Made a Decision

[ColColt]

Since I just got my tax return the other day, I think I'm ready to start getting serious about my next camera. I'm looking seriously at the D80 and two lens-the 28 f/1.8D AF and 85 f/1.8D AF. I dislike the slow zooms and that's primarily why I chose these two to cover roughly 42-125mm range. Does this sound like a decent combo? I'm not into shooting flowers or anything that would require 28mm or nothing over 135mm so, this looked fairly good.

[ssil2000]

i think you should definitely get yourself a kit lens with it, having only 2 primes seems a little restricting, you say you are covering 42-125 but really you are covering 42 and 125 i am not sure what you intend on shooting but having at least the 18-55 to go with it would be a good idea. the 85 1.8 by all reports is an awesome lens, plan on one myself in the next year or so, i cant say too much about the 28 1.8 as i havent used one or seen many pics, but i am sure someone else here can help you with that one. i suggest maybe giving us a bit more info on what it is you plan on shooting etc so maybe we can give a bit more advice based on your shooting requirements :)

Sergio

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

A kit lens is great value for money to flesh out those two primes

[ColColt]

Primarily, I shoot pics of my Corgi a lot and of friends and their animals. No wife, no kids so I don't need a 28mm(35mm equivalent) or a long 200 mm(35 equivalent). From a 35mm standpoint, I suppose I'm looking to cover 35-90 or maybe 100mm lens. If I get the 28, that is actually a 44mm and the 85 would be 130mm. The kit lens, 18-55 VR would be a good lens is true. I just don't much care for a slow zoom. I had one I used on my F2A years ago (Vivitar) and it was soft and vignetting at wider range. Probably the best old lens I have is the Vivitar Series I 90 f/2.5 lens. I remember getting that at J.C. Penny for about $100 years back.

My shooting would be maybe 30% indoors and 70% outside taking shots of my dog, friends that visit with their dogs, portraiture, get together backyard type gatherings and just general photography. I figured with a 24 or 28mm lens, that would get me close to between 35-50mm and with the 85 I'd get around a 135 lens(still think in terms of 35mm). I toyed around the other day with a D80 and the kit lens and while optically it's probably a good lens, it seemed odd to focus with the extended barrel.

[mattc]

the 50 1.8 is a great lens and cheap too

[VTEC_EATER]

the 50 1.8 is a great lens and cheap too

Word. For $100 you might as well get that one too just to fill the gap.

[erichlund]

If you know what you want and need, go for it. The camera store is not going to close their doors because you finally came in and bought a camera. So they will be there if you change your mind and want something more. Surprisingly, they will be happy to see you come back.

[ColColt]

If you know what you want and need, go for it. The camera store is not going to close their doors because you finally came in and bought a camera. So they will be there if you change your mind and want something more. Surprisingly, they will be happy to see you come back.

Make no mistake about that!!:) The zoom lens are much more versatile but, they're slow and compared to a fixed focal length (from what I've read) they're not as sharp and prone to chromatic aberrations and such. That's my basic reason for choosing primes.

The D80 with the kit lens(18-55 VR) is sold out at KEH so, I may wait until they get in another supply. It's a good price at $869.

[Rooz]

i assume you mean the 28mm f2.8, not aware of a 1.8. that lens has barrel distortions, CA and vignetting issues just so you are aware. nikons consumer priced primes under 50mm leave something to be desired.

i would get the kit lens, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and leave the 28mm prime for the time being.

[ssil2000]

i assume you mean the 28mm f2.8, not aware of a 1.8. that lens has barrel distortions, CA and vignetting issues just so you are aware. nikons consumer priced primes under 50mm leave something to be desired.

i would get the kit lens, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and leave the 28mm prime for the time being.

heres an idea, what rooz said but get body only and maybe the sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6)? at least you then have your 2 primes (which are the cats meow) and a fast zoom which will cover your 28mm range at f2.8...

might be a couple extra bux but you would have a solid setup.

:)

Sergio

[T06]

Heres another idea. Get the D80 with a Nikkor 24-70mm lens. One lens to solve the whole range question & it will outperform the primes in that range. By all means please don't take my word for it & try some due dilligence:);)

[ColColt]

i assume you mean the 28mm f2.8, not aware of a 1.8. that lens has barrel distortions, CA and vignetting issues just so you are aware. nikons consumer priced primes under 50mm leave something to be desired.

i would get the kit lens, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and leave the 28mm prime for the time being.

Yep you're right...my finger traveled too far to the left. It is 2.8. I use to have a 28mm when I shot 35mm with the old Nikons but, I'd have to look in my stash to see if I still had it. Of course, it wouldn't work on the D80. I can't recall if it has the F-mount or not and would be all manual focus anyway.


heres an idea, what rooz said but get body only and maybe the sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM? at least you then have your 2 primes (which are the cats meow) and a fast zoom which will cover your 28mm range at f2.8...

That's a good idea. I know years ago you couldn't pay me to buy a Tokina or Sigma lens compared to Nikkors. I guess things have changed over the decades.:)

[ColColt]

Heres another idea. Get the D80 with a Nikkor 24-70mm lens. One lens to solve the whole range question & it will outperform the primes in that range. By all means please don't take my word for it & try some due dilligence:);)

I thought of that one, too and an excellent idea. I don't know about the quality of that lens but it's worth looking into. Ideally, I'd like to find one here and get them to let me shoot a few pics with it first.

[Rooz]

heres an idea, what rooz said but get body only and maybe the sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6)? at least you then have your 2 primes (which are the cats meow) and a fast zoom which will cover your 28mm range at f2.8...

very good idea. the siggie will actually smoke the nikkor at 28mm aswell.

[erichlund]

I thought of that one, too and an excellent idea. I don't know about the quality of that lens but it's worth looking into. Ideally, I'd like to find one here and get them to let me shoot a few pics with it first.

The 24-70 is brand new, about $1700 (if I recall), and absolutely as good as it gets. A bit on the heavy side, it replaces the beast (the 28-70 f2.8). Both are truly pro quality lenses.

[Rooz]

eric, how are you liking that 35mm f2 ?

[ColColt]

I noticed Sigma has a 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG lens similar to the Nikkor at a fraction of the cost. Optically/mechanically I don't know how good it is but, if it's made in Japan(no doubt) it's probably excellent. For a touch over $300 it may be a viable alternative for the expensive Nikkor. Anyone know or have read a review of this one?

Well, so much for that one. I found a review of it and wasn't impressed.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-28-70mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx

[erichlund]

eric, how are you liking that 35mm f2 ?

I've been very happy with it. Of course, the 17-55 f2.8 stays on the camera a lot just because it's so convient as well as being a strong performer. But, the 35 comes out to play when I want to go light and just use a normal lens.

On our vacation last summer, I caught my very camera shy wife checking the map for our next location. I had just put the lens on the camera.

http://eric-lund.smugmug.com/photos/275110138_cnCst-L.jpg

I have to be pretty sneaky just to get any sort of shot at all. Still, not bad for natural light in a parking garage. Of course, the lens is wide open, @f2.

[erichlund]

I might add, the Nikkor primes do have a reputation as being a bit mediocre. But, I think you have to remember that they are being compared to their older, manual focus cousins. Some of those old lenses are fairly legendary examples of the craft of lens building. Nikon has been, in my mind, a little remiss in their handling of primes, but the Nikkor primes are not bad, they just aren't what they once were.

I'm a little concerned that Nikon will not do anything about upgrading the glass if they do update the primes to AF-S. They seem of the attitude that they can now build a zoom lens as good as any prime, so why spend a lot of time on their primes. It may be true, but I would like to see if they could build some primes that would just blow our socks away.

[Rooz]

its on my list but like you mentioned i'm cautious about nikkors short primes. i've noticed a few older manual AI lens' going quite cheap so i may pick one up for a bargain and see how it goes.

[ColColt]

I still have a couple of 50's from back in the late '70's to mid '80's era. One is an f/1.4 and the other an f/2. Along with those I still have the 105 f/2.5. I guess these would work with the D80 but, manual focus only of course. I don't know how the metering system would do with these old timers.

[erichlund]

The D80 will not meter older AI and AI-S lenses. In order for you to use older lenses, you would want to consider the D300 or D200 where still available. You can download a non-printable copy of the D80 manual at here (http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=14051&p_created=1155304597&p_sid=YVknGy*i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9OCw4JnBfcHJvZHM9MTksMzA5JnBfY2F0cz0xODc mcF9wdj0yLjMwOSZwX2N2PTEuMTg3JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9Y W5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1).

[ColColt]

That's about what I figured. I'll take a look at that .pdf file-thanks for that link. There is such a wide variety of choices in lens it actually makes a decision difficult. I haven't entirely ruled out the 16-85mm AF-S DX that's just come out. It seems like the exact range I need. Just wish it was an f/2.8 lens for about $400. I suppose I'd have to go to Fantasy Island to get that wish granted.

[Rooz]

Still, not bad for natural light in a parking garage. Of course, the lens is wide open, @f2.

i think you've been holding out on us here. ;) this lens should be a strong recommendation from anyone that has one imo.

i tried one out today and it was brilliant. sharper wide open than either the 50mm or 85mm. didn't get to play much, but from what little i saw. its light, small, FAST as all hell on the AF, sharp wide open, great focal range, MFD is insane. what a great little lens ! love it.

am going to try the 24 and 28mm on the weekend. then ill pick up one of them and then bye bye sigma 18-50.

[erichlund]

Well, I've been saying that for several years now. Eventually, your throat gets raw from all the shouting. The lens does have it's detractors. Again, usually people who have had experience with some of the old legendary manual focus versions.

[scenicexplorer]

I've been considering getting a 35mm f/2D. I'm assuming it would work on a D50?

[e_dawg]

I like my 35/2 too. Probably Nikon's best prime below 50 mm. I also have the 24/2.8 as well (recent purchase) and had the mediocre Sigma 30/1.4 (which I returned in favour of the Nikkor 35/2). I do have to say, however, that a good fast zoom is better than any recent Nikkor prime (except for the 35/2, which is comparable).

I have really become enamoured with my Tamron 17-50/2.8. Optically brilliant. Better than the Nikkor 24/2.8, easily better than the Sigma 24/1.8, as good as the Nikkor 35/2.

The only reason I keep the primes is because they are lighter and more compact, good for street photography, excel in low light, and give me a way to use my superwide 10-20 or 12-24 zoom as my main lens and carry an "emergency" longer focal length prime in my bag.

I have no doubt that a Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be able to replace any prime you might want below 50 mm with as good or better image quality. I hear the Sigma 18-50/2.8 is excellent as well, but apparently the Tamron has slightly better image quality (and possibly has higher quality control than the Sigma).

[Rooz]

i've had the tammie 17-50 and i have slightly different views to you edawg. i dont think it matches the nikkor 35mm or 50mm primes, not even close in any aspect apart from convenience obviously. it was neck and neck with the sigma 18-50. i did a side by side of the tammie and sigma and the sigma has much better contrast and a better MFD. it's also a poofteenth sharper only noticeable when cropped. i also had 2 tamron lens failures from brand spanking new 17-50 lens'. never again.

[e_dawg]

Hmm... neither Tamron nor Sigma lenses are known for great quality control and sample to sample consistency. Perhaps you got a couple bad Tamrons. Thom Hogan, SLRgear.com, Photozone.de, and even PopPhoto show the Tamron 17-50/2.8 as an excellent performer, and slightly superior to the Sigma. My coworker loves his Tammie on his Canon, and our local pro shop loves it as well and sells them by the crate (they won't touch the Sigma).

I would say my Tamron 28-75/2.8 doesn't seem to be as stellar as the 17-50/2.8, despite it doing as well as or better than the 17-50/2.8 in some lens tests online.

With respect to the 3 musketeers (3rd party lens mfrs Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina), I've usually heard of Sigma as having slightly worse QC and sample to sample consistency than Tamron, while Tamron itself is slightly worse than Tokina. The big 2 are generally much better with QC and sample to sample consistency, with Nikon being a bit better than Canon, and both of them lagging a bit behind Olympus... or so I've heard ;)

[herc182]

another review for the sigma 24-70 (albeit on a canon camera :eek:)


http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/318-sigma-af-24-70mm-f28-ex-dg-macro-canon-lab-test-report--review

Seems to do quite well. Maybe a Quality control issue at play here though.

If you have the money (cant remember it being mentioned anywhere) get the D80 (or D300 if that tax return was that good :D) and the 24-70 Nikon lens.

If money is more limited, get the D80 and the sigma 24-70. This seems to be the range you are looking for.

Note the 24-70 (i think) does not take filters (it could be the 14-24 I am thinking of). And also, the Sigma is has macro (ish) capabilities.

Actually just checked. The nikon CAN take a filter. Its the 14-24 that cant:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/236-nikkor-af-s-24-70mm-f28g-ed-review--test-report

cheers

[ColColt]

The Nikkor 24-70 is out of my league price wise. In fact, about twice as much. One thing I haven't grasped here yet is why so many are purchasing non-mfr lens like the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. I wouldn't have bought any of these back when I was shooting the F2's I had. Why buy a Nikon and commit total blasphemy( as I was once told) buying "third party" lens? Have they gotten that much better over the decades? I had a Vivitar 75-150 that was good for a paper weight and that was it. The Series I 90 f/2.5 was a different story.

[ssil2000]

i think like anything theres good and bad, i see some of these non mfr lenses sitting in between the mfr kit lenses (18-55 55-200 etc) and the fixed aperture mfr lenses... if you want a 2.8 lens and cant afford a 24-70 nikkor then why not go with a sigma or tammy or tokina... you can always upgrade later. i personally regret not doing that when i got my camera, looking back i wish i would of gotten the sigma 18-50 2.8 instead of my 18-55, not to say the 18-55 is garbage, i have taken nice photos with it, but i would like to have the f2.8 across the range...

anyway, to each their own :)

[erichlund]

Some of the third party lenses are very good, and word gets around. Of course, some people also weigh a bit of quality against a large price difference, and the balance comes out in favor of price. I have two third party lenses. The Tokina I got because of a combination of price, and I felt the simple distortion was more important to me than the Nikkor's faster focus and and marginal advantage in some other characteristics. I've not been disappointed. The Tamron was the only lens I could find on the spur of the moment when my 18-200 was in the shop, and it was cheap. I was looking for the Nikkor 70-300 ED, but it was not to be found anywhere. I've since bought the 70-300VR.

We all have our reasons. There are some people who will buy nothing but Nikkor. That's their privledge. It is not "blasphemy" to buy other brands, but it can be viewed as snobbery, especially if you speak down upon others choices because of your "superior" Nikkors.

[hokeyguy]

In the past, zooms in general did not have the quality they do now compared to primes. When I made my purchase I was on a budget. I opted for the D80 body only and a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 over the kit lens and am pleased.

[e_dawg]

One thing I haven't grasped here yet is why so many are purchasing non-mfr lens like the Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. I wouldn't have bought any of these back when I was shooting the F2's I had. Why buy a Nikon and commit total blasphemy( as I was once told) buying "third party" lens? Have they gotten that much better over the decades?

Yes, they have to a certain extent. Some of the third party lenses are so good optically that they are just as good as the big names in that regard (sharpness, contrast, distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration). In general, however, they still lag the majors a bit when it comes to quality control / sample-to-sample consistency, auto focus accuracy / reliability / speed in low light, and sometimes coating technology, which impacts flare / ghosting resistance and colour response.

There are a bunch of third party lenses that have developed reputations for superlative performance which I will list below (guys, feel free to add ones that I have missed). Sigma is particularly noteworthy for their HSM lenses, which give Nikon D40-60 users the ability to use 3rd party lenses, as the lower-end bodies do not include AF motors. Most enthusiasts would be pleased to own any of the following third party lenses, I would say (I personally have 6 of the lenses on this list):

Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8

Sigma 70/2.8 macro
Sigma 150/2.8 macro HSM
(the Sigma macro prime lineup is generally considered very good optically, including the rest of them... 50/2.8, 105/2.8, and 180/3.5 HSM)
Sigma 300/2.8 HSM
Sigma 18-50/2.8 macro HSM
Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM (if you have to have HSM, otherwise, the Tokina 50-135 is preferable)
Sigma 10-20 HSM
Sigma 12-24 HSM (if you have to have full-frame capability and/or HSM, otherwise the Tokina 12-24 is preferable)
Sigma 100-300/4 HSM

Tokina 12-24/4
Tokina 16-50/2.8
Tokina 50-135/2.8

[ColColt]

We all have our reasons. There are some people who will buy nothing but Nikkor. That's their privledge. It is not "blasphemy" to buy other brands, but it can be viewed as snobbery, especially if you speak down upon others choices because of your "superior" Nikkors.

I was told it was blasphemy by a Nikon rep years ago for me to buy a Nikon and get a Vivitar lens for it. I did, in fact,buy the 75-150 Vivitar and it was the first and last zoom I ever owned.The quality really sucked. Now, the Series I 90 f/2.5 lens rivaled the renown Nikkor 105 f/2.5 except in contrast. It wasn't quite as contrasty but just as sharp and I still have it. Back then, Nikkor lens were much better than anything made by the third party companies. I havne't kept up with technology over the years but,still think of that Vivitar zoom. I don't care if a lens was made on Mars if it's what I'm looking for in quality and sharpness. That Vivitar didn't cut it.

[aparmley]

I think lens technology has come a long way since those days my friend. Its time for you to do a little research. One place to do that is flickr, and pbase. At pbase you can filter down all images taken with a specific lens. Primes are tops still with respect to image quality, contrast, and total sharpness, but the gaps between prime performance and zooms have been narrowed a lot over the years.

[ColColt]

You're probably right. This was back in the late '70's. Come to think of it, I think I did buy a 43-86 Nikkor back then and it wasn't much good either. Both were slow and the quality of the Nikkor was ok but, the photos it took wasn't. the 70-200 Nikkor was great but, I've just never had much use for 200mm. I still think that 16-85 Nikkor would be great for my purposes with at least one prime. I dont like the cost of it, but, that's the price you pay if you want it. I doubt it comes down much in price this year.

[erichlund]

I was told it was blasphemy by a Nikon rep years ago for me to buy a Nikon and get a Vivitar lens for it.

Well to a Nikon rep, it is blasphemy. You take money out of his pocket when you buy Vivitar!!!! (Do they even still make lenses??? I had one of their strobes once, it was decent).

[ColColt]

Would you believe they still do!! I hope the quality is better than the one I once had. Their Series I 70-210 was a decent zoom but as now, back then I just didn't need the weight or the range of that lens. I loved the Series I 90 f/2.5. It was a great lens. The only reason I bought it was the praise reports I kept seeing in the photo mags back then like Popular and Modern Photography. I still had my 105f/2.5, however.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/47

Well, now I'm not so sure. I went to their website out of curiousity and didn't see any lens listed.