Nikon Lens Advice Please

Nikonic1

Well, it's time to upgrade my kit a bit with some pro-level glass. The first piece I'd like to upgrade is my current 18-105mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. It's been great but I've found its limitations and would really like something a bit sharper, faster and with a more pro-quality build.

The things I do like about this lens is its focal range. I suppose I could lose some on the 105 end but really like the wide angle aspect of this lens.

I'm up for any suggestions and really just started researching. FWIW, this is to be mounted to my D90. Any input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and reply!!!

Qarik

Nikonic1 wrote:

Well, it's time to upgrade my kit a bit with some pro-level glass. The first piece I'd like to upgrade is my current 18-105mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. It's been great but I've found its limitations and would really like something a bit sharper, faster and with a more pro-quality build.

The things I do like about this lens is its focal range. I suppose I could lose some on the 105 end but really like the wide angle aspect of this lens.

I'm up for any suggestions and really just started researching. FWIW, this is to be mounted to my D90. Any input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and reply!!!

You don't have a lot of choices if you need the wide end and faster:

17-55mm 2.8 DX is about it

Here is the thing on nikon lens strategy. Your kits lens will be fine forever. If you are not going pro then you will never need 24-70mm 2.8 for example. You really have to narrow your interest and the bite the bullet..there is superb glass on the high end. So do you love wide angles? Then save up for the 14-24mm 2.8. Low light? 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.4. Portrait? again the 85mm 1.4. Macro? 60mm 2.8? Short to mid telephoto al purpose? 70-200mm 2.8. Yeah a lot of these are quite pricy. You jusy have to ask yourself..how is my current lens limiting me? What do I enjoy shooting?

Other avenues of expanding your collection with out spend over $1k? the 85mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8.

ziggy53

The Tamron 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR Di II would be an upgrade, but Qarik is right that Nikon would rather you purchase their Nikkor 17-55mm, f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX. Tamron also has their lens in a "VC" version, similar to what Nikon would call a "VR" stabilized lens.

Nikonic1

Thanks guys. I do have the 50 1.8 which is a nice little lens, especially for the money. I'm not sure how much I'd miss the 105 length, but by buying the 17-55 I'd be getting a great piece of glass and I'd still have the 18-105 if I needed/wanted it.

Thanks a lot for the replies.

gowiththeflow

It doesn't fit the 'faster' criteria, but the 16-85mm VR is sharper and much better made. I can't say I noticed much of any difference going from 18mm to 16mm, but I also don't really miss the 85mm to 105mm range that much either. It's a toss-up (to me, anyway) whether it's worth the money compared to the 18-105mm, but I do like the better feel and better image quality of it.

DsrtVW

I have the 17-55mm Nikon(Love it) and the 50-135mm f2.8 Tokina (love it too and it has a good price point) as long as you dont mind the focus motor noise.
Tokina also makes 16-50mm f2.8. Tokina build quality is really good and solid. Nikon has an edge as far as internal focus motor and little better coatings for flare reduction. Very fast AF. But you could get both the Tokina for the price of one Nikon
I also have Sigma lenses 17-70mm f2.8-4 nice lens but I like to have the aperture across the zoom.
Plan on getting Tokina 11-16 f2.8 someday. Unless Nikon does something for Ultrawide DX f2.8 and I have the money
I do like having the f2.8 option in a lens it really pays off to have fast glass.

time2smile

If you like wide angle look into the tokina 12-24 f4 or 11-16 f2.8. And keep the 18-105 is it the VR version?

Nikonic1

It is the VR but I don't see myself needing something as wide as a 12. I like the 18 and it does all I need width wise, just would like something with a more pro quality build.

borrowlenses.com

What about the 14-24mm f2.8 or the 24-70 f2.8? Both are as good as it gets in that focal length. Pricey but worth it.

Zerodog

I love my 17-55 2.8 Nikon lens. It is tack sharp thoughout the zoom range and all the apertures I ever use. It is sharper, faster focus, and most importantly, better colors than the 18-105. It just doesn't go to 105 and does not have VR. The 17-55 is my lens of choice for shooting trials motorcycles too. Just the right length at 55 for the longer stuff and the 17 is a blessing up close. I got mine brand new in the box for $850. You just need to be ready to jump on one when a deal like that comes up. The only downside to it is that it is a DX lens. If you upgrade to an FX you can't take it with you.

The other favorite I have is my 80-200 2.8 AFS. Between those 2 lenses I am covered. If I could only have 2 that would be it. But you can't just have 2

cape cod

Nikonic1 wrote:

Well, it's time to upgrade my kit a bit with some pro-level glass. The first piece I'd like to upgrade is my current 18-105mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. It's been great but I've found its limitations and would really like something a bit sharper, faster and with a more pro-quality build.

The things I do like about this lens is its focal range. I suppose I could lose some on the 105 end but really like the wide angle aspect of this lens.

I'm up for any suggestions and really just started researching. FWIW, this is to be mounted to my D90. Any input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and reply!!!

No doubt about it the 18-200 is one lens fits all .. orginally it was a 2.8 which I first purchased .. now I see it's a 3.5 {?} but the range is just
incredible I never get shut out with it .. don

ziggy53

cape cod wrote:

No doubt about it the 18-200 is one lens fits all .. orginally it was a 2.8 which I first purchased .. now I see it's a 3.5 {?} but the range is just
incredible I never get shut out with it .. don

If you are thinking that the Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR DX was ever an f2.8, I'm afraid not. The Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-5.6G is a tremendously convenient zoom and there is no disputing the range is pretty complete. It does have a rather complicated distortion on the wide end (so not necessarily a great choice for architectural photography) and the lens has several regions which are somewhat softer than others. Since it rapidly gets to an f5.6 effective aperture, it's also not the best lens for low-light.

Still, you are right that many people do use the Nikkor 18-200mm, f3.5-5.6G as a do-it-all workhorse.

dangin

the question i would have to ask is if you plan on staying with the D90 and other crop sensor cameras or if you'll be making the switch to full frame in the foreseeable future?

if you're going to stick with crop bodies and don't want to spend a boatload on faster glass, i'd echo ziggy's suggestion and say take a serious look at Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8. it's a nifty little lens that is very reasonably priced. you can't go wrong w/ the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX but you should really look at this outside of just getting 1 lens and looking at your longer term investment into camera gear as a whole.

on the longer side of things, Tamron's 70-200mm f/2.8 is also a great lens. it lacks VR and the AF system isn't quite as good as Nikon's but it's substantially cheaper.

Nikonic1 wrote:

Well, it's time to upgrade my kit a bit with some pro-level glass. The first piece I'd like to upgrade is my current 18-105mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens. It's been great but I've found its limitations and would really like something a bit sharper, faster and with a more pro-quality build.

The things I do like about this lens is its focal range. I suppose I could lose some on the 105 end but really like the wide angle aspect of this lens.

I'm up for any suggestions and really just started researching. FWIW, this is to be mounted to my D90. Any input is greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and reply!!!

MLangton

I had the same dilemma. Looking back, I would have saved up some more $$$ and just gotten the 24-70mm "the beast", as I plan to go FX someday. Someday. At the same time though, I'd probably STILL be saving, and waiting. Dang that things expensive.

Instead I went with the Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 G ED. Much better than the kit glass. This thing is AWESOME for a DX lens. It is built like a tank. It looks, feels, and shoots like a piece of pro glass. That, and my 80-200mm f2.8, I can cover just about anything.

Matthew Saville

Quite honestly, I used to have the 17-55 2.8 DX and it's a wonderful lens, but I wouldn't buy it again. If I needed low-light and pro build quality, the lens I'd buy first is the Sigma 50-150 2.8. It's like the Tokina 50-135: equivalent to 70-200 but way smaller and lighter and cheaper. AMAZINGLY sharp, I use it wide open for 75% of my shots at weddings and for portraits.

Then, I'd consider something else like the Tokina 11-16 2.8, or something else in that range, and not in the 17-50 range. But that's just me- I got bored of shooting in the medium range, and ended up shooting most all of my shots either telephoto or wide angle. Maybe you still need a mid-range lens, and if the 50 1.8 isn't cutting it then maybe get the 35 1.8 DX... That would round off the kit, for a casual photographer, quite nicely. Low light capabilities, yet good zoom coverage...

=Matt=

Photometric

I'm probably going to B&H to test shoot using the following lenses this Sunday if they are available. Appreciate anyone's feedback on the following lens if you have experience. I'll be checking Flickr and image sites to take a peek at sample images, but most of those have pp on them and not a good representative sample of the lens quality.
Tamron 17-50 CR VC
Nikon 24-70 f2.8 AF-S
Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX
Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.0
Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - 4.0 DC OS
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 if ex dg

Any info is appreciated. I know some people have already chimed in on the Nikon 17-55 and the Tamron, but I am buying a lens for the long term and would prefer an FX/Film compatible lens.

BTW, shooting a D90 currently, next camera will be an FX.

Qarik

Photometric wrote:

I'm probably going to B&H to test shoot using the following lenses this Sunday if they are available. Appreciate anyone's feedback on the following lens if you have experience. I'll be checking Flickr and image sites to take a peek at sample images, but most of those have pp on them and not a good representative sample of the lens quality.
Tamron 17-50 CR VC
Nikon 24-70 f2.8 AF-S
Nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX
Nikon 24-85 f2.8-4.0
Sigma 17-70 f2.8 - 4.0 DC OS
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 if ex dg

Any info is appreciated. I know some people have already chimed in on the Nikon 17-55 and the Tamron, but I am buying a lens for the long term and would prefer an FX/Film compatible lens.

BTW, shooting a D90 currently, next camera will be an FX.

heh it's rather simple actually..if you can afford the nikkor 24-70mm..get it.

the tamron..supposedly sharp but not robust in terms of focus I hear..and DX I think. The others are not 2.8 glass or is DX.. I have bought and sold the new sigma 24-70mm HSM. Good lens but not great. It is a sharp lens but not the most robust in AF. Also I had to get another copy because the 1st has backfocus issue.

Photometric

I tend to look at lenses as similar to house purchases. You need to buy with a stretch on the budget at first instead of under-buying. Or buy cheap, pay twice. So while it will be a real stretch to buy this lens, it will be used for a long time (hoping this would be the only mid-range zoom I purchase for like 10 years).

I wanted to see the results of actually shooting with the lens before purchase and see if I can live with a lower-cost lens by seeing how quick and accurate the focus is, and if the image will be of acceptable image quality.

I had to defer Lightroom for now, but I figure with the new version in beta, and the fact that I'm just starting out and my business is lower volume I figured glass more important than streamlined workflow. Plus, when the business picks up, hopefully LR3 is out and it will be much easier to afford LR than this type of lens.

The Mack

Qarik wrote:

heh it's rather simple actually..if you can afford the nikkor 24-70mm..get it.

the tamron..supposedly sharp but not robust in terms of focus I hear..and DX I think. The others are not 2.8 glass or is DX.. I have bought and sold the new sigma 24-70mm HSM. Good lens but not great. It is a sharp lens but not the most robust in AF. Also I had to get another copy because the 1st has backfocus issue.

My advice


Nikon 17-55 > Tamron 17-50 (but not by much)
Nikon 24-70 is a beast, get if you can afford.

I've used both, can't comment on the others.

Photometric

Anyone have word on the following:

Tamron 28 mm - 75 mm - F/2.8

A friend uses it and loves it, but wondering if someone else has experience, especially in a party type setting.

time2smile

Photometric wrote:

Anyone have word on the following:

Tamron 28 mm - 75 mm - F/2.8

A friend uses it and loves it, but wondering if someone else has experience, especially in a party type setting.

Got one, love it. Only use it on special shots. Close focus, sharp, focus still hunts a little in low light, but I think they all do if conditions are right and you do not have enouf contrast.

ziggy53

Photometric wrote:

Anyone have word on the following:

Tamron 28 mm - 75 mm - F/2.8

A friend uses it and loves it, but wondering if someone else has experience, especially in a party type setting.

The Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) is a very nice lens optically for a crop 1.5x/1.6x/DX camera body. It is not as wide as some of the more contemporary lenses making it less suitable as a standard zoom for indoors. Outdoors it is very nice. Focus is a little slow by today's standards too.

On a FF body the edges and corners especially tend to suffer (very soft corners wide open) but the range is more standard. It is not a first recommendation for FF just for the edges/corners and slow focus acquisition.

If you're talking an indoor social event on a crop camera I rather suggest something in the 17-55mm-ish range as it can cover group interactions as well as reasonably intimate individual images in normal sized rooms. If you're talking a reception event in a larger room, on a crop camera it can work nicely if the room is not too congested, giving you more room to shoot. Again, the shorter zoom may still be indicated as people tend to crowd around any of the "important" portions of the event.

Photometric

ziggy53 wrote:

The Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) is a very nice lens optically for a crop 1.5x/1.6x/DX camera body. It is not as wide as some of the more contemporary lenses making it less suitable as a standard zoom for indoors. Outdoors it is very nice. Focus is a little slow by today's standards too.

On a FF body the edges and corners especially tend to suffer (very soft corners wide open) but the range is more standard. It is not a first recommendation for FF just for the edges/corners and slow focus acquisition.

If you're talking an indoor social event on a crop camera I rather suggest something in the 17-55mm-ish range as it can cover group interactions as well as reasonably intimate individual images in normal sized rooms. If you're talking a reception event in a larger room, on a crop camera it can work nicely if the room is not too congested, giving you more room to shoot. Again, the shorter zoom may still be indicated as people tend to crowd around any of the "important" portions of the event.

Time...thanks for the info, it helps me understanding the limitations on that lens. My photographer friend loves hers, but I don't think she's used it in the way I will be using mine.

Ziggy, you have the patience of a saint for dealing with people who do not ask specific questions. I would have to think it would be easier to help people when they are not being ambiguous....Thanks for your well reasoned advice.

I am looking for a workhorse lens that will give me the best performance in a reception hall. I have a 50th anniversary party that I will be shooting for and want to have something that will cover the event and allow me to shoot the best images possible in low light with family sized (4-5 people) at a time. I try to stay away from larger groups explaining to the client that the images will have a problem with wide angle lens's because of the distortion issues. I am still coming back to the 24-70mm Nikkor on my crop body.

I've been looking at lenses for a couple of months because I want to make the right decision. I expect this purchase to be a lens that will be with me for a long time and I appreciate everyone's input. I would rather stretch the budget than buy a lens, find out it's not right for what I'm looking for and have to come back to what I would've bought anyway.

So it's really a toss up between the 17-55dx and the 24-70mm normal zoom. Either of these lens are alot of money for me so I'm kinda skittish and trying to solicit much advice before purchasing.

time2smile

and now to make thing easier..

look at Nikons new 16-35 f4 vr
so many good choices... so little cash...I need to hit the lottery

Photometric

time2smile wrote:

and now to make thing easier..

look at Nikons new 16-35 f4 vr
so many good choices... so little cash...I need to hit the lottery

I was looking at that, but from everyone's review/info on the web, this seems to be a landscape and/or street PJ monster lens. Is the VR so much better than the 1 stop of light?

time2smile

Photometric wrote:

I was looking at that, but from everyone's review/info on the web, this seems to be a landscape and/or street PJ monster lens. Is the VR so much better than the 1 stop of light?

I'm no VR expert, only have one 70-300, but for what you want to do, thats inside in natural light, its suppose to rock...I cant see it good for landscape shots, you shouldn't use it with a tripod.

another to tempt you would be the 16-85 VR, not as fast but got some good reviews

Photometric

time2smile wrote:

I'm no VR expert, only have one 70-300, but for what you want to do, thats inside in natural light, its suppose to rock...I cant see it good for landscape shots, you shouldn't use it with a tripod.

another to tempt you would be the 16-85 VR, not as fast but got some good reviews

I usually do my landscape/sunsets by hand. Also, I was referring to the PJ aspect for the VR. I will see if it's available for testing at B&H when I go into NYC on Monday.

time2smile

Photometric wrote:

I usually do my landscape/sunsets by hand. Also, I was referring to the PJ aspect for the VR. I will see if it's available for testing at B&H when I go into NYC on Monday.

I agree VR is great for PJ, and it is one thats on my wishlist for street.
B&H will be the disciding factor...