Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    285

    Lens upgrade quandry

    Most of my shooting has been real estate and I love my Sigma 10-20, however, in the process meet so many people to leverage in other areas - weddings, portraits, children etc. I will be getting rid on my kit 18-55 and 55-200 replacing with better. Initially was thinking Nikon's 16-85 and 70-300, but as nice as those lens are, dimissing that and looking at fast glass for the better depth of field, and of course low light.

    Was thinking Tamrons 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) and defer the faster 70-200 2.8 tele. At this point cant justify Nikons 17-55 due to cost, and Tamrons and Sigmas VC versions are not as sharp as the non-VC. My photoclub practice portrait shoot in a park has me questioning that and wondering if shoud focus on the 70-200. Two things I noticed, how close I and others were with the short zooms and 50 primes, and my switching to the 55-200.

    For those that take weddings, which do you find you use the most, the short zoom or long zoom. Technically, I have 2 bodies, a D40 and D90 so could mount both lens. Plan to sell the D40 and 2 kit lens when the D400? is released and decide D400 or D7000 at that time.

    Which do you feel would be the 'ideal' setup. Keeping the Sigma 10-20 and irrespective of any option below, getting a 90 or 105 macro later, and probably a 1.4x converter.

    Option 1
    17-50 2.8
    70-200 2.8

    Option 2
    30 1.8
    50 1.4
    70-200 2.8

    Option 3 (the full frame option, doubt will move to full frame, but if I did)
    24-70 2.8
    70-200 2.8

    Finally, with my real estate transitioning to DSLR video (true video rather than the visual tour slide show) which could impact prime useage.
    Last edited by tizeye; 03-14-2011 at 03:30 PM.
    Digital: Nikon D40; Nikon D90; Nikon D7000 Nikkor 18-55; Nikkor 55-200VR; Sigma 10-20; Tamron 17-50; SB-600; SB-900; Pocket Wizards
    Film: Canon AE-1; T70; FD 28mm 2.8; FD 50mm 1.8; FD 135mm 3.5
    Wish List: Unlimited! Let's not go there.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,428
    Quote Originally Posted by tizeye View Post
    ....

    For those that take weddings, which do you find you use the most, the short zoom or long zoom. ....
    For me it's the short zoom. My 16-85 does most of the work. I sold my Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 because I found it a tad too short. For church service I use Tamron 28-75 F/2.8. I'm thinking of adding a 50 F/1.4 soon.

    I wouldn't recommend you taking the 70-200 to the reception. You will find yourself way behind guests who try to snap photos with their iPhones. I can see its usefulness for creating DoF outdoors providing you have the time to be creative, normally it's always rush, rush, rush.

    I can't see any of your options that I like. But giving me just one lens, I will choose the 17-50 2.8.

    For now I will ignore trying to accommodate for video DSLR. It's hard enough compromising for present needs.

    --------- Add+ ----

    PS: I'd choose option 3 for the case of full frame.
    Last edited by tim11; 03-15-2011 at 05:51 PM.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    285
    Thanks Tim. The only reason I mentioned the DSLR video is that is is about to go from 0% to about 5%. Currently building tripod mounted glide, and handheld stabilcam (I'm an avid DIYer). Afraid the primes may be too limited, as don't really zoom while filming, but zooming with feet for setup/framing may not be practical.

    If the longer zoom is rarely used, may be better to consider the variable aperature 70-300, and with the savings, splurge on what I really want if not primes, the 17-55. And for shallower DOF beyond that range, Tamron's 90 macro.
    Digital: Nikon D40; Nikon D90; Nikon D7000 Nikkor 18-55; Nikkor 55-200VR; Sigma 10-20; Tamron 17-50; SB-600; SB-900; Pocket Wizards
    Film: Canon AE-1; T70; FD 28mm 2.8; FD 50mm 1.8; FD 135mm 3.5
    Wish List: Unlimited! Let's not go there.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    4,428
    A friend brought my attention to the reviewers rating of Nikkor 17-55 F/2.8...
    This was what Ken Rockwell said about it "Buy one if you need to look tough and have a lens you can use for self defense. Personally I prefer my lighter 18-55mm kit lens, which gives about the same results optically for digital...." That surprises me really.
    Nikon D90, D80
    Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S DX F/3.5-5.6G ED VR, Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) macro, Nikkor 50mm F/1.4D, Nikkor 50mm F/1.8D, Nikkor AF-S VR 70-300mm F/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, Sigma 105mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro ||| 2x SB800 | SB600 ||| Manfrotto 190XB

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    285
    It arrived!


    Holding off on the 70-200. Had to mailorder as the 2 local stores didn't stock the non-VC model. Won't normally use it with the D40 but the radio triggers didn't want to fire so swapped back to the D90 for the picture. Another project...see if triggers will fire on the D40 as the menu did allow me to set the pop-up to manual flash (same menu label as the D90).
    Digital: Nikon D40; Nikon D90; Nikon D7000 Nikkor 18-55; Nikkor 55-200VR; Sigma 10-20; Tamron 17-50; SB-600; SB-900; Pocket Wizards
    Film: Canon AE-1; T70; FD 28mm 2.8; FD 50mm 1.8; FD 135mm 3.5
    Wish List: Unlimited! Let's not go there.

Posting Permissions

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