D80 next week - stuck on lenses!

[longroad]

I want to buy my D80 next week. I've been umm'ing and aah'ing about the kit lens (18-135mm) but I think I will give it a miss. I would rather have more specialist lenses.

My goals for the camera:
- must be able to zoom as far as possible within budget
- need a lens for normal everyday use, eg for people and quick snaps
- wide angle for landscapes (i can get this later)

So here are my choices..

Zoom:
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF

"Normal" - i dont know how flexible this is for a normal use lens? should i bother with it?:
AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

Wide:
12-24 f4 AT-X Tokina - i gathered this is the best of the 3rd parties. i cant afford the nikon 12-24

But then I also want the revered Nikon 18-200mm VR because well its meant to be so damn good!

I cant afford all these so what should I start with if I had to choose 2 or 3?
Should i get the 18-135 kit lens?

[achuang]

Since you want a large zoom range in one lens for everyday use of people, quick snaps, etc I would go with the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens you said you wanted. Zoom lenses covering large ranges usually do not have image quality as good as zoom lenses with smaller ranges as there has to be compromise in something to get a range that large. That said, it would probably be the ideal every day lens.

The nikkor 50mm f/1.8 is called "normal" not because of its use in normal everyday situations. A "normal" lens means that the size of objects when shot with a 50mm lens on a full-frame or 35mm film is the same as what we'd see with our own eyes. The field of view is not the same as our eyes have a very wide angle. I have that lens and it is a good lens to have for low light conditions and also for when you want to play with depth of field. This lens and the 18-200 lens would be suitable for many situations. And the tokina 12-24 can come later.

I don't have an all-in-one lens, sometimes when travelling I wish i had one but most of the time i prefer the quality of shorter range lenses as they are usually sharper....especially primes.

[Rooz]

lol you STILL going ? :p

"normal"
nikkor 18-55mm kit
nikkor 18-200 VR (expensive)
sigma 17-70mm
sigma 24-70mm
(sort of) nikkor 50mmf1.8. the 50mm is not going to work for quick snaps imo
(don't know the tamrons at all)

you should also consider the sigma 10-20mm for landscapes when you eventually get one.

[longroad]

achuang - I dont want an all-in-one do everything lens, I didnt say that :)
I would rather have specific lenses that are geared towards certain tasks.

And yes Im still going..

What will the 50mm work for if not for quick snaps?

Im worried I wont be able to get the 18-200 later since there is a shortage now... but its so expensive now. Are they phasing this lens out?

I dont want a Sigma, sorry. I go by what I read and the negatives outweigh the positives from what I've read.
The only 3rd party I'd consider is the Tokina i mentioned for the wide angle. I read alot of comparisons between that and the sigma 10-20mm and the Tokina wins for me.

Looks like Im still stuck :D

[Rooz]

no way the 18-200 goes out of production. you won't be missing out even if you decide to buy it in 5 years.

the 50mm is a prime so you have to do the zooming with your legs and sometimes you just can't do that. not a very flexible lens for general happy snaps. i think it's very limiting if you bought just the 50mm and a telephoto. you need something with some range.

[longroad]

so basically i need the 18-200mm as well......

[achuang]

Sorry about that, i must have forgotten about that line after reading that you wanted the 18-200....because that is kind of a do-it-all lens. If you want more specialist lenses then the 18-200 isn't really for you. It'd be great for going on holiday with. If I had the money I'd get all the f/2.8 zooms and the 18-200 for when i go away....saves a lot of weight. I have the Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 lens and I find it to be a good range and is fairly sharp. The AFS gives the lens quiet and fast autofocus. a constant f/2.8 zoom lens around the 17-55 mark would be a perfect everyday use lens.

[longroad]

The Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 costs $2000... :eek:
I'm sure it would be a perfect everyday lens.... Im sure all $2000 lenses are great ;)
Unfortunately way out of my price range.

Is this the Nikkor 18-70 you are referring to?
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/nikonslracc.htm#18-70

[Rooz]

The Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 costs $2000... :eek:
I'm sure it would be a perfect everyday lens.... Im sure all $2000 lenses are great ;)
Unfortunately way out of my price range.

Is this the Nikkor 18-70 you are referring to?
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/nikonslracc.htm#18-70

no, i didn't mnean the 2.8 one. lol

there are 2 kit lens for the nikon dslrs, the 18-55 and 18-135. i was referring to the 18-55mm kit lens which i;m not sure if you can buy seperately. from what i have heard it is a bit sharper. for me that range was not enough for a walkaround...which is why i bought the kit with the 18-135. i don;t know anything about that 18-70mm one. google it and try and see some reviews cos i dont recall seeing anyone here with that lens either.

[longroad]

I was referring to achuang's post about the 18-70 and the 2.8 as well :)

[jcon]

Lens 1: 12-24mm
Lens 2: 50mm 1.8D
Lens 3: Nikon 70-300 VR

I realize your missing a little in the middle with this set-up but I think it covers what youre looking for.

If you want you can throw the kit lens in there too. This would be a fairly reasonable priced set-up.

[longroad]

Which 12-24 do you recommend Jason?
Keeping in mind the Nikon is out of my price range.

[jcon]

The Tokina, since thats what you mentioned in your first post. Although, many here have the Sigma version. If I were getting a wide angle it would be the Sigma.

[longroad]

Why do all comparisons of the sigma and tokina point to the Tokina being the better lens?
That's the only thing swaying my opinion there, I obviously have no experience with either of those brands.

[jcon]

Which comparisons?

Go to PBase.com and check out samples taken with both lenses and judge for yourself.

Wide angles arent my thing but when I looked at all the brands and listened to opinions on this forum, the Sigma was the winner.

[jcon]

Sorry, forgot to mention, I know Prospero has the Sigma, and he really shows what that lens can do, check out some of his photos.

[longroad]

Just from various reviews and comparisons Ive read online. Most say the Sigma has cheap build quality and feels like plastic. The Tokina is better built and gives better results.
They did also say vignetting is a problem with the Tokina...
Well that's what I've read through the day. Got no links to send, I've just been browsing the web for reviews.

I don't know which one to go with :(

[jcon]

Check out these pictures, most or all were with the Sigma. Also, most or all are HDR images, you can find more info about HDR on this same site.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29714

[Rooz]

not to mention...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/valpopando/

[longroad]

I couldnt find any explanation of HDR there. I assume its some sort of advanced technique therefore something I wont be using.. so Im wondering the sigma lens will be as good for a DSLR newbie like me.

[Prospero]

It's a tough choice between these two lenses. Both are great lenses, provided that you get a good sample. Different tests seem to get different results when comparing the lenses. Anyway, here are some things I remember from the tests I read.

Anyway, things like build quality are subjective. Some reviewers don't like the build quality of the Sigma, while others love it.

Both lenses have great sharpness and contrast, though in some tests the Tokina is rated just a tad sharper than the Sigma. The Sigma vignets a bit more wide open (but this disappears when stopped down). The Tokina, on the other hand, shows more chromatic abberations and is more prone to lens flare. The Sigma focusses a bit faster due to HSM focussing.

The distortion patterns of both lenses are pretty good. The Tokina has a bit more barrel distortion which is easy to correct, while the Sigma has a harder to correct distortion pattern which does not show up until the very edges of the picture (I have never had reason to correct it).

All in all, it's a toss-up which one to pick. The most important reason I got the Sigma over the Tokina was its wider angle. 10mm vs 12mm is quite a big difference. Also, I had the 17-24 range already covered with the 17-70, so I didn't need that part to be covered by my wide angle lens.

This might help you make your choice, a comparison between the focal lengths (the whole picture is 10mm, the square 12):

22361

[Prospero]

Check out these pictures, most or all were with the Sigma. Also, most or all are HDR images, you can find more info about HDR on this same site.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29714

Thanks Jcon for linking to my thread :)

Actually, only number 2, 3 and 8 are HDRs. The rest are single exposures.

Longroad, HDR is a technique of blending different exposures to make sure that every part of the scene you take a picture of is properly exposed. There is an explanation here: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30016 (there are more on this forum). The HDR technique can be applied with any kind of lens, also with the Tokina.

While HDR is a very nice technique to learn, it is only for specific scenes with difficult lighting. In all other situations you can take great pictures without it.

[longroad]

Thanks for explaining that :)
I dont think I will be delving into anything like that anytime soon, just dont have the time unfortunately.

I thought the difference between 10mm and 12mm would be smaller actually, thanks for pointing that out.

I like this comparison review:
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/wide_angles_shootout/index.html
http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0206indy/index1.html
Both of those reviews don't lean towards any lens as being better than the others, the pros and cons of each are all pointed out (which makes it even harder for me!)

I've just read another 10 or so reviews/forums comparing these 2 and Im still leaning towards the Tokina due to the praise its receiving from users. I really dont believe either lens is perfect (if only i could afford the Nikon) and I have a feeling I'll be quite happy with either.

The Sigma is only $20 cheaper than the Tokina at the store Im looking at (though both still quite pricey at almost $700).

I think I'll draw straws on this... :cool:

[coldrain]

Give that Nikon 70-300 ED you mentioned (I think you mentioned that one, I can't go for a quick check now) a big miss. It is not a good lens, especially at 300mm.

The Nikon 70-300 with VR is the one to consider. If that one is too pricey, they only one to look at would be the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro.

About the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6, it is a good lens. The Tokina 12-24 f4 is a good lens too.
The Sigma vignets a lot in comparison, it disappears a little when stopping down but never goes totally away. The Sigma has a bit more of distortion, and is a bit soft into the corners at 10mm I believe, but it goes wider.
Its build quality is very good, not at all plasticy.

The Tokina is built like a tank (Canon "L" like), and it has a bit of a CA problem at 12mm. The CA is correctable in most RAW convertors and in some programs with JPEG. It shows flares from light sources a bit sooner.
It has great colour and contrast. And it is the heaviest of the two.

Both are very desirable lenses with a few small negatives, you can not really go wrong with either.

About the 50mm f1.8 Nikon, by all means get this lens. But realize that with the 1.5x crop factor, it actually will behave like a 75mm lens.
So, I do recommend that you also would condider buying the cheap yet very cheerful Nikon 18-55 kit lens, even if it is not sold as a kit with the D80. It will fill up the range between the 70-300VR and the ultra wide zoom quite neatly, for a very low price.

In case you want a better lens to fill up that void, consider the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro.

[Rooz]

that pic that prosp posted was what convinced me on the sigma despite the tokina seeming to be a shade better in sharpness. if your gonna go wide angle, then go as wide as you can go imo.

[longroad]

Give that Nikon 70-300 ED you mentioned (I think you mentioned that one, I can't go for a quick check now) a big miss. It is not a good lens, especially at 300mm.

The Nikon 70-300 with VR is the one to consider. If that one is too pricey, they only one to look at would be the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro.


I meant the VR sorry! I wouldnt even consider the non VR of the 70-300mm.
I definitely want the VR one :)



About the 50mm f1.8 Nikon, by all means get this lens. But realize that with the 1.5x crop factor, it actually will behave like a 75mm lens.
So, I do recommend that you also would condider buying the cheap yet very cheerful Nikon 18-55 kit lens, even if it is not sold as a kit with the D80. It will fill up the range between the 70-300VR and the ultra wide zoom quite neatly, for a very low price.


I just looked through a heap of online stores here and none have that 18-55mm lens, is it out of production now? Or perhaps just not available in Australia?



In case you want a better lens to fill up that void, consider the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro.

Ok this is going to be a super newbie question.... but I thought macro lenses were for close ups of flowers etc. I can't comprehend how a macro lens will take the place of non-macro lenses?
I obviously need to read up about macro lens :)

[coldrain]

I just looked through a heap of online stores here and none have that 18-55mm lens, is it out of production now? Or perhaps just not available in Australia?

Ok this is going to be a super newbie question.... but I thought macro lenses were for close ups of flowers etc. I can't comprehend how a macro lens will take the place of non-macro lenses?
I obviously need to read up about macro lens :)
Hmm, it is the standard kit lens for the D40 and D50, so they should have some.... you should inquire about it if you are interested in filling the gap for a low price, yet still having reasonably good quality.

Macro lenses are normal lenses too, they just allow you to focus a bit closer also.
The 18-50 f2.8 Macro is not a real macro lens (those can magnify 1:2 or 1:1) but it can magnify more (focus closer) than the 18-50/17-50/17-55 competition, that is why Sigma added the "macro" to its name.

[longroad]

I can see the 18-55 being sold as a kit lens but no one is selling it on its own, so Im not sure how much it is worth.

[Rooz]

i don't think they sell the 18-55 in Oz seperately, and i haven't seen that lens bundled in a d80 kit.

try ebay if you really want that particular one. don't know why you would though, if thats the range you're comfortable with, both sigmas are a better alternative, readily available and aren't much more expensive.

[Rooz]

I can see the 18-55 being sold as a kit lens but no one is selling it on its own, so Im not sure how much it is worth.

just subtract the body price from the kit price. thats the effective price of the lens. buying it seperately is going to be more expensive. when bundled with the body they always do a slightly better price.

[coldrain]

The 18-55 costs at an american store (B&H) $150, and $120 refurbished.
That is quite a price difference with a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Macro costs $420 at the same store.

So, while the Sigma 18-50 is a nice lens for the money no doubt, if your budget is low the Nikon 18-55 would be a nice lens untill you can afford for instance that Sigma.

[tcadwall]

I think I missed the target budget, and if it is here, I also missed what the target subject matter will be for the different lenses. IOW, are you going to be happy with the speed of the lens. I think you are on a good track so far with the recommendations, but the two things that might help more, would be budget, and whether you plan to shoot indoor or night-time outdoor sports.

The 50mm f/1.8 is really a no-brainer. Get it. It is well-priced, and has great optics. and the low-light capabilities are going to save you in a pinch - even if it means you have to zoom with your feet.

[wrestlingreport]

The nikon 18-55 and 55-2oo set would do you well for starters
You can find them both for around 100 bucks each.
(Unless you can afford a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens).
The 70-300 is fine.............Nikon doesn't make a bad lense.
Screw the tests. Those that can shoot pictures, the rest study stats.

[wrestlingreport]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-18-55-mm-f-3-5-5-6G-II-ED-AF-S-DX-Zoom-Lens_W0QQitemZ110107778826QQcategoryZ30067QQrdZ1QQ cmdZViewItem
Since its a kit lens you can find many new on ebay.

[jcon]

If buying on eBay, I tend to stay away from those without atleast 30+ positive feedbacks. Too many crooks and frauds out there.

[achuang]

The Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 costs $2000... :eek:
I'm sure it would be a perfect everyday lens.... Im sure all $2000 lenses are great ;)
Unfortunately way out of my price range.

Is this the Nikkor 18-70 you are referring to?
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/nikonslracc.htm#18-70

Wow this thread has gotten long since I've been offline. Yep that's the 18-70 lens I'm referring to. It was the kit lens that came with my D70s. It's a good lens that focuses fast but is not quite as sharp at 18mm compared to the rest of the range. And at 70mm if shooting wide open at f/4.5 it vignettes but that is quite easily corrected with software.

If I had the money I'd get that 70-300 VR you're talking about, but a couple months ago I had to shoot a wedding and bought the Nikkor 85 f/1.8 instead. From what I've heard the Nikkor 18-55 is a bit sharper than the 18-70. But the 18-70 is a true AFS lens which focuses quicker with full-time manual focus. For the money the 18-55 is a good lens if you can find it.