Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    370

    What would you do in this lens situation?

    I have the Tamron to cover 28-75mm (f/2.8), the 50mm f/1.8 for low light and I REALLY want the 70-300mm VR. I have seen so many fantastic pictures with that lens that I just can't resist. So, that leaves me with my 18-135mm kit lens. I have never used anything wider than 30mm. I'm sure I will some day, though. But the kit lens has quite a bit of distortion at the wide end anyway.

    So, I am considering selling the kit lens to put the money towards the 70-300mm VR. Then I could add a decent wider lens later. Would it be pointless to do that? Are there good, inexpensive lenses that cover just 17-35mm or so?

    Or should I just hold onto the 18-135mm? It isn't exactly small. I might even consider getting the 18-55mm that came with the D40 if I can buy it alone since it was so compact and had pretty decent IQ.

    As you know, I'm terrible at making decisions , so any advice/opinions would be appreciated.
    "Saturate yourself with your subject and the camera will all but take you by the hand." ~ Margaret Bourke-White

    Nikon D80 ~ Tamron 28-75/2.8 ~ Nikon 50/1.8 ~ Tamron 90/2.8 Di Macro ~ SB-600

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Posts
    3,210
    You shouldn't find it too hard to sell the 18 - 135.
    I would go for some kind of 18 - 55 so you overlap your 28 - 75
    Look at the Nikon, the Tamron, and the Sigma offerings.
    Concentrate first on getting the lens you really want.
    Geoff Chandler. UK/England/Surrey
    NIKON D90 / D80. Nikon 16 - 85 VR, Tamron 28-200,
    Sigma 70-300APO, Tokina 100 AT-X Pro D.
    SB600 flash. Panasonic DMC-TZ25

    http://geof777.multiply.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,887

    Sell the 18-135

    It goes for around 300 (new) so you can probably get 200 for it.

    Then get the 70-300. By your own admission you said you dont use the wide end...the tamron will cover wider end you do use, the 50mm prime will get you to 70mm then the 70-300 will take over!

    I own the sigma 10-20 and would not swap it for love nor money! love it!
    Nikon D700
    Sigma 70-200 F2.8
    Sigma 85mm F1.4
    Sigma 15-30 F3.5 - 4.5



    http://www.philipduartephotography.com

    "It's better to be hurt by the truth than comforted by a lie"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Don't ask me what I would do, because you know I would sell the lot .
    But what would I think would be wise?

    As you may remember I do not like the 18-135mm kit lens much, do not find it an attractive lens. So I would say, by all means get rid of it while you can still get some money for it.

    The 18-55 kitlens cost about $120, it is a better lens in many respects in the focal length range they share.

    With the 28-75 you do cover a lot of that range already though... but the 18-55 is so cheap, that it seems silly to go for 17-35 in that respect. That being said, there are two quite decent 17-35 lenses.
    The Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 and the Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4. Both are full frame and both are capable of quite reasonable results.

    Another option, which I would prefer, but which also will cost a bit more, is to go for an ultra wide like the Tokina 12-24mm f4. It will match the 28-75mm focal range you have rather well, only missing the 24-28mm range.
    So when you feel that you want to go wider than 28mm, you can actually go quite a bit wider too. And the distortion of this lens will very pleasantly surprise you... for instance NO distortion to speak of at 18mm!
    It is built like a tank, and delivers quite impressive results. Only downside would be the price, that is about the same as that 70-300 VR you want to get.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,929
    Kellie, If you want the 70-300 VR, get it. Its a wonderful lens! Since you dont use a wide end very much right now, you wont miss the 18-135mm. Later on when you do decide you need the wide, you can get a good wide angle lens.

    Sell the 18-135mm and get yourself that VR you've been drooling over
    Jason

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once."-2Pac


    A bunch of Nikon stuff!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellie View Post
    So, I am considering selling the kit lens to put the money towards the 70-300mm VR.

    Or should I just hold onto the 18-135mm? It isn't exactly small.
    I say sell all the Nikon stuff and get Canon!

    NOT.

    Actually, I am considering selling my 18-135 as well. But, at the moment it's the only lens I have (short of the 50mm 1.4) that gives me less than 70mm images.

    I was (well, am) seriously considering the new Sigma 18-50 and 17-70, but I keep getting dissapointed when I read they don't have certain features. So, I still haven't executed my plan.

    Anyways...

    That 70-300VR lens is really a good one. For my needs, a little bit of range in a wide angle lens is very helpful. So, unless you're only using the wideangle for a specific purpose, I'd recommend something in the 18-70/18-50 range. It's ok if they overlap a bit.

    If you think you'll just use the wideangle lens for unique situations, get a very wide angle lens (like the 10-20), or something like the 18-35 that has less range, but can still zoom a bit.

    btw, the 70-300 is MUCH bigger than the 18-135. I actually consider the 18-135 a fairly small lens.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    516
    Aye. The 18-135 can return a fairly pretty penny.

    Ditto on the 18-55. I bought one for that exact reason and it performs great at wide angle. Also it is lightweight, very small, and cheap. Main drawback of the 18-55 is its focial range but it sounds like that isn't a problem for you. The 18-55 doesn't take up much room in the camera bag, its about 1.5X the size of the 50mm lense.

    If interested, I've got my 18-55 for sale. Great lense, I am selling it for cheap and works like a charm. Only reason I am getting rid of it is because I bought a lense that has out-classed it (and uses the same focial range).

    PM me if interested. I am sure we can reach a reasonable agreement.
    Small Town Newspaper Oaf

    East Coast Coorespondant for CRAWL Magazine!!??

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    370
    You all have convinced me! I want the 70-300mm VR so bad I can taste it. Anyone want a 18-135mm?

    Thanks for the suggestions for wide lenses. I think I might like to get an ultra wide some day, but for now that just isn't what I'll use.
    "Saturate yourself with your subject and the camera will all but take you by the hand." ~ Margaret Bourke-White

    Nikon D80 ~ Tamron 28-75/2.8 ~ Nikon 50/1.8 ~ Tamron 90/2.8 Di Macro ~ SB-600

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,923
    I'll chime in on the 18-55. It's a great little lens, available for a song!
    Nikon D40 + kit lens

    Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D AF(...or not)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    370
    Does anyone know if there is a difference between the 18-55mm AF-S II that comes with the D40 and the old 18-55mm that comes with the D50? I really liked the D40 kit lens, but I don't think it is sold alone.
    "Saturate yourself with your subject and the camera will all but take you by the hand." ~ Margaret Bourke-White

    Nikon D80 ~ Tamron 28-75/2.8 ~ Nikon 50/1.8 ~ Tamron 90/2.8 Di Macro ~ SB-600

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •