Lens Suggestion

[accord2003]

Hello

I am sort of stuck on what I want for my next lens. I will start with what I have.

D300
Nikon 12-24 F4
Sigma 18-50 F2.8
50mm F1.8
Nikon 70-300 VR
Tamron 90 Macro

I would say I mainly short landscape with some portraits. My biggest weakenss is portrait.

Anyhow, I am thinking of releasing the 18-50. It flares too much and I found there isn't enough reach for a good portrait.

Therefore, I was thinking of getting the 16-85 or the Tamron 28-75F2.8. I really like the range on the 16 but dislike the F5.6 at 85. I have heard the tamron is a great lens if you have find a good copy.

I know it really comes down what I feel but I am hoping someone here might have some words of wisdom that will make me finally decide.

thank you all.

[tim11]

There are 16-85 owners here who complain it suffers from too much flares. I haven't done a conclusive testing but I don't think 18-50 F2.8 has as much flare as 16-85.

[K1W1]

24-70 f2.8

(I've become a lens snob :D)

[Rooz]

Hello

I am sort of stuck on what I want for my next lens. I will start with what I have.

D300
Nikon 12-24 F4
Sigma 18-50 F2.8
50mm F1.8
Nikon 70-300 VR
Tamron 90 Macro

I would say I mainly short landscape with some portraits. My biggest weakenss is portrait.

Anyhow, I am thinking of releasing the 18-50. It flares too much and I found there isn't enough reach for a good portrait.

Therefore, I was thinking of getting the 16-85 or the Tamron 28-75F2.8. I really like the range on the 16 but dislike the F5.6 at 85. I have heard the tamron is a great lens if you have find a good copy.

I know it really comes down what I feel but I am hoping someone here might have some words of wisdom that will make me finally decide.

thank you all.

sell the 50/1.8 and grab the 50/1.4. and use your tammie 90/2.8 more for headshots, its an awesome portrait lens. i dont think getting another short zoom is gonna help you out here. if i had to choose between using the 50/1.4G or the 24-70 for portraits i'd pick the 50 almost every time. if i need more range then the 105, (in your case the 90).

[K1W1]

Why are you always so sensible?

[tim11]

Macro lens for portrait? I wouldn't use my macro for adult portrait shots.... kids... maybe.

[Rooz]

Macro lens for portrait? I wouldn't use my macro for adult portrait shots.... kids... maybe.

?? the tammie is an outstanding portrait lens. all "macro" means is that its got a short MFD. otherwise, its just another lens. i reckon at least 50% of my paid portrait work is with the 105. gives you great space for candids or gives you headshots. has that flattering focal length and narrow FOV to make the background blur right away.

[K1W1]

??

Mr Sensible again. :)
I think what he meant was that macro = small subjects, small subjects = kids.
It was a joke.

[Rooz]

lol doh !!
sorry tim.

[accord2003]

Rooz

now you got me thinking on primes. I suppose I really need to stop thinking of getting a one lens solution for everything. That said, i would probably still need a general walk around lens. The 16 85 would be a good candidate there. Therefore, I am thinking the 16-85 with 50 1.4. I used to have the 85 1.8 too. I thought getting that again.

I agree with you the tammie is good for portraits. The only thing I didn't like is the focus speed and accuracy.

Now. should I even try the 50 1.4D. I have seen some for $300 now. Did you use that lens as well?

thanks again everyone.

[RichNY]

You might want to consider some of the better used manual focus Nikkor lenses that are inexpensive and optically superior to the current glass. An example is the 105 f/2.5 AIS which can be purchased for under $200. Using manual focus on the AIS lenses is a completely better experience than using it on current lenses which are nowhere as smooth.

[accord2003]

thank you all for your replies.

[XaiLo]

16-85mm gets my vote ;) the 50 will cover you in low light situations!

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

My 16-85 is a very good lens but it will not blur the background for me ever. I'm a sharpness freak so it suits me. If I want isolation I use a longer lens.

I concur the Tammie is my favourite for portraits.

Do your subjects ever move? That's why I don't like primes much, they don't suit my kids style. For a grown up prepared to pose for a camera I find the prime good.

[Thronsen]

For portraits and macro the preference is the Tamron 90mm over the Nikon 105mm straight up, or is this more of a cost benefit thing (Tamron half the cost of the Nikon).

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I said Tammie because I have it (bought on impulse and price) and have never shot the 105.
Rooz has the 105 and used to own the tammie, guess there's a reason for that.

I am contemplating the 24-70 but I'm pretty happy with the 16-85 and it meant avoided buying a wide angle plus the 24-70 as it covered both.

[Rooz]

For portraits and macro the preference is the Tamron 90mm over the Nikon 105mm straight up, or is this more of a cost benefit thing (Tamron half the cost of the Nikon).

nikkor benefits:
stabilisation
af-s
sharpness at infinity; at MFD there is bugger all seperating them in sharpness; in fact at MFD i think the sigma 150 macro is the sharpest of the lot.

[accord2003]

I think I might have made up my mind. it will probably be the 16 85 and maybe a 85 F.18 or 50 F.14. I know the tammie is good for portrait but it is just really slow for focus for kids moving around. I bought the motor version. I have heard it is slower. oh well.

DPR. did you get the non motor version.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Mine is the SP AF DI whatever that means

[accord2003]

Mine is the SP AF DI whatever that means

I think you have the non motor version. Mine said AF II.

[K1W1]

It looks like the motor equipped one is model number 272E