advertisement


Lenses - What Next

M

Milan

pfm Member
I will probably take my time on this one. If the Tax Man is generous and my rebate comes in before Christmas I may choose to update my lens collection. I may also get rid on one or two to make room. The current set is;

Nikkor 24 f2.8D
Nikkor 18-70 f3.5-4.5 ED DX
Sigma 70 - 300 f4.5-5.6 APO
Tamron 28 - 200 f3.5-5.6 LD (currently unused)
Canon G9 when I really want to travel light

What would improve the set? Most of my photography is based on my travels, scenery, landscapes and family shots. There is the occaisional wildlife shot too.

My first thoughts;

Nikon 18-200 VR as an all round travel lens or the Sigma/Tamron equivalent.
Tokina 12-24 wide angle zoom.
Nikkor 70-300 VR zoom (replaces the Sigma plus VR) I am not sure I can afford the f2.8!
Nikkor 18mm prime (I like landscapes).

How do people feel about Sigma, Tamron or Tokina as alternatives to Nikon? You comments and advice would be appreciated.
 
Depends on what you shoot, but I love my Nikkor 80-200 F2.8 (the non VR version). Its way less costly than the VR and with F2.8, not having VR isn't really a big issue.

Regards
 
I assume we are talking crop-sensors here.
What I use on a canon 50d:
24–85 ultrasonic 3,5-4,5 for daily use (small, light, superb flash metering)
70-210 ultrasonic 3,5-4,5 (light, cheap, not much below the much more expensive 70-200 L)
17-50 Tamron 2,8 (relatively fast max aperture, but slow AF; really a compromise, because i could not afford Canons 17-55 at thrice the price)

Max aperture of the Tamron makes most wideangle offerings redundant, because they wont get much faster, I’d love to trade up the 24-85 for a 24-70 2,8, but not at the price tag and weight it has attached, this will only make sense on a FF-Body).

AFAIK Nikon has similar offerings; I would prefer a ring-ultrasonic AF-motor to any other offerings and faster max aperture is always preferable.

have a look there:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests

When choosing my Canon lenses I had an eye not only on USM AF, but also on FF-compatibility, the 24-85 may survive an upgrade, though notably soft at the edges, the 70-210 surely will.

I hope this helps a fellow Nikonian (still have my FE2)
;-)
Michael

btw: Image Stabilizing helps you none with fast moving targets as flying birds or playing children, they only remove your shaking hands from the picture, so I’d prefer max aperture and High-ISO over IS anytime …
 
I have a Canon fit Sigma 70-300 APO DG. It is about a year old. I am finding that its auto focus seems to be 'going off'. I suspect I will have to stump up for a Canon equivalent.

I suppose you get what you pay for.

Mull
 
Milan

if you like landscapes, then I know it might be counter intuitive but you could do a lot with the Nikon 80-400 zoom. Sometimes to fill the frame with a landscape detail you want to be out at 400-600mm equivalent. There are some good examples here

Extreme wide angle lenses aren't really that useful for the Getting it All In kind of shot owing to the FOV being wider than the human eye which makes extreme wide angle shots look a little odd and you end up with a huge amount of sky too. Extreme wide angle lenses are very useful for getting up close and personal and provided that they are rectilinear they are useful for shooting interiors

If you fancy something to make yourself more creative then why not look at the Perspective Control lenses such as the 45mm - using the tilt function on these lenses is a great way to isolate an item in a wider landscape while adding a three dimensional feel to the whole scene. Check these ones out for instance.
 
My favourite lenses for landscape photography (and, in fact, everything else) are normal (around 50mm) and slight telephoto (75mm or so). As Cliff says, wide angles are not necessarily the best tool for landscapes, counter-intuitive as it may seem.

If it was me, and if we're talking about a cropped sensor, I'd get a fast 35mm prime as the main lens (and it would be on the camera 90% of the time), and a fast 50mm for portraits and anything else that needs a mid-telephoto. And I'd sell all the other lenses, I'm not sure anyone needs a bigger choice than two focal lengths unless they're doing sports photography or photojournalism or something involving wildlife.
 
Nikon also has this very cheap and nice 35mm lens:
Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm 1:1,8G – kind of the old "Normal Prime"
might become a reason to abandon Canon!
:)
Michael
 
Interesting wee article that Cliff and certainly reinforces my intention to get the Pentax 50-135 for my next lens.

My own (fairly limited experience) of the ultra wide angle lens for landscape is that they can be a bit of a nuisance. I have the Sigma 10-20mm and I've found it to be excellent at making a great landscape view disappear, almost as if looking through the wrong end of a telescope. I'm probably using a Pentax-F 28mm more often now (42mm on the crop sensor) as I can concentrate on the bits of the landscape I want to capture.
 
If I were you, i'd agree with Ian - you are missing normal and telephoto prime options for narrow DOF portrait work. The usual 35, 50 and 85 mm primes will all do this work for you, but since you are cropped, will be the one step longer. So, 35 becomes like a 50 standard lens, 50 becomes like an 85 portrait lens, and 85 becomes like a 135 portrait lens.

I have 35, 50, 85 and 135 prime options, and both full frame and 1.3 and 1.6 crop cameras, so between them I have many options covered. I'd say th 85 would be my favourite, but if I could only have one it would be a 50.

Cesare
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top