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

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?

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!

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.

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!

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??

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?

 

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

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 06, 2011, 14:52

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesn�t 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

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 06, 2011, 15:01

Quote from: WarrenPrice on April 06, 2011, 14:59

Quote from: luissantos84 on April 06, 2011, 14:52

now I am looking at the big zoom until 200, it doesn�t 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..

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

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)

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..

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.  

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

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