Help Me Choose a New Lens

panthro

panthro

panthro

Soldato
Joined
19 Nov 2004
Posts
12,642
Location
Wokingham
Ive got a D90 with the 18-105 kit lens, a Nikkor 70-300 and a Sigma 10-20.
Now the 18-105 is broken and will not shoot at high ISO and its out of warranty now so I want to get something to cover the range between 20 and 70.
Id love a Nikkor 24-70 2.8 but thats way too much for me to spend.
I was thinking along the lines of either the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Sigma 24-70 2.8. Basically the sort of lens that will be perfect for when you only want to take the body and 1 lens. Any suggestions? I did consider a second hand 17-55 2.8 but theyre too big and heavy.
 
There is really 2 lenses to consider:

Tamron 17-50 2.8 NON-VC
Nikon 16-85 VRII

The Tamron is better for portraits, the Nikon better for landscapes and is a great walk around lens.

The Nikon gives professional results for sharpness and contrast. The 16mm is a life save to me, so much so I rarely take my Sigma 10-20. Its sharpness is becoming even more evident on the new 16MP d7000, where it now is proving ts worth and out-resolving many other lenses (18-105, Tamron 17-50) The big drawback is that it is expensive for a slow lens.

The Tamron is better for indoor/low light etc. The edges aren't as sharp and there is a fairly pronounced convex focus manifold, so the lens is not so good for landscapes. I went through 3 copies to find a good sample of this lens and then gave up. I think I was unlucky though.


Lenses like the SIgma and Tokina wide to normal 2.8 zooms just don't quite have the quality of the tamron. Nor does the new VC version.
 
you could have a look at the sigma 18-50mm f2.8. that was always a tack sharp walkabout lens for me on a canon crop body.
 
panthro said:
Ive got a D90 with the 18-105 kit lens, a Nikkor 70-300 and a Sigma 10-20.
Now the 18-105 is broken and will not shoot at high ISO and its out of warranty now so I want to get something to cover the range between 20 and 70.
Id love a Nikkor 24-70 2.8 but thats way too much for me to spend.
I was thinking along the lines of either the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or the Sigma 24-70 2.8. Basically the sort of lens that will be perfect for when you only want to take the body and 1 lens. Any suggestions? I did consider a second hand 17-55 2.8 but theyre too big and heavy.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by not working with a high iso? This is a function of the body not the lens, do you mean that the aperture isn't changing? The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens for the money, if you're interested in the longer focal length the Tamron 28-75 is also worth a look (I wasn't that impressed with it myself but lots of people like it).


D.P. said:
The Tamron is better for indoor/low light etc. The edges aren't as sharp and there is a fairly pronounced convex focus manifold, so the lens is not so good for landscapes. I went through 3 copies to find a good sample of this lens and then gave up. I think I was unlucky though.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I think MartinTurner does pretty well with his for landscapes! :)
 
Rojin said:
What do you mean by not working with a high iso? This is a function of the body not the lens, do you mean that the aperture isn't changing? The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens for the money, if you're interested in the longer focal length the Tamron 28-75 is also worth a look (I wasn't that impressed with it myself but lots of people like it).




I dunno, I think MartinTurner does pretty well with his for landscapes! :)
Click to expand...

When I use this lens at high ISO's, above 1600 it hits a wall and the picture quality deteriorates. Its hard to describe, but it doesnt happen with my other 2 lenses.

Ive found a great price on the tamron 17-50 non VC so I think I may go for it. The thing that sways me for the tamron over the nikon is the constant f/2.8 aperture, it will come in handy.
 
panthro said:
When I use this lens at high ISO's, above 1600 it hits a wall and the picture quality deteriorates. Its hard to describe, but it doesnt happen with my other 2 lenses.
Click to expand...

That sounds odd to me, because ISO shouldn't affect lens performance (unless I'm missing something here). Perhaps it's more the type of shot you're comparing (i.e. not like for like). The body will determine the ISO performance, and you should expect images to get noisy with higher ISO's, regardless of the lens used.

Do you have any examples? I would suggest trying the same shot with two lenses and different ISOs to compare. I really can't imagine that the lens is where the problem lies with regards to ISO.
 
Rojin said:
I dunno, I think MartinTurner does pretty well with his for landscapes! :)
Click to expand...

No, for sure the Tamron 17-50 is very good for landscapes.

The Nikon 16-85 is just better because there is no field curvature, the edges are sharper, 16mm + 85mm are useful, and you don't need fast glass.

The Tamron is much better at portraits with better bokeh, DOF control and low light ability.
 
bigredshark said:
Depends what for, VRII is probably worth close to two stops at the wide end which will make it very even...
Click to expand...

I'd like it to perform under low light conditions, with good DOF control and bokeh. I dont think the VR would help out much there would it?

How about the Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4 AFD?
 
An old lens, not designed for digital. As it's a full-frame lens it may work well on APS-C but you'd have to try it. No VR and it's crap at 16mm, of course. ;)

I use a 16-85mm......
 
panthro said:
I'd like it to perform under low light conditions, with good DOF control and bokeh. I dont think the VR would help out much there would it?

How about the Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4 AFD?
Click to expand...

To be honest neither will though, f/2.8 isn't really fast enough unless you have a very modern DSLR which can shoot to ISO1600 without (much) visible noise (that's D7000, D700, D3s/x). I have the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and while it's a nice enough lens it's not fast enough for a low light or brilliant bokeh option. Either of the 35 or 50mm primes are far far better for that. Most zooms produce less smooth bokeh than primes anyway as a consequence of complex optical design.

The 24-85 is technically good, it's sharp and optically pretty decent. Wide end is better than the tele but that's true of a lot of glass. It's a full frame lens though so it doesn't represent best value for you. 24mm also isn't terribly wide on a crop sensor. Lastly it's an old AF-D so AF is noisy and might be a bit slower than newer AF-S glass.
 
panthro said:
When I use this lens at high ISO's, above 1600 it hits a wall and the picture quality deteriorates. Its hard to describe, but it doesnt happen with my other 2 lenses.
Click to expand...

Could you post some examples? Genuinely interested to see what the problem is.

panthro said:
I'd like it to perform under low light conditions, with good DOF control and bokeh. I dont think the VR would help out much there would it?

How about the Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4 AFD?
Click to expand...

If you want a fast lens buy a prime or two, my Sigma 30mm f1.4 rarely comes off of my camera, if it does it's usually to use the 85mm f1.8.
 
I have no idea why it does it. It could be the camera but as I said, it doesnt happen on my other 2 lenses and I live in the middle of nowhere so getting it repaired is not feasible at the moment.
 
Raikiri said:
Could you post some examples? Genuinely interested to see what the problem is.



If you want a fast lens buy a prime or two, my Sigma 30mm f1.4 rarely comes off of my camera, if it does it's usually to use the 85mm f1.8.
Click to expand...

Ok will try and post up a sample soon.

Im going to buy the 35 f/1.8 too, as Ive heard good things about it. Unless the sigma 30 f/1.4 is a better lens?
 
Raikiri said:
It is better (HSM focussing, 2/3 stop faster etc.), but it's also about £100 more than the Nikon 35mm.
Click to expand...
And there's a pristine one in the MM at the moment so that £100 pretty well disappears......
Although posting to WA may well put it back again.
 
Last edited:
panthro said:
Ok will try and post up a sample soon.

Im going to buy the 35 f/1.8 too, as Ive heard good things about it. Unless the sigma 30 f/1.4 is a better lens?
Click to expand...

The Nikon is sharper and has more contrast, especially in the corners.

The sigma is only worth it if you need the extra 2/3rds of a stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom