MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: nikkor lens advice  (Read 6934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 06, 2011, 10:50 »
0
Hi, I mainly use the 50mm 1.8 but I am lately doing a few full lenght shoots and without many space I cannot go back or I would fall from 2nd floor :P

I have a cheap sigma 18-200 that I have used many time but a few months ago I left it behind once the 50mm is crazy sharp and I am in love with it, I use it to everything but without space and sometimes shooting outdoor it is quite difficult to take a picture without stepping back and back!

Mainly, I want to buy a 18 (maybe 24) with some zoom range, after looking a few I can only see a few, the 24-70, the 24-120 or the 18-200.. After a few time reviewing these lens I found that the more sharp would be the 24-70 (but the price is insane..).. so I am thinking of the 24-120 but on "http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=638&Camera=614&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=733&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4" I found that it is far from the 50mm sharpness and overall quality, I guess from my cheap sigma it would rock out for sure but far from the 50mm prime..

I would love to have a lens to do some full lenght and also to outdoor so I would need some zoom range too.. What can you advice? Other lens? What would fit best my needs?


« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2011, 11:23 »
0
I'd say bite the bullet (translation: find a way to deal with the pain) and get the 24-70.  It's my primary lens for studio work, and one expensive purchase that I don't regret for a moment.  I have other lenses that get occasional use, but the 24-70 and my new 10-24 (for landscapes) are on my camera more than the others combined.

« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2011, 11:37 »
0
I'd say bite the bullet (translation: find a way to deal with the pain) and get the 24-70.  It's my primary lens for studio work, and one expensive purchase that I don't regret for a moment.  I have other lenses that get occasional use, but the 24-70 and my new 10-24 (for landscapes) are on my camera more than the others combined.

ahah thanks for your feedback! I have a D90, that is a FF lens right? Would it fit greatly in my cam?

the 24-120 is for DX.. and 200g lighter.. and 400 pounds less!
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 11:45 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2011, 12:01 »
0
It's a full frame lens, but it'll work fine on a crop sensor.  I use it with a D300.

The 24-120 isn't remotely in the same class, both in terms of aperture (variable vs. F/2.8 fixed) and optical quality.  I have the original version, which I never use.  I've read that the current 24-120 is better, but it still can't compare to the 24-70.

« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2011, 12:10 »
0
You are best to buy FF lenses when you can, I bet if your next body isn't FF the one after that will be.  My every day lens is a DX 17-55  2.8, it would cost too much right now to replace this lens too if I jumped to FF.  All my other lenses are FF thankfully.

« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2011, 12:11 »
0
24x1.5= 38mm...

got me thinking of the 35mm :P

I want also to shoot outdoor, quite confused now once I want an all around lens but thats not possible..

« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2011, 12:13 »
0
You are best to buy FF lenses when you can, I bet if your next body isn't FF the one after that will be.  My every day lens is a DX 17-55  2.8, it would cost too much right now to replace this lens too if I jumped to FF.  All my other lenses are FF thankfully.

the tam or the nikkor? expensive!

« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2011, 12:45 »
0
Mine is a Nikon (nikkor?).  I just bought a D7K and this lens is (still) worth more than the new body.  I think I paid $CDN1599 at the time, but I'm using it on it's third body so I think it's paid off.  A very good purchase.  It's a 2.8 at both ends too, so I don't lose any light if I'm at the 55 end.  This is even more valuable with my 70-200 because I rarely use it with ideal lighting conditions.  Then there's my Sigma 50-500 that is 6.3 on the 500 end.  I can't convey how much I hate this lens and really need to get rid of it and save for a better replacement.

I can't tell someone to go out and spend a wad of money when I don't know if they really need it.  But, in my own experience I rapidly grew out of all the cheap lenses, lights, flashes that I have purchased.  Try taking photos of a toddler, or a puppy, or a moose with a 5.6 and that lens will hunt and hunt for focus, then images are still blurry on your LCD because the subject is moving around and your lens was a step behind - you will soon be jonesing for a faster lens. 

« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2011, 13:49 »
0
Tamron 17-50 mm SP AF F/2.8 VC XR Di ll LD Aspherical (IF) - 388.00

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM - 559.00

Nikon 17-55 mm f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - 1,113.00

How much better is the Nikkor version?? :P

« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2011, 13:57 »
0
I have a Nikon 18-70 DX lens that I bought used.  I use it a lot on my D90.  It gets pretty good reviews (see below).  Apparently it was a kit lens for the D70.

http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm

« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2011, 14:01 »
0
I have a Nikon 18-70 DX lens that I bought used.  I use it a lot on my D90.  It gets pretty good reviews (see below).  Apparently it was a kit lens for the D70.

http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm


there is the 105, the 135, the 200.. my guess and after looking it goes worst along the zoom range..

but overall the 2.8 or the 3.5 might not be that different, I guess lighting entering (indoors etc) and perhaps quality built etc but will it bring a lot better quality to the picture?

« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2011, 14:37 »
0
Tamron 17-50 mm SP AF F/2.8 VC XR Di ll LD Aspherical (IF) - 388.00

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM - 559.00

Nikon 17-55 mm f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - 1,113.00

How much better is the Nikkor version?? :P

Wish I could say.  It's double the price.  Are they 2.8 at both ends?  I can add this though - I take a lot of youth sports photos and catch myself out in the rain quite often.  Although it is not sold as waterproof, this lens is very very tight and I don't even worry about it.  I'm not stupid - I do get cover it as soon as possible - but my pocketwizards and flashes are much more vulnerable in the rain than this lens.  That big Sigma that I have (50-500) - there is no way I could expose it to rain for even a second.  I would be weary of using it in heavy wind too. 

« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2011, 14:52 »
0
 ;D ;D

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesnt look as bad as reviews.. anyone got the 18-200 nikkor?

WarrenPrice

« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2011, 14:59 »
0
;D ;D

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesnt look as bad as reviews.. anyone got the 18-200 nikkor?

Yep.  Just got it.  and LOVE it.  Less expensive that newer 70-200 but doesn't have VR.  I shoot a lot of fast action.  Don't really miss the VR.


OOOOOps... spoke too soon.  I have the 80-200.

« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2011, 15:01 »
0
;D ;D

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesnt look as bad as reviews.. anyone got the 18-200 nikkor?

Yep.  Just got it.  and LOVE it.  Less expensive that newer 70-200 but doesn't have VR.  I shoot a lot of fast action.  Don't really miss the VR.

Hmmm :) I have a lot of my port done on a Sigma, so worst cannot be, Ken likes it too, a lot actually

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2011, 15:22 »
0
;D ;D

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesnt look as bad as reviews.. anyone got the 18-200 nikkor?

Yep.  Just got it.  and LOVE it.  Less expensive that newer 70-200 but doesn't have VR.  I shoot a lot of fast action.  Don't really miss the VR.

Hmmm :) I have a lot of my port done on a Sigma, so worst cannot be, Ken likes it too, a lot actually

The 18-200 isn't a bad lens...it's just not ideal for low light with out a flash.

« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2011, 15:29 »
0
;D ;D

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesnt look as bad as reviews.. anyone got the 18-200 nikkor?

Yep.  Just got it.  and LOVE it.  Less expensive that newer 70-200 but doesn't have VR.  I shoot a lot of fast action.  Don't really miss the VR.

Hmmm :) I have a lot of my port done on a Sigma, so worst cannot be, Ken likes it too, a lot actually

The 18-200 isn't a bad lens...it's just not ideal for low light with out a flash.

yeah of course but as we know 2.8 are expensive lens, I would buy the 24-70 or the 120 but it is a FF lens, so instead of the 24 would be 38, not that wide, regarding studio I need around 24 regarding my studio dimensions..

« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2011, 15:55 »
0
They say that Nikon 24-85/2.8-4 is very good value (but still too expensive for me at the moment).

« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2011, 16:14 »
0
They say that Nikon 24-85/2.8-4 is very good value (but still too expensive for me at the moment).

and DX, how have I missed that one :P

ap

« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2011, 17:00 »
0
i think if you're going to upgrade to a ff camera soon, then it's better to invest in an fx lens like the 24-70 now. any dx lens you have will be wasted on a future ff camera for your photo will be cropped to only about 5mp.

as for the 18-200, it's very versatile and light for the purpose. however, i felt it was soft at the 200mm end. if you ever get the 70-200mm you'll be shocked how much better it is. so, i think the decision is not about the lens, but what kind of camera you want in the future.

nevertheless, i was able to offload my d90 and 18-200 mm lens for a handy price.  (they're extremely popular second hand) ;D

« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2011, 17:12 »
0
i think if you're going to upgrade to a ff camera soon, then it's better to invest in an fx lens like the 24-70 now. any dx lens you have will be wasted on a future ff camera for your photo will be cropped to only about 5mp.

as for the 18-200, it's very versatile and light for the purpose. however, i felt it was soft at the 200mm end. if you ever get the 70-200mm you'll be shocked how much better it is. so, i think the decision is not about the lens, but what kind of camera you want in the future.

nevertheless, i was able to offload my d90 and 18-200 mm lens for a handy price.  (they're extremely popular second hand) ;D

you have sold it with the 18-200? I guess regarding FF I would say wait for the new D700 perhaps.. Overall I want a lens that goes from 18 or 24 (DX body) to a few zoom maybe, to make it more versatile instead of only studio..

« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2011, 17:52 »
0

ap

« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2011, 18:04 »
0
you have sold it with the 18-200? I guess regarding FF I would say wait for the new D700 perhaps.. Overall I want a lens that goes from 18 or 24 (DX body) to a few zoom maybe, to make it more versatile instead of only studio..

i sold them separately, but can you believe, the price of the 18-200 actually went up in price a year later.  :o

by the way, amazon.com has great user reviews on all these lenses.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 18:08 by ap »

« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2011, 18:11 »
0
you have sold it with the 18-200? I guess regarding FF I would say wait for the new D700 perhaps.. Overall I want a lens that goes from 18 or 24 (DX body) to a few zoom maybe, to make it more versatile instead of only studio..

i sold them separately, but can you believe, the price of the 18-200 actually went up in price a year later.  :o

by the way, amazon.com has great user reviews on all these lenses.

there are reviews of everything, from great to pretty bad, quite confusing, mainly pros look like avoid it, better two lenses, the F2.8

what have you bought instead?

« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2011, 19:21 »
0
The 24-70mm FF lens is worth the price but on a DX body I don't think it will give you enough on the wide end and probably require you to buy another lens for wide-angle coverage (24mm is 36mm on the DX remember)  If you have the money the AFS 17-55 mm f/2.8 G DX ED-IF Nikkor is the highest rated mid-range DX zoom and apparently the way to go (I have not used it). 

I can recommend the lower cost AFS-Nikkor 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VR G.  It is as sharp as the 18-200mm but costs less and gives good telephoto range and a little bit more wide-angle coverage.  I use this lens the most and with my AFS 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 ED VR G (really a sharp telephoto and FF so I will be able to keep it when/if I move up to a FF body) I don't need to carry much else.

My favorite lens rating site is ->http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

c h e e r s
fred   


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2077 Views
Last post September 05, 2007, 01:16
by sharply_done
9 Replies
4403 Views
Last post August 18, 2009, 21:26
by davey_rocket
6 Replies
5887 Views
Last post September 04, 2011, 21:37
by Elenathewise
11 Replies
5058 Views
Last post October 28, 2012, 13:32
by WarrenPrice
9 Replies
1787 Views
Last post May 09, 2015, 08:21
by Mantis

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors