Wanting New Glass: Budget around $800
I am ready to upgrade on my glass and need some recomendations.
1. I have a Nikon D90, but I do hope in a few years(5 maybe) to purchase a full frame. I would like to be able to use all glass purchased with both the DX and FX frame bodies. What are the pros or cons in trying to do that?
2. I do mostly natural light portrait work( a lot of outside work) and I would like to be using this lens for some work at local baseball games(little league, high school and college). I don't have to have a fast zoom on the sports end, because most of the shots will be of the infield action(90 ft or less). Eventually I will get a fast zoom for football games.
3. I would like to stay in the Nikon family, but I am willing to look at non-dedicated glass with strong recommendations. Whatever I get, it just has to be fast.
Thanks in advance for all recommendations,
1. I have a Nikon D90, but I do hope in a few years(5 maybe) to purchase a full frame. I would like to be able to use all glass purchased with both the DX and FX frame bodies. What are the pros or cons in trying to do that?
2. I do mostly natural light portrait work( a lot of outside work) and I would like to be using this lens for some work at local baseball games(little league, high school and college). I don't have to have a fast zoom on the sports end, because most of the shots will be of the infield action(90 ft or less). Eventually I will get a fast zoom for football games.
3. I would like to stay in the Nikon family, but I am willing to look at non-dedicated glass with strong recommendations. Whatever I get, it just has to be fast.
Thanks in advance for all recommendations,
0
Comments
There are rather wonderful lenses available for the DX format and the zoom lenses give the cameras convenient ranges that you cannot necessarily duplicate with FF zooms.
If you truly think of the DX cameras as a different format that "just happen" to also accept the FF lenses, then you can build a system tailored to your specific needs much more easily.
For instance, a Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX is a wonderful range for interior work and especially for event work. The Nikkor 17-35mm, f2.8D IF-ED AF-S is a FF lens that will fit and it will yield a similar wide field to normal range, but then you would have to switch lenses to gain the short telephoto function built into the Nikkor 17-55mm DX. That means that more intimate compositions either have to be cropped from the wider image of the 17-35mm lens, or you have to switch lenses, or you have to use a second camera and lens. To me that is a major and significant advantage for the DX lens on the DX camera.
If you decide, after 5 years of use, that the Nikkor 17-55mm DX no longer meets your needs, you can sell it and the annual total cost of ownership (purchased price minus selling price, amortized over 5 years of use) will be minimal compared to the advantages of the "right" lens for many situations.
A Tamron AF 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) is a rather nice alternative to the Nikkor 17-55mm DX, providing similar image quality and a very reasonable price. The AF speed is not the same but still sufficient for most applications.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Qarik,
85mm 1.4 would be awesome, but I have a budget I am trying to stick to. Is there $900 difference in quality between the 1.8 and 1.4 that would justify the extra money? Do you have some photos to compare the 1.4 vs 1.8?
Thanks for the reply!
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
.dx format for me is not.....I will moving to FF in future......looking for a fire sale on D3X
very well may have to settle for a D700 .... that is like buying a Bear Bow and really wanting a Mathews
yes and no. The 85mm 1.4 is a piece of end game glass. imo it is the best protrait lens nikon as ever made. It is optically superior to the 1.8, better build quality, and of course a little faster but the biggest differentaiator between the 1.8 and 1.4 is bokeh.
I am of the opnion to always get teh best glass you can get even if you have to save logner for it. The other option is the new 50mm 1.4 for about $500.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Art,
Which 24-70 f2.8 EX, the $1,400 version or the $750 one?
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
Qarik,
Do you have some comparison shots between the 85 & 50 1.4's? I would like to be able to save for the 85mm 1.4, but that may take me another 6 months and I have a few things coming up that I would really like to have a faster lens for(compared to what I have now).
Thanks for the reply:D
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
sorry..no shot fron the 85mm 1.8. I will post some form 1.4 later tongiht if I remember.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Ziggy53,
In the Tamron, would it be worth the extra $150 for the new vibration control feature?
On the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, that is a little beyond my budget right at the moment. What is your opinion on the 85mm 1.4 vs 1.8? What would be the limitations on the 50mm 1.4?
Thanks for all the help!!:D
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
I have a D90 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VC) that Ziggy mentioned. I am very happy with this lens, although I'm no expert or anything. I have not seriously researched the new VC version, but I have seen posts that indicate people are not very happy with that lens, and that they preferred the older version. Of course I'm repeating this about 4th-hand, so take it with a grain of salt and do your own research. All I can say for a fact is that I am very happy with the non-VC version.
My site 365 Project
cab.in.boston,
Thanks for the info. What type of photography do you use the lens for? Would it work for infield baseball shots? Do you have some photos to show taken with that lens?
Thanks,:D
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
As for infield baseball, it will work depending on what effect you are looking for. 50mm is not reaching very far, and given that you're likely to be fairly far off of the diamond (unless they let you roam around in foul territory), you won't likely be getting very close-up shots, especially if you're on the 1B side and want to catch the 3B fielding a ball. If I were you, I'd probably be looking at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, which sells at B&H or Adorama for $799. I have no experience with this lens, but it is on my wishlist, because I know I'll never be able to afford (or justify) the Nikkor version. But if you want to catch shots of the entire infield, or not really get close-ups, 50mm as an upper limit should be fine.
Given your current lenses, you should be able to tell if that focal length range will work for you. Set your 18-105 to 50mm and see if that is long enough for what you want to do. Then play around with your 70-300 (limiting yourself to 200) and see if you like that better.
As for some sample pics, I don't have the EXIF data on these (I store my photos on Photobucket, which down-sizes and doesn't store data - and I'm at work so I don't have the originals handy), but as I recall, these were all taken with this lens. Don't judge me, I never claimed to be a great photog.
My site 365 Project
cab.in.boston,
Thanks for the info and pictures. I will try out the ranges and see if it will work. Beautiful photos. Daughter or Granddaughter? She looks to be about the age of my oldest(Lyndsey is 4 and Madyson is 2). They are the main reason I am spending money on a previously inexpensive hobby!!! Now I need to try and make some money back just to break even on my investments, along with the fact that I will have captured the most precious moments a man can ever experience - those moments of being a Daddy!!
Thanks,
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
No problem, Jimmie. That's my daughter. She was about 2y9m in those photos, and turned 3 in late Feb. Our second (a boy) is due in June, a few weeks after I finish my masters. It's been a fun few months, with work, 2 grad school classes at night, a 3 y/o, and a pregnant wife. I am looking forward to the "quiet" life after the baby comes. Ha!
I hear you about the previously inexpensive hobby. I've always been attracted to all the "stuff" that comes along with photography, I just wish I had half the skills that I see in so many other people here!
My site 365 Project
The only difference I know of is the HSM (hyper sonic motor) a little quicker ......I have the older less expensive model....bought right after they came out.....I would say the newer model (899 at B&H ) but if want a still excellent lens the cheaper one would be an excellent choice.
If you decide that you can lie with a dx lens then the 17-70f2.8-4 would also be a great choice....I have read several excellent reviews on it......(at the bottom of the above linked B&H page)
At least there will be a little spread in years between your two. My oldest turned 4 in March and the baby turns 2 in June. We haven't had a good nights sleep in over 2 years!! I'll try to post some of the ones we just took recently. The only things blooming around here during Easter was the Bradford Pear trees and the dogwoods. The azaleas just come into their fullest over the last week, so we got a few Sunday after church. Congratulations on the new baby on the way
Experience in photography as I see it is snapping photos and reading DGrin!! The more the better!!
Keep up the good work!!!
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
From the following 2 reviews:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-VC-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/482-tamron_1750_28vc_canon
... I suggest that the Tamron 17-55mm, f2.8 with the VC is slightly less optical quality than the previous non-VC version.
While the Nikkor 85mm, f1.4D IF is an arguably better lens for a lot of different reasons, the Nikkor 85mm f1.8D is still a very good lens. Both lenses are not AF-S so they require a body with a screw-drive AF motor to provide autofocus. (I believe that the D90 has a screw-drive motor.)
Likewise both the Nikkor 50mm, f1.4D and the Nikkor 50mm, f1.8D are very good lenses, with the 1.4 version arguably better.
If you have the room to shoot, the 85mm lenses will provide less potential for distortion of facial features in portraiture than the 50mm lenses on a FF camera body. On a DX body they both have a place, but the 85mm will seem longer still (because of the smaller viewing angle, of course), so I would recommend the 50mm lenses as being somewhat more versatile on the crop bodies.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I vote for the 50mm f/1.8!
This lens can be had cheaply and will not disappoint. Start with that and then, because you haven't had to sell things to afford it, you can better make a decision.
The Bokeh thing Quarik mentiions is a well known fact on separating out the 1.8 from the 1.4 Nikon 85mm.
And though Ziggy mentions the 1.4 50mm is arguably better than the 1.8...that argument can be difficult to discern where the lens meets the road~I am certain he is not judging it by the mere price of one over the other. if price were the deciding factor, most of us would have one lens, due to the cost....the fifty 1.8 is affordable, and easily re-sellable without losing much coin.
One thing though....you do mention fast glass...as we read everywhere, fast means letting in more light. But since you do mention sports, you may just mean fast Autofocus....if fast autofocus is what we're talkin here...the f/1,8 50mm will do what is needed!
cheers,
Angevin1,
Thanks so much for the info. The 1.8's do sound very enticing, and I will be looking hard and heavy at both the 50mm and the 85mm.
As for fast glass, I do need low light capability and the fast AF. Is there a zoom in the price range I have that would fit those requirements?
Thanks,
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
I have never heard anyone say the 50 1.8 is fast to focus. I would seriously questions their experience if I did.
I looked back through Jimmy, and couldn't find your price range.
It's in the thread title: $800
By the way, I love the Tamron 17-50 but 50mm is too wide for baseball. Infield shots are boring unless you're getting facial expressions and close up action shots (the same can be said of most sports shooting). Spend your money on a fast 70-200 or a fast 135 prime.
Tamron 70-200 2.8 is sharper than Nikon or Canon according to a popular review site. I did a comparison against my canon and I noticed slightly better detail and contrast. The focus is slower, it lacks VR, and the motor is noisy but you are getting something under $800.
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Anyway...any zooms in your price range. Yes and no.
Yes there are. But non I can think of that have the quality and qualities you might like.
1. You want Sharp?
2. You want fast!
3. You want portraits and Sports.
It all reminds me of two old worn cliches from Hot rodding and auto repair.
1. Speed cost money, how fast can you afford to go?
2. Cheap, Fast, Quality. You can pick two only. If it's fast and Cheap, it'll have no quality. If Cheap and Quality, it'll not be fast...etc.
I still think your Best bet is to forgo zooms and focus on getting a decent prime in that price range. Why? Because you can buy a decent prime in that range. That D90 is going to give you the extra punch-out for distance, and it'll also place you well away from you portrait subjects if you go too long on the prime which is prob why you'd like a zoom. But when speaking to Quality, Zoom and Sports...I think you add so much more to the equation that price no longer creeps upward, it jumps.
I feel most certain that if price weren't a consideration here, many folks would say the 70-200VRII would be your best all round bet.
As an addendum to what I recommended in an earlier post: the 50mm 1.8, I'll add a Kenko 1.4 TC to that and there you have it. On the D90 with 50mm should translate to 75mm and add the TC for your sporting days, and you got a little over a 140mm. The Kenko and the 50 will set you back less than $350.00~
And yes, I've tried the combo. Just this past week.
Thanks for the info. Do you have some shots with the 50mm 1.8 and the Kenko 1.4 TC? Also, if I am going to go with a TC, then what about the 50mm 1.4? Isn't the focusing as fast or faster and then with the TC I am stopped back to a 1.8 or 2? I am trying to read and learn as much as I can and stay within a certain budget getting as close to meeting my needs as I can come.
Would it be better to get the Tamron 70-200 2.8(around $730) or would I be giving up IQ, focusing speed, etc?
This is definitely turning out to be a learning experience. Especially since there are very few camera shops within a short drive that would have any inventory of lenses to try! Doing it this way, I have to get pretty close the first time, no extra money for mistakes!!
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.
1. I can prob come up with several shot...or take some new ones.
2. And the reason I recommended the cheaper 50mm was simply to save money on the front side, so if you decided you didn't quite like the range of 50mm, you could move on w/o losing sleep, so to speak.
I'll see what I can round up regarding shots, and let you decide.
later~
Your photos of interest start at Number 11.
hope that helps~
Thanks so much for the pics. #12 and #17 are a good match. The TC does bring you in closer and I can't see any IQ loss(I'm using a small cheap HP laptop at home). The one thing that is jumping at me is that the 50mm w/ TC is not going to get me in close enough for very many shots on a baseball diamond.
Ultimately, I am going to have to decide whether I want to be able to shoot more portrait work or more sports right now. Darn this accursed photography fever, it's worse than being a broke drunk. You want that 20 yr old scotch, but all you have is enough to buy a half pint of OFC!!
So that I can go back to the drawing board with a little bit more knowledge under my belt:
1. What is the mathematics to figure out the correct mm when you use a crop sensor camera?
2. Then when you add a TC, do you just multiply by the TC muliplier, ie 1.4, 2, etc?
3. What are the downsides of using a TC, IQ, focusing speed, sharpness, etc?
Anybody that has these answers, please help me out!!!
Thanks guys(and gals):D
www.focusedonyourmemories.com
What you see depends on what you're looking for.