Lens suggestions

[Geoff Chandler]

Here's your big chance to sell your favourite Nikon compatible lens!!
OK
I have started out with the excellent and extreemly usefull Sigma 17-70 - which is my effective
standard lens for general use. (well pleased with this one!)
I also purchased a Sigma 70 - 300 APO at the same time.
I have no issues with either lens.
I DO feel that I should have purchased a better overlap however!
(Now - I also fancy a mega wide angle - and would very likely use that quite a bit as well...
The Sigma 10 -24 appeals!.)
I wondered about either something in the 55 - 200 region?? - or alternatively going for one
of the ultra zooms. ??
Basically I often find myself sitting on the division line around 70mm (105mm in 35mm film talk)
- this is tricky as I end up wanting to zoom over 50 - 100 which I cannot do easily with my
existing setup.
Also - whatever I do choose, I will have to save up for!! - so expensive lenses could take
a while to save for as it's got to come out of my camera saving fund which is at somewhere in
the region of £zero at the moment!!!:D

So - is it worth purchasing a 55 - 200?, or should I save for an 18 - 200? or what other
suggestions (28 - 200???)

cheers

Geoff

[tcadwall]

Well, while you do mention money you really don't mention budget. I have been tempted to look closer at the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 but without re-reading everything, I can't remember too much about it. But that might be a good option for you. Reasonable for a constant f/2.8 but not nearly in the nikkor 55-200mm (slower lens) price range.

[Geoff Chandler]

The Sigma sounds interesting - I will check it out when iget a bit of time
No idea - which was the more expensive - I am guessing the Sigma!
I tried my Cousins husbands nikon 18 - 200 out and was impressed with how quiet the focusing was ~ but this wasn't really what I was thinking of.

[Geoff Chandler]

OUCH - no that is tooo expensive for a casual extra purchase!!

The 18 - 125 is an interesting possibility - but I am not sure it comes in a Nikon fixing - The Sigma 28 - 300 looks interesting too - but I expect the quality is not so good as my other two lenses.
The Nikon 18 - 135 might also have been a good choice - but I know it suffers from purple
(and green) fringing in high contrast situations.
Not quite sure what it is I need for the best.
- Interesting. -
I will keep my eyes and ears open...

[fionndruinne]

The 50-150mm f/2.8 would give you an awesome shallow DoF for portraits and other things. It's a well-spoken-of lens. But yes, quite pricey.

I'm thinking about that 17-70mm. The optical quality and macro ability is pretty tempting.

[e_dawg]

Well, depends what you want to use it for.

Travel

I am a huge fan of wide zooms for travel / walkaround / city use and will recommend a Tokina 12-24/4 for that purpose. I would recommend the 55-200/VR as a lightweight complementary lens for the longer focal lengths. I find I rarely use the 30-60 range for anything while traveling and take 80% of my pics in the 12-30 range, 10% between 70-100, and 10% between 180-300.

Single / Walkaround

The new rumoured Nikon 16-85/VR sounds like the perfect single walkaround lens. I find 18 mm not wide enough, but 16... now we're talking.

The Tokina 16-50/2.8 is also a decent choice, although optically, it isn't as good as the Tamron 17-50/2.8.

And there's always the Nikon 18-200/VR and Sigma 18-200/OS superzooms if you care more about longer reach over wider angles.

[Geoff Chandler]

The 50-150mm f/2.8 would give you an awesome shallow DoF for portraits and other things. It's a well-spoken-of lens. But yes, quite pricey.

I'm thinking about that 17-70mm. The optical quality and macro ability is pretty tempting.
The Sigma 17 - 70 sits on my D80 about 95% of the time ~ it's really nice.
I never regretted buying it. Sure I am looking for a bridging lens of some kind
(24 - 135 or 55 - 200, that 50 - 150 is also too heavy.... shame!)
The ONLY weekness I have found really on the 17 - 70 is f2.8 at 17mm
if it's important - then the corners are soft. Gets better at f4 or slightly zoomed in. since discovering it - it has never become a problem as long as I am aware of it. Super macro, lovely colours - nice and sharp. go for it - you won't regret it!!

[Geoff Chandler]

e_dawg
Thanks for the comments.
I am flapping around a bit with my thoughts just now - and I won't be buying just yet.
Ideally I would love a bright 2.8 like the 50 - 150 Sigma BUT - it's more than I am willing to spend and, more importantly, it's too heavy for my taste. It would have suited concert photography when I am photgraphing my son.
The 70 - 300 needs more light and I have to resort to 800 and sometimes more ISO (not a problem on the D80).
My wife had her hair cut and so I decided to get a photo in the back garden - blurred background etc. I zoomed to 70 and then thought Hmm I could do with 80 or 90 - this is the thing, when I have the 70 - 300 on I'm often wanting 50 or 60!!
Hence the desire for a bridging lens.
Thing is - it needs to be fairly good as the 17 - 70 is not half bad!! I would notice if it were inferior.
The 70 - 300 is not bad also - especially if handled correctly.
So I think Tamron and Sigma both do a 24 - 135mm which would sit nicely, or then there are some 28 - 200's around also.
But I am wondering about the 55 - 200mm offerings from Sigma, Nikon and Tamron - the Sigma has 2 versions a slightly more pricey HSM sounds OK (cheap really at under £150=).
I could do with a few comparison reviews to point me in the right direction. Or any insight from members here...
I reckon if I try to keep it to around £150= Topping out at £200= if it's REALLY good.
.....after that I want a super wide angle
or
Shall I go for that first???
NO!
I think lightness (weight) is quite important to me - I believe some of the ones I have talked about are lighter still than mhy 17 - 70
Hhhuh:rolleyes:
edit:- Just read a thread that said the Sigma 55 - 200 is well built etc - but has an issue with front focusing
so - but then I read another review comparing it with the Tamron and it fared really well

[e_dawg]

In the "short" telezoom range, the Nikon 55-200/VR is unbeatable in its price range from what I've heard from this forum as well as from various test sites on the net. If you want to do better than that, you're looking at the heavy Sigma 50-150/2.8.

Then there is the Nikon 18-135, which is a very sharp lens. Few zoom lenses can match it for sharpness throughout the entire zoom range. The only problems are barrel distortion at the wide end and a bit of vignetting. Also, it doesn't have VR, which is desirable if you don't have a fast lens (but since you want a light lens, it can't be fast).

The Nikon 24-120/VR could have been an interesting option, but it isn't very good unless it's stopped down all the time... then what's the point?

The Nikon AF-S 24-85/3.5-4.5 is said to be a good choice in this range from what I've heard but it doesn't provide much more reach than your 17-70. Chromatic aberration is a bit high at the wide end.

The Nikon 28-105/3.5-4.5 was one of those universally recommended lenses to upgrade to from the kit lens in the SLR days. Probably the 2nd best choice after the 18-135, and you could probably find a used one for cheap since Nikon sold a lot of them a decade ago.

[Geoff Chandler]

e_dawg
Thats a really helpfull summary and makes things clearer for me.
I reckon the Nikon 55-200VR is the best choice - the VR will help it
out a touch in lower light. It would pair well with my Sigma 17 - 70
and I would still have the 70 - 300 for odd occasions
But for the concerts the Nikon seems ideal - checking my recent shots
I noticed when i used the 70 - 300 I mostly used 80 - 180, then switched to the 17 - 70 for wider shots - but I kept hitting the 70mm.
Looking at the Tamron virtual zoom page I decided 55 is just about usefull enough and should work.
The Nikon 18 - 135 was considered before getting the Sigma 17 - 70
Trouble with the Nikon, for me, is the CA's which are quite visible.
If there were a bright enough, light enough or VR 28 - 200 that would be good!!
Thanks for the help
Geoff

[wilson44512]

are Sigmas just as good as Nikon lenses? or are they any other good brands?

[Geoff Chandler]

are Sigmas just as good as Nikon lenses? or are they any other good brands?

I couldn't make an all encompasing / sweeping statement like that.
Sigmas, and Tamrons, are very worthy alternatives. Depending on the particular lens in question I would say different ones are better than others.
I know I am dodging the issue. Without individual comparison tests it is impossible to confirm.
Sometimes it also depends on the requirement: -
Take my Sigma 17 - 70 and compare it to the Nikon 18 - 70.
I chose the Sigma because it is a slightly brighter lens (f2.8 vs f3.5) it is fractionally wider, it has a super macro already built in and, bottom line, I looked at loads of images taken on each lens to see how they looked and I was impressed with both - but slightly prefered the Sigma. However - the sigma hasn't got an Ultrusonic focus motor - so some others may focus more quietly (not that it's noisy). It's swings and roundabouts - but some really do have better image qualities than others.
sorry that was so long!

[Geoff Chandler]

Just a thought ~ has anyone any info/knowledge about the Tamron 28 - 200??
Looks good on paper.
Just another one to throw into the pot...

[coldrain]

Your lens requirements are VERY unusual, Geoff. Normally people do not look for such a focal length overlap... and I am still not clear about the exact why of your wishes.

And so, the number of lenses actually overlapping the 70mm mark in a useful way are quite rare...

The only two I would consider are the ones I mentioned before... the Sigma 18-125mm (very affordable yet surprisingly good!!) and the Nikon 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 VR.

The Sigma 50-150 f2.8 is way too similar in focal range to your 70-300. And it is not an improvement in optics you seem to look for, bit a different focal range.

Since price is a consideration, I would seriously look at the Sigma 18-125mm. It is not as good at the 17-70 range as your 17-70 I am sure, but it will give you the extra 70-125mm range which would be nice for your walk about purposes. And yes, it does come with Nikon mount of course.
George has used this lens a LOT on his D70, and he did like it a lot (with good reason). This really is one very underestimated 7x zoom lens.

All in all the Nikon 18-135mm is a bit weaker in my opinion, and not as cheap either.

The Tamron 28-200 and 28-300 lenses are NOT very nice alternatives in the DSLR world. They are quite soft in the long end, and will show quite some CA problems. In the film era we didnt notice that so much, as enlargements were very rare (and we were less critical?).
Of the 28-200 lenses, the Nikon was the best. so if you still can find a 2nd hand Nikon 28-200, then that might be a lens to consider. Also the Sigma 28-200 was an ok lens, if memory serves me right.

And of course, try to locate that Nikon 24-120 VR 2nd hand... that might prove a nice find, as the 24-120mm range is not so popular anymore on APS-C. Do it now though, before Nikon expands its full frame range ;)... since on full frame the lens makes a LOT of sense again.

[e_dawg]

The Nikon 18 - 135 was considered before getting the Sigma 17 - 70
Trouble with the Nikon, for me, is the CA's which are quite visible.

The CA isn't that bad on the 18-135... but the cool thing about shooting RAW is that you can use programs like Capture NX to automatically remove CA from the image. Not sure if other programs will do that automatically, but I know they can do it manually.

I don't worry too much about CA and distortion because they can be fixed in post processing easily and sometimes automatically.


If there were a bright enough, light enough or VR 28 - 200 that would be good!!


Have you considered the Nikon or Sigma 18-200/VR lenses? I don't know why you would exclude them from consideration in favour of 28-200/VR lenses...

[Geoff Chandler]

I liked the sharpness of the 18 - 135 - but I can see those CA's quite a lot - no- I don't have the right Graphics package to fix it easily , no I don't shoot raw (sorry!)
The 18 - 200 is great (I have tried it) but I can't afford it!
The two 28 - 200's I have spotted are much cheaper and I CAN afford them.
The Sigma 28-200 f3.5-5.6 IF Asphrical Macro lens for Nikon looks great on paper - again I would like to see some images and a review (update/edit - seen some images - it's not bad at all!)
~ £119= at Microglobe whereas the Tamron 28-200mm F3.8-F5.6 AF XR Di Asp (IF) Macro for Nikon is £209=
It's a close run between one of them or one of the 55 - 200's
I have also read that the NON VR Nikon 55 - 200 has better IQ
55-200; or 28-200
Nikon, Sigma or Tamron