Options
Next lens dilemma
cab.in.boston
Registered Users Posts: 634 Major grins
Hi folk, I just learned of this site, and after lurking for a while checking out some posts, it sure seems like a good place. I'm sure that just about every second thread is about "which lens should I buy," so here's another. 
Background: I've always been intrigued by photography, although could never really get excited about it in the film days, I guess I need the instant feedback of digital. I also could never get into using the various P&S bodies we had for several years. So a few months ago we got fed up with our P&S and decided to get ourselves invested in a dSLR, figuring the kids are only young once, right? I did a bunch of research, tried a few models, and ended up with a Nikon D90. We absolutely love it! Even when just taking pictures of nothing while experimenting with a setting, it just feels like I'm taking great photos, and I want more of it.
My current lenses are 50mm f/1.8D, 35mm f/1.8G DX, and 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR DX. All of them are fine, no complaints; except that they aren't wide enough. I am attracted to wide landscape and cityscape shots, and the 35mm prime just doesn't get it all in. I know it's not the size that's important, rather it's how you use it, but I still have lens envy.
So to the point (finally, you say!)... I suffer from a bit of Nikkor snobbery, and have felt that the 3rd-party OEMs just weren't "good enough," but after reading reviews and seeing samples, it sure seems that some of the Tamrons and Sigmas are great lenses. Of course, the price difference helps, too! I had been planning on my next lens being the Nikkor 16-85VR, which I've read nothing but good things about. That seems like a great range for a walkaround lens, although of course it isn't as fast as some others. The Sigma 17-70 is faster, although both the Sigma 18-50 and Tamron 17-50 are constant f/2.8, but both have more limited range.
Those of you with experience with those (or similar) lenses, which would you prefer, the "walkaroundability" of a 16-85 or 17-70, or the constant f/2.8? Obviously I have the 55-200 covered, so I can certainly change lenses when needed, it just seems that the 16-85 or 17-70 would be a great range for a day trip to the city and I wouldn't be missing shots when changing the lens. Since I have no experience with a lens of that range, I'm just not convinced that 17/18-50 would be a range I'd be happy with.
Thoughts/experiences?
(Sorry for such a long introductory post, thanks for any input!)
Background: I've always been intrigued by photography, although could never really get excited about it in the film days, I guess I need the instant feedback of digital. I also could never get into using the various P&S bodies we had for several years. So a few months ago we got fed up with our P&S and decided to get ourselves invested in a dSLR, figuring the kids are only young once, right? I did a bunch of research, tried a few models, and ended up with a Nikon D90. We absolutely love it! Even when just taking pictures of nothing while experimenting with a setting, it just feels like I'm taking great photos, and I want more of it.
My current lenses are 50mm f/1.8D, 35mm f/1.8G DX, and 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR DX. All of them are fine, no complaints; except that they aren't wide enough. I am attracted to wide landscape and cityscape shots, and the 35mm prime just doesn't get it all in. I know it's not the size that's important, rather it's how you use it, but I still have lens envy.
So to the point (finally, you say!)... I suffer from a bit of Nikkor snobbery, and have felt that the 3rd-party OEMs just weren't "good enough," but after reading reviews and seeing samples, it sure seems that some of the Tamrons and Sigmas are great lenses. Of course, the price difference helps, too! I had been planning on my next lens being the Nikkor 16-85VR, which I've read nothing but good things about. That seems like a great range for a walkaround lens, although of course it isn't as fast as some others. The Sigma 17-70 is faster, although both the Sigma 18-50 and Tamron 17-50 are constant f/2.8, but both have more limited range.
Those of you with experience with those (or similar) lenses, which would you prefer, the "walkaroundability" of a 16-85 or 17-70, or the constant f/2.8? Obviously I have the 55-200 covered, so I can certainly change lenses when needed, it just seems that the 16-85 or 17-70 would be a great range for a day trip to the city and I wouldn't be missing shots when changing the lens. Since I have no experience with a lens of that range, I'm just not convinced that 17/18-50 would be a range I'd be happy with.
Thoughts/experiences?
(Sorry for such a long introductory post, thanks for any input!)
0
Comments
I'm glad you elaborated in your post because it gives us a better idea of your wishes. Unfortunately, there is no clear right or wrong answer to your question.
If you are after the absolute best quality, either for yourself in making large prints, or for others in terms of selling your product, then only the best image quality will do and that may include the best large and constant aperture zooms as well as prime lenses.
If you are looking for maximum versatility, accepting some loss of absolute image quality for flexibility in use without changing lenses or without having several lenses from which to choose, the super zoom lenses are awfully convenient.
I suggest that "growing into" a system is probably best and that the middle range offers a good compromise in cost and utility.
For instance, the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical is a very nice lens, capable of high quality without the rather extreme cost of the Nikon equivalent. This is a very workable range for normal personal photography including events (birthdays and weddings) and walk-a-round photography (twice normal angle of view through moderate tele).
For even wider views one of the super-wide zooms is probably indicated:
Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24mm, f3.5-f4.5G ED
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
Tokina AT-X 11-16mm, f2.8 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]
The third party zooms are indeed competent and much less costly.
Adding a Tamron 17-50mm plus one of the super-wide zooms would add tremendous flexibility to your kit and accomplish your goals nicely, I should think.
I should add that my own travel kit consists of:
Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm, f/4L IS USM
Canon EF 50mm, f/1.4 USM
.. for lenses. I find this to be an extremely enabling combination.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I definitely plan on adding one of the super-wide zooms you mention (and that's a whole other debate... which of those is best for me). In fact, I've wondered at times if it would be better to get the wide zoom first, since I currently have 35 and 50 primes to cover that mid-range. But I think a stay-on-camera zoom, whether 17-50 or 16-85 or so is probably the best choice for my next lens. Besides, while I like to play with the camera as much as possible, for the most part it stays home so my wife can use it to shoot our daughter (at least until I buy another body
My goals are modest, I will never be a pro, and if I get a shot once in a while that I deem worthy of printing and hanging in our hallway, that's enough for me. Mostly we shoot the family and events we attend so we can share our daughter with our relatives, none of whom are local.
It seems from your recommendation that you would prefer a constant fast zoom over one with a little more range. I think that I agree with that in principle, I just need a little more conviction before pulling the trigger on a purchase. Perhaps I should look in to renting a couple of the lenses that I'm considering for a week or so to get a feel for them, but OTOH, if I do that, then I might already have spent 1/2 the price of just buying the lens! It does appear that there is an active second-hand market for lenses, too, so that takes some of the risk out of a purchase if I were to later change my mind or decide to "upgrade."
Thanks again.
My site 365 Project
Some cameras also have additional accuracy using lenses of f2.8 or better and the center focus dot. I was unable to determine if the D90 has that capability or not, but all of the above still applies.
For indoor photography this is critical for accurate AF and results in a much better keeper ratio.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums