Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    270

    Looking for new glass

    Happy new year everyone

    I want to upgrade my GP lens for a Nikon D90
    Presently, I have it narrowed down to the Nikon 16-85mm and the Sigma 17-70mm. I would like to go to pro quality, but not in my price bracket.

    My main concern is the optical quality. I would happily accept proposals for other similar lenses.
    Can anyone give their opinion?


    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124
    Why not the Sigma 18-50 Macro HSM? I loved mine. Can probably find one used on fredmiranda. F2.8 apature much better for low light/narrow DoF shots. The new 17-50 F2.8 OS is nice too about same price as 16-85 if your going to buy that price range.

    Tim
    Last edited by timmciglobal; 01-08-2011 at 10:57 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Somerset, England
    Posts
    718
    I second the recommendation for the Sigma 18-50, it has served me well.
    Gear List:
    Canon 40D + Sigma 18-50mm + Canon 55-250mm

    My Gallery

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Delfgauw, The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,207
    I really love my 17-70. For me, it's the perfect walk around lens. The zoom range is great. For my use (mostly travel photography) a lens ending at 50mm would be too short to serve as good walk around lens. The lens is sharp throughout the entire zoom range and I seldom see things like distortion, flare, CAs, etc in my pictures. The focusing can be a bit slow, but that's supposed to be better on the newer HSM versions of the lens.

    Also, the short minimum focus distance is a nice feature for taking the occasional macro shot of stationairy subjects. The f/2.8 at 17mm also comes in handy when shooting an interior somewhere.

    I have never used the 16-85, but it's suposed to be very good as well.

    I suppose the lens to choose depends on what you shoot. How important is low light performance for you?
    If you shoot a lot in low light, a fixed f/2.8 lens is the one to pick.

    I don't think the shallow DOF that a fixed f/2.8 lens can offer is the reason why you should pick it over a lens that is longer. After all, DOF is not only a function of aperture, but also of focal length. Furthermore, a longer lens will give a more flattering perspective when shooting portraits and (generally) more pleasing bokeh because of a smaller field of view.
    Nikon D-50
    // Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 VR // Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8
    // Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ...// Nikon SB-600
    // Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6......// Nikon Series E 135 mm f/2.8
    // Kiron 105 f/2.8 Macro....// Manfrotto 190XPROB + 488RC4
    // Nikkor 35 f/1.8..........// Sigma 500 mm f/8

    My website: http://www.dennisdolkens.nl

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    3,877
    Love my 16-85 but it's horses for courses. What do you want from a lens?

    Trust me walking around with F2.8 glass all day is a pain in the back / neck / arms.

    But pro quality is subjective. Good lenses are better at different things. I have seen Joe McNally using the 16-85 but I don't know too many people would call it pro (sure I know he'll have a sweet deal to advertise it).

    I also like By Thom's comments about the hiking photographer using low quality glass that was light. He simply stopped all his shots down to F8 and everything was great for him.
    D800, D300, D90, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 F4, 105 micro, 16-85VR, 50mm 1.8, Tammy 90 macro, 70-300VR, SB900, 2xSB600, MB-D10, 055XPROB 322RC2. New computers to run photoshop faster. C&C always appreciated. PhotoGallery
    Pressing the shutter is the start of the process - Joe McNally ... Buying the body is the start of the process - Dread Pirate

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    Posts
    883
    The things I don't like about my 16-85, compared with my 18-70, are that it has rather more chromatic abberation / purple fringing, particularly at the wide end, and suffers more from flare when there's a bright light source in or near the frame.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    3,877
    Agreed it flares like a bastard but I hardly notice it anymore since I've changed my shooting style to compensate. I really like the wide end on it.
    D800, D300, D90, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 F4, 105 micro, 16-85VR, 50mm 1.8, Tammy 90 macro, 70-300VR, SB900, 2xSB600, MB-D10, 055XPROB 322RC2. New computers to run photoshop faster. C&C always appreciated. PhotoGallery
    Pressing the shutter is the start of the process - Joe McNally ... Buying the body is the start of the process - Dread Pirate

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    270
    Thanks for the opinions. I appreciate the candor.
    Right now I'm leaning towards the Nikon, but not set yet.
    If I go with a 18-50mm I'll probably just get the Nikon kit lens (Mk II) even though it's cheaply made it still turns out some great quality.

    Still appreciate more if anyone has some.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Delfgauw, The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,207
    Quote Originally Posted by fotogmarc View Post
    Thanks for the opinions. I appreciate the candor.
    Right now I'm leaning towards the Nikon, but not set yet.
    If I go with a 18-50mm I'll probably just get the Nikon kit lens (Mk II) even though it's cheaply made it still turns out some great quality.

    Still appreciate more if anyone has some.
    You mean the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 Mk II?

    Any of the lenses mentioned above will beat that lens hands down.

    The Mk II is suposed to be quite sharp for the money, but it must be noted that the emphasis in this statement lies on the "for the money" bit.
    Nikon D-50
    // Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6 VR // Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8
    // Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 ...// Nikon SB-600
    // Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6......// Nikon Series E 135 mm f/2.8
    // Kiron 105 f/2.8 Macro....// Manfrotto 190XPROB + 488RC4
    // Nikkor 35 f/1.8..........// Sigma 500 mm f/8

    My website: http://www.dennisdolkens.nl

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    270
    Quote Originally Posted by Prospero View Post
    You mean the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 Mk II?

    Any of the lenses mentioned above will beat that lens hands down.

    The Mk II is suposed to be quite sharp for the money, but it must be noted that the emphasis in this statement lies on the "for the money" bit.
    Yea, I kind of threw that out there to see what the response would be.

    I like the 16-85mm, but the price is too much, just waiting for a sale.

Posting Permissions

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