Lenses
02-10-2010, 11:09 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Lenses
I am looking to purchase my next lens. I have a Nikon D90. I am an amateur or more like a hobbyist and have been shooting for 2 years. I like both portrait and landscape photography along with shooting cars.The lenses I have owned before were the 18-55mm (D40 kit) lens and 55-200 F/4.5-5.6 VR lens.
The lenses I have now:
Nikkor 50mm AF-S F/1.4 & some old school crappy 28-80mm that came on an old N80
My budget is $1500 at the most (due to one particular lens I want).
****EDITED LIST****
My lens choices in order of want I want the most (used approx prices):
- Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8 ~ $1500 (out of budget
)
. . . - I will opt for the Tokina 11-16mm ~$500
- Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ~ $1000
. . . - or the affordable Tokina 12-24 f4 DX ~ $400
- Nikkor 24-70mm F/2.8 ~ $1400
. . . - Is the Sigma equivalent decent? ~ $400
- Nikkor 10-24mm
. . . - or its cheaper equivalent, Tamron 10-24mm ~ $300
- Nikkor 18-200 VR ~ $600
- Nikkor 18-55 VR ~ $170
I threw in the 18-200 for practicality as an all around lens. What do you guys think?
Cheers,
Matthew
The lenses I have now:
Nikkor 50mm AF-S F/1.4 & some old school crappy 28-80mm that came on an old N80
My budget is $1500 at the most (due to one particular lens I want).
****EDITED LIST****
My lens choices in order of want I want the most (used approx prices):
- Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8 ~ $1500 (out of budget
). . . - I will opt for the Tokina 11-16mm ~$500
- Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ~ $1000
. . . - or the affordable Tokina 12-24 f4 DX ~ $400
- Nikkor 24-70mm F/2.8 ~ $1400
. . . - Is the Sigma equivalent decent? ~ $400
- Nikkor 10-24mm
. . . - or its cheaper equivalent, Tamron 10-24mm ~ $300
- Nikkor 18-200 VR ~ $600
- Nikkor 18-55 VR ~ $170
I threw in the 18-200 for practicality as an all around lens. What do you guys think?
Cheers,
Matthew
02-10-2010, 11:24 AM
#2
Originally Posted by NightRider,Feb 10 2010, 03:09 PM
I want a wide angle telephoto lens.
then hunt down a 105 1.8 or 2.5 Ai-S with whatever money you have left in your budget.
That'll cover your wide zoom and fast lens + a portraiture lens
02-10-2010, 11:29 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Borbor,Feb 10 2010, 01:24 PM
17-55 DX for your wide angle zoom
then hunt down a 105 1.8 or 2.5 Ai-S with whatever money you have left in your budget.
That'll cover your wide zoom and fast lens + a portraiture lens
then hunt down a 105 1.8 or 2.5 Ai-S with whatever money you have left in your budget.
That'll cover your wide zoom and fast lens + a portraiture lens
02-10-2010, 11:33 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: LI, New York
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 24-70 is always a awesome buy. Very good lens and it will hold its value for a long time. It isn't very wide on a DX body and its heavy and huge as shit. Don't know if you need to spend all that money if your just shooting for fun. Sigma might be a good alternative. I have the Nikon. Ask joeyballs i think he has the sigma.
The 18-200 is great like u said cause its all around practical I have one on my D80 that I leave in my car for whatever shooting. Quality varies over the range. Suffers from lens creep.
10-24 is a great wide angle lens some distortion. Nothing compared to the high end wide angle stuff but good enough whatever that means.
So i guess i'd pick one of those three depending on what u want to shoot.
The 18-200 is great like u said cause its all around practical I have one on my D80 that I leave in my car for whatever shooting. Quality varies over the range. Suffers from lens creep.
10-24 is a great wide angle lens some distortion. Nothing compared to the high end wide angle stuff but good enough whatever that means.
So i guess i'd pick one of those three depending on what u want to shoot.
02-10-2010, 11:40 AM
#5
24-70 on a DX? forget it. It's not wide enough if you wanted a wider lens.
Why the prime 105? It could be had for cheap and it's got great optics. It might be manual focus, but for portraiture, it'll hold you over until you can get the updated macro versions.
Why the prime 105? It could be had for cheap and it's got great optics. It might be manual focus, but for portraiture, it'll hold you over until you can get the updated macro versions.
02-10-2010, 11:48 AM
#6
Registered User
your list of potential lenses covers a lot of ground.
if you want the convenience of not changing lenses very often, the 18-200vr is a great all around, do almost everything lens. it's not "perfect", but not nearly as compromised as one might think given the range and price.
if you don't mind splitting the range up, the 16-85vr is another good lens, that can be later paired with say the 70-300vr.
i haven't used the Nikon 10-24, but have used the Sigma 10-20. such lenses add another perspective, but i would consider them more "complimentary" than "core."
the f/2.8 zooms, i believe, are somewhat too "specialized" for the average amateur. they are quite expensive, have more limited range, and in general performance/results, not enough "better" than the mid-range counterpart relative to the huge price difference. they do offer more extended low-light performance, but assuming that is indoors, you can often address that with much cheaper primes and using your feet to "zoom."
when you say the 50mm is not practical on the DX camera, what do you mean? it's a short-telephoto that could be a great portrait lens. i just picked up the cheap 50mm 1.8 to experiment with on my D300 as an indoor / portrait lens. you could sell your 1.4 and buy both the 35 and 50 1.8s. or look at the Sigma 30 1.4.
a good resource for nikon-related reviews is http://bythom.com/nikon.htm
if you want the convenience of not changing lenses very often, the 18-200vr is a great all around, do almost everything lens. it's not "perfect", but not nearly as compromised as one might think given the range and price.
if you don't mind splitting the range up, the 16-85vr is another good lens, that can be later paired with say the 70-300vr.
i haven't used the Nikon 10-24, but have used the Sigma 10-20. such lenses add another perspective, but i would consider them more "complimentary" than "core."
the f/2.8 zooms, i believe, are somewhat too "specialized" for the average amateur. they are quite expensive, have more limited range, and in general performance/results, not enough "better" than the mid-range counterpart relative to the huge price difference. they do offer more extended low-light performance, but assuming that is indoors, you can often address that with much cheaper primes and using your feet to "zoom."
when you say the 50mm is not practical on the DX camera, what do you mean? it's a short-telephoto that could be a great portrait lens. i just picked up the cheap 50mm 1.8 to experiment with on my D300 as an indoor / portrait lens. you could sell your 1.4 and buy both the 35 and 50 1.8s. or look at the Sigma 30 1.4.
a good resource for nikon-related reviews is http://bythom.com/nikon.htm
02-10-2010, 11:57 AM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Borbor,Feb 10 2010, 01:40 PM
24-70 on a DX? forget it. It's not wide enough if you wanted a wider lens.
Why the prime 105? It could be had for cheap and it's got great optics. It might be manual focus, but for portraiture, it'll hold you over until you can get the updated macro versions.
Why the prime 105? It could be had for cheap and it's got great optics. It might be manual focus, but for portraiture, it'll hold you over until you can get the updated macro versions.
The 105 on a DX camera may be too much for me. I'd rather spend the money on a macro version but not interested in it just yet. I may not cough up the $1400 on a 24-70mm Nikkor lens since I'm starting to realize how many more lenses I could buy with that amount. You are right it's not wide enough, but I was planning to complement it with the 10-24mm.
Trending Topics
02-10-2010, 12:08 PM
#8
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by s2kupo,Feb 10 2010, 01:33 PM
The 24-70 is always a awesome buy. Very good lens and it will hold its value for a long time. It isn't very wide on a DX body and its heavy and huge as shit. Don't know if you need to spend all that money if your just shooting for fun. Sigma might be a good alternative. I have the Nikon. Ask joeyballs i think he has the sigma.
The 18-200 is great like u said cause its all around practical I have one on my D80 that I leave in my car for whatever shooting. Quality varies over the range. Suffers from lens creep.
10-24 is a great wide angle lens some distortion. Nothing compared to the high end wide angle stuff but good enough whatever that means.
So i guess i'd pick one of those three depending on what u want to shoot.
The 18-200 is great like u said cause its all around practical I have one on my D80 that I leave in my car for whatever shooting. Quality varies over the range. Suffers from lens creep.
10-24 is a great wide angle lens some distortion. Nothing compared to the high end wide angle stuff but good enough whatever that means.
So i guess i'd pick one of those three depending on what u want to shoot.
I held a 24-70 before and it is huge and heavy so I may not want to lug that around. I agree that the Nikkor version may just be too deep for my pockets.
I forgot to include the 14-24mm which I have been wanting for a long time...then again it is over $1500. Over my budget.
02-10-2010, 12:13 PM
#9
I don't know how serious you are with this hobby, but I could tell you from first hand experience is, if you cheap out on the lens, you'll pay for it later.
How?
a few ways:
1) Photos won't be as crisp out of the camera meaning you have to spend more time tinkering.
2) Entry level lenses depreciate a helluva lot faster than higher priced lenses. If you buy used, the rate of depreciation might be slower, but there's no guarantee as companies tend to update those a lot more frequently than they do with the premium optics.
3) They're fine during the day, but not so much in low light due to the small aperture
4) MIght be harder to sell in case you decide this hobby isn't for you and/or you want to upgrade
5) If you decide to upgrade AGAIN, you would've ended up paying twice.
How?
a few ways:
1) Photos won't be as crisp out of the camera meaning you have to spend more time tinkering.
2) Entry level lenses depreciate a helluva lot faster than higher priced lenses. If you buy used, the rate of depreciation might be slower, but there's no guarantee as companies tend to update those a lot more frequently than they do with the premium optics.
3) They're fine during the day, but not so much in low light due to the small aperture
4) MIght be harder to sell in case you decide this hobby isn't for you and/or you want to upgrade
5) If you decide to upgrade AGAIN, you would've ended up paying twice.
02-10-2010, 12:23 PM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by philbert,Feb 10 2010, 01:48 PM
your list of potential lenses covers a lot of ground.
if you want the convenience of not changing lenses very often, the 18-200vr is a great all around, do almost everything lens. it's not "perfect", but not nearly as compromised as one might think given the range and price.
if you don't mind splitting the range up, the 16-85vr is another good lens, that can be later paired with say the 70-300vr.
i haven't used the Nikon 10-24, but have used the Sigma 10-20. such lenses add another perspective, but i would consider them more "complimentary" than "core."
the f/2.8 zooms, i believe, are somewhat too "specialized" for the average amateur. they are quite expensive, have more limited range, and in general performance/results, not enough "better" than the mid-range counterpart relative to the huge price difference. they do offer more extended low-light performance, but assuming that is indoors, you can often address that with much cheaper primes and using your feet to "zoom."
when you say the 50mm is not practical on the DX camera, what do you mean? it's a short-telephoto that could be a great portrait lens. i just picked up the cheap 50mm 1.8 to experiment with on my D300 as an indoor / portrait lens. you could sell your 1.4 and buy both the 35 and 50 1.8s. or look at the Sigma 30 1.4.
a good resource for nikon-related reviews is http://bythom.com/nikon.htm
if you want the convenience of not changing lenses very often, the 18-200vr is a great all around, do almost everything lens. it's not "perfect", but not nearly as compromised as one might think given the range and price.
if you don't mind splitting the range up, the 16-85vr is another good lens, that can be later paired with say the 70-300vr.
i haven't used the Nikon 10-24, but have used the Sigma 10-20. such lenses add another perspective, but i would consider them more "complimentary" than "core."
the f/2.8 zooms, i believe, are somewhat too "specialized" for the average amateur. they are quite expensive, have more limited range, and in general performance/results, not enough "better" than the mid-range counterpart relative to the huge price difference. they do offer more extended low-light performance, but assuming that is indoors, you can often address that with much cheaper primes and using your feet to "zoom."
when you say the 50mm is not practical on the DX camera, what do you mean? it's a short-telephoto that could be a great portrait lens. i just picked up the cheap 50mm 1.8 to experiment with on my D300 as an indoor / portrait lens. you could sell your 1.4 and buy both the 35 and 50 1.8s. or look at the Sigma 30 1.4.
a good resource for nikon-related reviews is http://bythom.com/nikon.htm
The 16-85 VR is a good choice too so I added that to my list. I remember using the 55-200 VR a lot when I was at the zoo so I may have to get the 70-300 VR in the future. philbert, how sharp is your Sigma 10-20?
I am serious enough that I consider all my purchases an investment. Borbor, I know too that buying something that is priced low will cost me 2x in the end should I ever sell and replace it. I do agree with all your points
I should have clarified that I could sell my 50mm 1.4 AF-S and get the 50mm 1.8 along with the 35mm 1.4 and still have money left over!