation. It will AF on both your bodies.

How would I know if I got a good copy, what would I look for to see that it's performing as it should?

ziggy53

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

How would I know if I got a good copy, what would I look for to see that it's performing as it should?

While you could put a prospective lens through a battery of focus and sharpness tests, the only tests that really matter is whether the lens is working for your intended need. Try to design a situation similar to your intended use that shows the merits and faults of the lens.

If you intend to use the lens primarily for weddings, for instance, attend a wedding as a guest but shoot it as though it were a paying event.

You can rent another copy for comparison, to use as a benchmark, and see if a purchased copy is better or worse.

You should have a feel for lens quality by now and you should be able to compare against other lenses in your own kit. A lens of the cost and caliber of the Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G ED AF-S should easily beat a consumer quality zoom, and should be very similar in image quality to a prime, for instance. Especially make sure whatever you get can beat your Sigma 17-70mm, DC Macro since that is the lens you wish to replace.

JulieLawsonPhotography

ziggy53 wrote:

While you could put a prospective lens through a battery of focus and sharpness tests, the only tests that really matter is whether the lens is working for your intended need. Try to design a situation similar to your intended use that shows the merits and faults of the lens.

If you intend to use the lens primarily for weddings, for instance, attend a wedding as a guest but shoot it as though it were a paying event.

You can rent another copy for comparison, to use as a benchmark, and see if a purchased copy is better or worse.

You should have a feel for lens quality by now and you should be able to compare against other lenses in your own kit. A lens of the cost and caliber of the Nikkor 24-70mm, f/2.8G ED AF-S should easily beat a consumer quality zoom, and should be very similar in image quality to a prime, for instance. Especially make sure whatever you get can beat your Sigma 17-70mm, DC Macro since that is the lens you wish to replace.

Thank you Ziggy, I appreciate your feedback.

Art Scott

JulieLawsonPhotography wrote:

How would I know if I got a good copy, what would I look for to see that it's performing as it should?

I have said this many many times before....I shoot almost exclusively Sigma Lenses.....I have NEVER gotten a bad or just a fair lens.....all the lenses I have owned ove rthe past 30 some years have been fantastic copies rivaling those of Nikon and Canon .....they have all been sharp as a tack....I do send my lenses out for a cleaning and lubrication ever 3-5 yrs.....not a warranty repair....I foot he bill and send to a repair center about 40 miles from my house (Pho Tech in Hesston Ks....it is a Nikon authorized repair senter but Ihave sent lens copies for Minolta, Fuji and other brands I have owned and they all come back nice and clean inside and out.....I do this cause my lenses are out in all kinds of adverse weather and I take as good a cero them as I do my Archery Equipment and my FireArms...........

The only way to tell if a lens is working properly is to use it....if it focuses, zooomz smoothly and records the image properly it is working properly.....if you get a bad image then you must discern if it is sensor, shutter or lenses.....

I would not recommend any of the 18-? super zooms....none are fast enuff

Sigma did not get to be one of the largest lens manufacturers in the world by producing inferior products..........

I have had bad lenses by minolta, yashica, nikon, kiev, hasselblad and fuji........no one is perfect and all companies produce crap at times.....it is just a fact of life.......

That is why warranties and guarantees are made for products................