PDA

View Full Version : Primary lens for the D50



slitman
07-02-2005, 05:45 AM
I am looking for a primary lens for the Nikon D50 and interested if you have gone with any of the following for your primary lens:

- Nikon 24-120mm f/2.5-5.6G ED IF Autofocus VR
- SIGMA LENS 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC
- 18-70mm Nikkor Lens
- Nikon 28-100mm f/3.5-5.6 Autofocus Nikkor Lens
- Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AutoFocus Zoom Nikkor Lens
- Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D Autofocus Zoom Nikkor Lens
- Tamron 18-200 DC

jeisner
07-02-2005, 07:18 AM
As I don't use Nikon, all I can tell you out of that selection is that the Sigma 18-125 is better than the Tamron 18-200 (if you want the 18-200 range get the sigma 18-200, but this is still a lilttle behind the 18-125)..

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=51339#post51339

D70FAN
07-02-2005, 09:23 AM
I am looking for a primary lens for the Nikon D50 and interested if you have gone with any of the following for your primary lens:

- Nikon 24-120mm f/2.5-5.6G ED IF Autofocus VR
- SIGMA LENS 18-125mm F3.5-5.6 DC
- 18-70mm Nikkor Lens
- Nikon 28-100mm f/3.5-5.6 Autofocus Nikkor Lens
- Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AutoFocus Zoom Nikkor Lens
- Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D Autofocus Zoom Nikkor Lens
- Tamron 18-200 DC

I know that when you say primary you mean and everyday walk-around lens. In photo lingo a "primary" lens is a base, fixed focus, lens like 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 105mm, etc.

I use the Sigma 18-125 DC (~$280) on my D70 for about 75% of my shots. It is a very good lens and offers the same quality as my original Nikkor 18-70 DX kit lens, but with 80% more telephoto coverage. None of the lenses you mentioned will do a better job optically including the VR. Using 28mm as the base wide-angle setting, for everyday shooting, will be agrivating. Most dSLR's have a crop factor multiplier of 1.5 or 1.6 so what you get with a 28mm lens is actually 42mm-48mm.

I am now considering the Sigma 18-200 (~$400) to extend the utility even further and eliminate lugging my 70-300 around. In every test that I have seen the Sigma is head-and-antlers ahead of the Tamron for this 11x focal range, and rivals the 18-125 in quality. I like to travel light.

Keep in mind that these are not professional grade lenses, and sometimes a lens will sneak through, not quite adjusted correctly, so always check the first few images for correct corner and edge continuity and and overall focus. This is becomming a lot less prevelent, and I have not had this problem, but still worth a check.

You will also want to consider a couple of good "prime" lenses and I would suggest the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 to start. This adds a very fast and sharp lens to your toolkit for under $150. It's not a zoom, but you will be amazed at the picture quality for the price. If you want a good quality zoom fast and sharp zoom later on, our contributors have had very good results with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di (~$400) and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC ($500)

Hope this helps.

Warin
07-02-2005, 11:01 AM
I started with the 24-120 VR. It is a great lens, but it is also a little slow. I found that shooting indoors with ISO 100 was virtually impossible (this was on my film body). So I traded it in for a 50 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8 and I have not regretted it since!

If ou must have a zoom, I would suggest the 18-70 "kit" lens is likely the best bang for the buck. If money is not an object, there is a 17-35mm AFS lens that is stunning, but pricey.

slitman
07-02-2005, 12:32 PM
Is the 24-120 VR slower than the Sigma 18-125 or Nikon 18-70?

Is the Sigma 18-125 and Nikon 18-70 sharper and faster than the 18-200?




I started with the 24-120 VR. It is a great lens, but it is also a little slow. I found that shooting indoors with ISO 100 was virtually impossible (this was on my film body). So I traded it in for a 50 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8 and I have not regretted it since!

If ou must have a zoom, I would suggest the 18-70 "kit" lens is likely the best bang for the buck. If money is not an object, there is a 17-35mm AFS lens that is stunning, but pricey.

slitman
07-02-2005, 12:35 PM
So there is not much sharpness difference between the Sigma 18-200 and Sigma 18-125? How about speed?

I recently saw a review in one of the photography magazines that had the performance much higher on the Tamron 18-200 compared to the Sigma 18-200; any ideas on this?




I know that when you say primary you mean and everyday walk-around lens. In photo lingo a "primary" lens is a base, fixed focus, lens like 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 105mm, etc.

I use the Sigma 18-125 DC (~$280) on my D70 for about 75% of my shots. It is a very good lens and offers the same quality as my original Nikkor 18-70 DX kit lens, but with 80% more telephoto coverage. None of the lenses you mentioned will do a better job optically including the VR. Using 28mm as the base wide-angle setting, for everyday shooting, will be agrivating. Most dSLR's have a crop factor multiplier of 1.5 or 1.6 so what you get with a 28mm lens is actually 42mm-48mm.

I am now considering the Sigma 18-200 (~$400) to extend the utility even further and eliminate lugging my 70-300 around. In every test that I have seen the Sigma is head-and-antlers ahead of the Tamron for this 11x focal range, and rivals the 18-125 in quality. I like to travel light.

Keep in mind that these are not professional grade lenses, and sometimes a lens will sneak through, not quite adjusted correctly, so always check the first few images for correct corner and edge continuity and and overall focus. This is becomming a lot less prevelent, and I have not had this problem, but still worth a check.

You will also want to consider a couple of good "prime" lenses and I would suggest the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 to start. This adds a very fast and sharp lens to your toolkit for under $150. It's not a zoom, but you will be amazed at the picture quality for the price. If you want a good quality zoom fast and sharp zoom later on, our contributors have had very good results with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di (~$400) and the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC ($500)

Hope this helps.

D70FAN
07-02-2005, 04:59 PM
So there is not much sharpness difference between the Sigma 18-200 and Sigma 18-200? How about speed?

I recently saw a review in one of the photography magazines that had the performance much higher on the Tamron 18-200 compared to the Sigma 18-200; any ideas on this?

I think you meant the 18-125 vs. the 18-200. From my own brief experience with the 18-200 there is a slight edge to the 18-125, but within the same range (18-125) I didin't see much difference.

In the visual side-by-side tests I have seen, the Sigma is far superior to the Tamron. But try them both and see for yourself.

Warin
07-02-2005, 05:43 PM
The 24-120 is actually 3.5 maximum aperature, not 2.5, at the wide end.

The 18-70 AFS DX is 3.5 - 4.5, so it is around the same range as the 24-120, generally.

I dont have a lot of experience with Sigma or Tamron glass. I am trying to find the Canadian supplier of Sigma so I can try out a lens or two and see how I like them compared to my Nikon glass... so my advice is to stick with the Nikkors. Other than lacking a little on the wide end, if you can take the slower glass the 24-120 is a super lense, the VR helps a fair bit. On a film body is suffers a little in edge sharpness, something that is virtually eliminated on a digital body like the D70

jeisner
07-02-2005, 05:47 PM
I recently saw a review in one of the photography magazines that had the performance much higher on the Tamron 18-200 compared to the Sigma 18-200; any ideas on this?

In user reviews and from samples I have seen the Sigma is far ahead....

Remember with magazines and even some online reviewers (that many people quote as gospel) they rely on advertising to stay in business....

slitman
07-02-2005, 06:54 PM
I saw a recent review in Amateur Photographer of both the Sigma and Tamron and the Tamron was actually rate above the Sigma and the was even a more noticeable difference in the Tamron having better performance.


I think you meant the 18-125 vs. the 18-200. From my own brief experience with the 18-200 there is a slight edge to the 18-125, but within the same range (18-125) I didin't see much difference.

In the visual side-by-side tests I have seen, the Sigma is far superior to the Tamron. But try them both and see for yourself.

slitman
07-02-2005, 06:57 PM
The funny thing at this point is that I have received as much postive feedback on the Sigma as the Tamron; some say the Sigma is far superior, while others have said the Tamron is far superior, making the decision process even harder on what to go with. :)



In user reviews and from samples I have seen the Sigma is far ahead....

Remember with magazines and even some online reviewers (that many people quote as gospel) they rely on avertising to stay in business....