Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    295

    Sharpest lens under $500

    Without considering focal length, what is the sharpest/highest IQ lens that can be had under $500? I find it hard to compare lenses of different focal lengths since most people only compare lenses of similar focal lengths. My guess would be something like the 50mm f1.4? Or should I just save the money and stick with the 35mm f1.8?

    PS- I sold my 55-200VR to a buddy and am considering looking for something super sharp for the time being until I decide exactly what lens combo I would like to go with. I cant afford a 70-300, 16-85, and a Sigma 10-20 quite yet.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kanagawa, Japan
    Posts
    267
    I like the 50mm F1.4D, which you should be able to get for around $330 or so. The 50mm F1.4G is about $100 more, and perhaps not worth the extra for most folks.
    "No matter where you go, there you are."
    -Buckaroo Banzai


    Nikon D90 | Nikkor 18-105VR | AF Nikkor 50 f/1.4D | AF Micro Nikkor 105 | AF Nikkor 20 f/2.8D | AF Nikkor 70-300VR |
    Canon IXY 810IS | Canon UW Housing


    My Picasa Site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    6,931
    Bang for buck would have to be the 50mm f1.8 AF-D lens at around $120 but of course it won't auto focus on your camera.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by K1W1 View Post
    Bang for buck would have to be the 50mm f1.8 AF-D lens at around $120 but of course it won't auto focus on your camera.
    Sorry, I should have stated what K1W1 said. Yes, I need it to autofocus on my D5000. How close are the Nikon 16-85 and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 to the 35mm F1.8G?
    Last edited by Myboostedgst; 09-06-2010 at 11:28 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    295
    I'm really interested in the IQ quality between the 35 f1.8, Nikon 16-85, and the Tamron 17-50. Being as though the Tamron is a f2.8, I would be able to skip the 35mm f1.8 and save the extra money? Or is the sharpness of the 35mm greater than the Tamron and still worth buying?

    Option 1.
    35mm f1.8, Nikon 16-85, and the Nikon 70-300

    Option 2.
    Tamron 17-50, Nilon 70-300 and save some extra cash?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    456
    FWIW, I was under the impression that the 35 has some pretty pronounced CA. IIRC, Reg did a shoot awhile ago in some type of warehouse showing the CA pretty clearly
    D700(gone), D90(gone), D40x
    80-200 f/2.8D(gone), 50 f/1.4G, 100 f/2.8 Series E, 18-55 kitty
    SB900(gone), SB24, Sunpak 383(dead), fired with Paul C Buff triggers

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    oslo, norway
    Posts
    1,019
    Yeah, CA's are bad on the 35 f1.8 wide open.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,546
    Quote Originally Posted by Myboostedgst View Post
    I'm really interested in the IQ quality between the 35 f1.8, Nikon 16-85, and the Tamron 17-50. Being as though the Tamron is a f2.8, I would be able to skip the 35mm f1.8 and save the extra money? Or is the sharpness of the 35mm greater than the Tamron and still worth buying?

    Option 1.
    35mm f1.8, Nikon 16-85, and the Nikon 70-300

    Option 2.
    Tamron 17-50, Nilon 70-300 and save some extra cash?
    Spent the last 45 minutes doing the following...

    sees this thread -> remembers i posted test shot of the 35mm that would probably help -> head to subscriptions to pull up my test shots of the 35mm -> realize i didnt subscribe -> search and search for thread thinking i made one dedicated to it -> realize i actually piggybacked a thread K1W1 made about the lens -> search through 19 pages to find my posts -> realize the links to the shots are no longer valid -> search computers to re-upload test shots -> realize that for some reason unknown to me they are nowhere to be found.

    Just thought I'd share that little tidbit lol..



    Anyway, I happen to have the 35 and the 17-50.


    35mm
    Great price along with great IQ. Lens produces excellent sharpness even wide open. Also focuses fast and quiet.

    The bad... Undesirable amounts of barrel distortion (any straight lines in a shot are visibly bending). High levels of CA wide open in high contrast situations. Build quality isnt the best but it doesnt feel like a total pos.


    All in all in real world use if you dont mind stopping down in direct sunlight the CA issue is virtually non-existant. The barrel distortion however is there to stay but this may not be an issue depending on how often straight lines appear in your pictures. Do I regret this lens? Not a single bit. I hardly ever use a lens wide open in direct sunlight so the CA problem doesnt come up. What little CA that does show its face is easily fixed in post processing. Some may not want to spend time with that extra step but its worth it if your on a budget but want above average image quality in my opinion. You can keyword search my flickr and see many shots from this lens.


    17-50mm

    This lens is my pride and joy. It offers IQ that makes the Nikon kit lens look like it came off a toy camera. The constant f/2.8 come in handle in all sorts of situations. Build quality isnt pro level but it def satisfies me.

    The bad... Costs more than the 35mm. AF on this lens is somewhat loud but it doesnt bother me and I dont think it would be an issue unless in a situation where you arent allowed to make any kind of noise.

    Besides my D90 this lens is the best money I've spent since getting into photography. You can keyword search my flickr and see many shots from this lens as well.


    All that being said, its hard to directly compare a prime to a zoom. The Tamron is way more versatile given the focal length so unless you need the speed of f/1.8 thats the route I'd take. It costs something like $100 more than the 35 but its worth every penny when you consider the capabilities of this lens. If you have any specific shots you'd like me to take with either lens let me know and I'll get them posted here asap.
    Last edited by r3g; 09-07-2010 at 05:23 PM.
    Nikon D90, D40 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8
    Vertical Grip, SB-600, SB-24, Sunpak 433D, Metz 40AF-4N, Alienbees CyberSync Triggers

    R3G Media | Flickr

    "You're pulling some awesome action shots with a cam and lens that are supposed to be rubbish ! " - Rooz

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    295
    r3g, I would love it if you posted some pictures of the same object at 35mm (For a direct comparison), but I would hate to send you on a 35min long excursion through your hard drive and across the internet.

    But thank you for the info. That really makes me happy knowing that by going the cheaper route I would not be missing much. Unfortunately, on B&H and Adormama the Tamron is about $420-550 depending on if you get a VC lens or not. Is your lens the VC model?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,546
    Nope mine isnt VC and honestly at this focal length at f/2.8 I dont need it. Are you asking for a scene at 17mm and the same scene at 35mm?
    Nikon D90, D40 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8
    Vertical Grip, SB-600, SB-24, Sunpak 433D, Metz 40AF-4N, Alienbees CyberSync Triggers

    R3G Media | Flickr

    "You're pulling some awesome action shots with a cam and lens that are supposed to be rubbish ! " - Rooz

Posting Permissions

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