Nikon lenses

Dylanwyer

I'm trying to take my photography to the next level now! I have just been shootin w the stock 18-55mm lense on a D60 body. I'm startin to really feel my limits with it now though. I'm interested in a large variety of shots from nature and landscape to sport and macro. I have sold a bit of my work so far, but would really like to take it to the next level and start sellin my work more. The qualities I really like to pay attention to in a piece of glass are image quality, use in low light and speed as I tend to shoot a lot of sports in low light conditions.

The first piece of glass id like to get would be in the 17-70mm range which can kind of be used as an all arounder, then id like a 70-200mm for sport.

Love to hear your suggestions!

cab.in.boston

Hey Dylan. I checked out your site, you've got some really great photos there! (By the way, it's spelled "desert." When I saw "the dessert," I was expecting pictures of pie. )

As for lenses, I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC version). I like it a lot, although I have never had the chance to compare it against the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. All the reviews and tests I've read say that it is almost as sharp, if not better, than the Nikon, and of course it is lighter and costs 1/3 as much. It's not as robust as the Nikon, but IQ is very nice. I would recommend taking a look at that.

I have a friend who shoots a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 on his D3 and loves it. It does not have VR/OS, but he is very happy with it. I have not had a chance to play around with that lens, but it is a possible alternative to the excellent-but-very-pricey Nikon lens, either VR1 or 2. My telephoto lens at this time is the Nikon 55-200 VR, which I like for what it is, but it's nowhere near pro quality. It's a decent way to get into the tele range, but I consider it a place holder until I can afford a better built f/2.8 tele zoom.

Dylanwyer

cab.in.boston wrote:

Hey Dylan. I checked out your site, you've got some really great photos there! (By the way, it's spelled "desert." When I saw "the dessert," I was expecting pictures of pie. )

As for lenses, I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC version). I like it a lot, although I have never had the chance to compare it against the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. All the reviews and tests I've read say that it is almost as sharp, if not better, than the Nikon, and of course it is lighter and costs 1/3 as much. It's not as robust as the Nikon, but IQ is very nice. I would recommend taking a look at that.

I have a friend who shoots a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 on his D3 and loves it. It does not have VR/OS, but he is very happy with it. I have not had a chance to play around with that lens, but it is a possible alternative to the excellent-but-very-pricey Nikon lens, either VR1 or 2. My telephoto lens at this time is the Nikon 55-200 VR, which I like for what it is, but it's nowhere near pro quality. It's a decent way to get into the tele range, but I consider it a place holder until I can afford a better built f/2.8 tele zoom.

Thanks for site glad you liked it! I went through to day and fixed up all the spelling errors! thanks for pointing that out.

I was lookin at the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 lens, not sure if you have any experience with that one, it can focus at quite a close distance so I though it could double as my macro lens until I get more money as well as the mid/ low range. Not sure what kind of quality if it is, so if anyone has input id love to hear it!!

I was also actually lookin at the sigma 70-200mm I think it will be a must for when i get the money, hows the nikon 55-200? I also noticed sigma makes a 55-200mm for only $150 you can't really go wrong at that price. It's only f4 tho which isn't the greatest but until I get more money I think it might be worth it.

Any Ideas?

Photometric

Your 18-55 focus's within 7 inches of the subject, you almost get macro sizing with that one. I'm a big believer in that lens, and shot a family portrait of 20 people on a staircase with that one.

cab.in.boston

Dylanwyer wrote:

I was lookin at the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 lens, not sure if you have any experience with that one...

I don't have experience with that lens, but it's not a constant aperture, so just keep that in mind. I did consider that when I got my Tamron, but I preferred the constant 2.8 over the wider range of that Sigma.

I was also actually lookin at the sigma 70-200mm I think it will be a must for when i get the money, hows the nikon 55-200? I also noticed sigma makes a 55-200mm for only $150 you can't really go wrong at that price. It's only f4 tho which isn't the greatest but until I get more money I think it might be worth it.

Any Ideas?

I like the Nikkor 55-200 VR. It's on the slow side (variable from 4 to 5.6), but in good light it's a competent lens. It's definitely a low-grade lens, the mount is plastic, and it's not "true" AF-S, meaning you can't manually override the focus. But, for $225 or whatever it was, it's a great way to get a tele zoom until you can afford to get into the pro grade constant aperture zooms like the Sigma (or Nikkor - $$$). I have no problems recommending it, but don't expect miracles. It's good for what it is, but it's not hardly a pro grade lens.