View Full Version : need a NAS fix QUICK!

10-16-2008, 05:29 PM
Hi guys,

Coming into summer and should hopefully start having a lot more time for photography, I want to really start thinking about my lenses and what I need vs what I want...

so I have an 18-55 which I barely use, the reality is its not Wide enough when I need wide and if I am shooting around the 50mm mark I would much rather have my nifty 50 on. So I think my 18-55 is destined for sale.

55-200 vr... its ok but the bokeh is shocking so I may keep it until I get something in the tele end...

Nifty 50 is ok, but it is a bit long wonít be selling it but it is what it is.

Tammy 90. Love it, AF sux but for macro or portraits it is fantastic, beautiful bokeh etc etc

So what I have to ponder is my next 2 or 3 purchases (over 12 months or so)

this is where it gets tough, there are a lot of birthdays and stuff coming up all through summer and I thought the 35f2 would suit to a tea and its a good all round lens because essentially its a "50ish" with the crop factor.

The next thing is a second flash, I think itís a pretty big necessity as whenever I try to set up a shot I am always finding that if I had a second flash it would make life a whole lot easier...

the third thing I need is tele, Iíve looked through a lot of my race meet shots and I found I was always at 200mm so I definitely need 200+ but fast so I know this will be the most expensive of my additions and will need careful consideration either a 70-200 (the 80-200 was an option if it was AFS) or a 300f4 AFS the only issue with the 300 is the fixed length becomes a little specific. Then again it is cheaper then a 70-200 and performs ok...

Anyway I canít even understand what I just wrote so hopefully someone can decipher my banter and help me out with some suggestions.

appreciate it!


Visual Reality
10-16-2008, 06:19 PM
The 35mm f/2 is my lens of choice for low-light non-flash use when I need some decent shutter speed. It is effectively 52mm which is a great "normal" focal length lens. When I use a flash I use the Tamron 17-50 @ f/4 - its much more versatile because of the zoom range and optically at f/4 it matches the Nikon 17-55.

Sounds like you need a fast prime like the 35 f/2 (where flash isn't useable or not allowed) and an f/2.8 wide-normal lens in the 18-55 range. Your options there are the Sigma 18-50 (faster focus), Tamron 17-50 (better sharpness), or the much more expensive Nikon 17-55. There is a Tokina 16-50 but its not as good and not discussed much.

You say 16-18mm isn't wide enough for some shots (landscape? architecture?). Then we start talking about your super-wide...my choice here after some research points to the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 as the unanimous choice.

For telephoto, are you in bright daylight? If so I'd strongly consider changing the 55-200 for the 70-300 VR. It is an excellent lens for the price. If you are using it at night you will obviously need nothing but the most expensive glass so...Nikon 70-200 VR or Sigma 70-200 (you sacrifice IQ on this one but save $1000).


Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - Super Wide
Nikon 35mm f/2 - Low-light, sharp performer wide open
Nikon 17-55 / Tamron 17-50 / Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 - Wide to normal range, your "walkaround" most versatile lens
Nikon 70-300 daytime, Nikon/Sigma 70-200 night time - Telephoto

That's my war chest anyway...but they are researched selections for each application. As for the flash, that is an easy answer - go for it. I will end up with an SB-800 on-camera with an SB-600 off-camera. Two is definetely better than one, and CLS makes it easy to manage :)

10-16-2008, 06:43 PM
yea i think the 35f2 is on the list, but i am not sure about another 18-50 type lens, i just dont think the 18 is wide enough and i dont shoot enough at that range to justify the cost of another zoom in that focal range, for example when i was in malaysia the 18 with crop factor left me very little choice for shooting the petronas towers and i almost threrw my 18-55 in the bin i was so angry... so i think if i have the 35 the 50 and then down the road (after the flash and the tele) something really wide like the tokina to cover off that range... but looking at it, i think i may need a zoom tele because i will have a huge gap in my range if i go 35 50 90 300, mind you i probably dont shoot much in the 100-150 range if at all... hrmm i really need to figure out a plan of attack

Visual Reality
10-16-2008, 06:46 PM
Yeah I had to think long and hard about all of my needs and research the best option for each application. Everyone's needs are different, but I think you will feel something is missing if you don't have a wide-normal lens. For example I don't take my 35mm with me often - it only has special uses and the 17-50 is on almost all of the time, especially in indoor social situations, walking around town, etc. Unless you want all of your shots taken at the same focal length (until you change lenses) I wouldn't skip that range...others may disagree.

10-16-2008, 06:56 PM
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 - Super Wide

Where do you find this? I googled and keep coming up with Canon mounts, which does me no good.

10-16-2008, 07:03 PM
you are probably right, but that puts a bit of a spanner in the works, i suppose i could just keep the 18-55 in the case i need a zoom in that range until i can afford something better. grrr this is hard :(

10-16-2008, 07:26 PM
i dont think i would go for the 70-300 if i upgrade i want to move away from variable aperture lenses, i'd hang on to the 55-200 until i pull the trigger. the 300f4 does add the option of a 1.4 TC which gives you 420@5.6 and for when i eventually make it back to kenya for a safari that is very tempting...

Visual Reality
10-16-2008, 07:26 PM
Where do you find this? I googled and keep coming up with Canon mounts, which does me no good.



It's so popular it's back-ordered.

Right here on DCRP:


10-16-2008, 07:45 PM
If you are planning on shooting outdoors add a decent set of triggers to the list.

10-16-2008, 08:16 PM
This sounds a lot like the question I've been asking myself lately. Like you, I plan to get the 35 f2. I have the 55-200 VR but have been considering changing to the 70-300 VR or something faster like the 80-200. I'm not sure about these as I probably would use a ultra wide like the tokina 11-16 more than telephoto. I probably wouldn't choose the 300 f4 unless you know you need something that specific.

10-16-2008, 11:34 PM
You could also go a bit wider than the 35mm with the 28mm f/2.8. About $100 cheaper than the 35mm, although I don't know at all how it compares quality-wise.

Dread Pirate Roberts
10-17-2008, 02:02 AM
You could also go a bit wider than the 35mm with the 28mm f/2.8. About $100 cheaper than the 35mm, although I don't know at all how it compares quality-wise.

Following the positive comments from Rooz re the 35 I'm wondering about the 28 too. I'd be keen to hear if anyone has experience with it. I find the 50 too long and I feel the 35 is too close to it for me.

10-17-2008, 02:32 AM
the reason i picked the 35 over the 28 was essentially the one stop difference. i did test out a couple of other primes in the 20's. but now i cant remember which they were. i dont think it was the 28. i think it was the 20 and 24.

10-17-2008, 05:25 AM
yea the extra stop is nice and having seen the results of the "jordan" lens i would hesitate to go past it and really it is an ideal focal length for me, the bigger issue is the next purchase for race meets motorcycles go very fast and you dont tend to be too close to them so length and accuracy with the AF is important so this purchase is probably the one that concerns me the most

10-17-2008, 05:42 AM
for race meets motorcycles go very fast and you dont tend to be too close

Just find a suitable spot on the track where they are cornering or braking or something. One thing about bikes is that they are very consistent with where they are on the track on virtually every lap so in the past I have often even pre focused and simply panned with the bike till it gets to where I want it then pushed the button.
It's only silly buggers like me who try to shoot bikes going past at 300kph on the main straight 50 metres away and that's only because I have no real choice where I am. If you watch the pros at bike or car races they are very rarely positioned to take vehicles going in a straight line.

10-17-2008, 08:09 AM
Does it have to be a Nikkor?

What about the Sigma 30/1.4? Supposedly its super sharp (in the center).

Flash? I would say SB-800. A little more power than the 600, a littlel more options than the 600, and not as crazy expensive as the 900.

Tele? 70-300 VR, 100-300/4, 50-500 (bigma). The options are almost endless, it just depends on your wallet.

Dread Pirate Roberts
10-18-2008, 02:48 AM
$500 for the sigma 30 F/1.4 and it's got a focus motor for quicker focussing. How good is that lens comparatively? I'm not about to buy one I'm just wondering.

Also I take back what I said about 35 being too close to 50 (which I find to long), I was using 35 on the zoom for a lot of kiddie shots at the beach today.