Good weather sealed everyday lens

Amp34

Amp34

Messages
2,859
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm contemplating replacing my Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 with something else. I'm finding it a bit frustrating in a couple of situations and I'm always up for a bit of change every so often.

I shoot mainly landscapes and travel but also dabble in other bits. Lens needs to fit a D7000. I'd much prefer weather sealing as I do seem to spend an inordinate amount of time shooting in wet or dusty conditions.

I'm at a bit of a loss though for what to get. I'm tempted to get a prime or two again. I used to shoot a 35mm f/2 on a 400D and loved the simplicity, but it was a little too long for everyday use. Nikon has a lightly smaller crop though so it may work. I currently have a 35 f/1.8 DX and the length seems good but being a crop lens the distortion and CA is not good...

Any recommendations? I'd prefer nothing larger/heavier than the current 17-55 (leaves a fairly large selection! :p) and something that will fit in nicely with my other lenses (see sig).

Thanks
 
Last edited:
A 28mm of some description should fit the bill. A little shorter than the 35, especially on the 1.5x crop Nikon (as opposed to 1.6x on Canon, although the difference is fairly marginal!) and IIRC plenty of models to choose from - even old screw driven ones will work well on the D7000.

Or an old 18-70 kit lens. Punches well above its weight but may be getting a bit long in the tooth now.
 
Nod said:
A 28mm of some description should fit the bill. A little shorter than the 35, especially on the 1.5x crop Nikon (as opposed to 1.6x on Canon, although the difference is fairly marginal!) and IIRC plenty of models to choose from - even old screw driven ones will work well on the D7000.

Or an old 18-70 kit lens. Punches well above its weight but may be getting a bit long in the tooth now.
Click to expand...

A 28mm is a good bet, I'm also tempted by the 24mm but think that may be a bit wide for general shooting stuff. It's also £1400...!

I think the 18-70 would be a big step back from my current lens? It's not weather sealed either is it?

Budget wise... Ideally no more than about £700 but in reality I guess I may have to spend more. Used is an acceptable option too.

I shoot landscapes and travel so things like landscapes, market/town scenes and general shooting.

Edit: Some examples of the type of things I shoot on my Flickr page http://flickr.com/wildaboutlife
 
Last edited:
Not sure if the 18-70 is weather sealed - been a while since I sold mine but I seem to remember there being a rubber seal at the mount end. And sorry, misread the lengths and though it was a kit lens you were upgrading from. On fairly obvious answer would be the 24-70 f/2.8 (or the older 28-70 model) but they will be rather heavier than the 17-50!
 
Not PROOF, just a bit more resistant than some others. Means the user shouldn't have to worry too much about using the equipment in the rain, although it might be pushing your luck in a tropical storm!
 
Nuzik said:
Does a weather sealed lens actually be waterproof??
Click to expand...

As Nod said its more about keeping rain out, it'll still fail if you drop it in a pond or use it for long periods in a tropical storm. It also reduces the amount of dust and sand getting into the mechanism. It's not the be all and end all but it helps adds a bit more protection than on an ordinary lens. Usually means it's built better too.

Nod said:
Not sure if the 18-70 is weather sealed - been a while since I sold mine but I seem to remember there being a rubber seal at the mount end. And sorry, misread the lengths and though it was a kit lens you were upgrading from. On fairly obvious answer would be the 24-70 f/2.8 (or the older 28-70 model) but they will be rather heavier than the 17-50!
Click to expand...
No worries, I thought that may be the case. I've made it a bit clearer now!

If I shot FF I think the 24-70 would be a no brainer, it's probably just a bit long at the wide end for crop though? I think it's only about 100g more than the 17-55 too so weight is not a major issue. It's just a shame the 17-55 is about the only DX professional lens Nikon do.
 
Sorry to hijack the thread so if I'm out and about and have a d700 with a 50mm 1.8g will it get wet? Anything I can get to keep it dry. Other than a brolly ;)
 
To quote your earlier post...

"A 28mm is a good bet, I'm also tempted by the 24mm but think that may be a bit wide for general shooting stuff. It's also £1400...!"

A 24mm lens is a 24mm lens, be it Dx or Fx. On that basis, if the 24mm prime might be too wide, it should be wide enough (36mm in FF equivalent FL.)

Nuzik, you could try an OpTech rain sleeve (about a fiver for 2 IIRC) or the cheaper option - a suitable sized plastic bag.
 
What's the actual issue with your 17-55? If you didn't already have it, I think that's probably the lens we'd all be recommending to fit your criteria.

I can't remember any of the 28mm primes I've owned being weather sealed. Maybe the old 1.4 is or maybe zeiss ones? Not sure.

There are lenses like the 16-35 and 14-24 but would still think the 17-55 may be the more obvious choice.
 
Nod said:
To quote your earlier post...

"A 28mm is a good bet, I'm also tempted by the 24mm but think that may be a bit wide for general shooting stuff. It's also £1400...!"

A 24mm lens is a 24mm lens, be it Dx or Fx. On that basis, if the 24mm prime might be too wide, it should be wide enough (36mm in FF equivalent FL.)

Nuzik, you could try an OpTech rain sleeve (about a fiver for 2 IIRC) or the cheaper option - a suitable sized plastic bag.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're getting at there but if you mean what I think you do then I know. What I meant was I think 28mm would be just that bit wider than 35mm to make it a good everyday lens, while the 24mm lens would be just that little bit too wide and not quite long enough for every day shooting (on a crop camera). On the other hand you're right, it is a 36mm equivalent focal length which means it should be a good landscape oriented focal length on crop (and FF obviously), just maybe a bit too wide for everyday shooting for me.

On the other hand again if I were to go FF one of he first lenses I would buy would probably be a 35mm prime... I'm just trying to remember the experience I had with my 35mm f/2 on a 400D and it just seemed I wanted something just a little wider. I need to go out and play with the 35mm on the D7000 again, ignoring the distortion and edge softness (which is one of biggest issues I have with DX lenses in general).

I think part of the problem is that after having used my MF film camera I'm really disliking distortion and edge softness. Part of me is feeling going FF will help solve the problem (eq. Focal lengths generally having less distortion, especially for landscapes) but thats probably a bit of wishful thinking...
 
A 24mm prime could be too restrictive and too wide, although wide lens shots can always be cropped down to a narrower FoV if necessary. The zoom I recommended (or at least the focal length range) covers most bases and is wide enough for most needs even on a crop body.

Don't forget that most lenses have a drop off in IQ towards the outside of their image circle so FF can show up "flaws" that a crop image crops off. A lens designed for FF can be used on a crop body and should be better at the corners than a Dx lens, although a good Dx lens may be better in this respect than a poor Fx one.
 
Nod said:
A 24mm prime could be too restrictive and too wide, although wide lens shots can always be cropped down to a narrower FoV if necessary. The zoom I recommended (or at least the focal length range) covers most bases and is wide enough for most needs even on a crop body.

Don't forget that most lenses have a drop off in IQ towards the outside of their image circle so FF can show up "flaws" that a crop image crops off. A lens designed for FF can be used on a crop body and should be better at the corners than a Dx lens, although a good Dx lens may be better in this respect than a poor Fx one.
Click to expand...

As your talking about the sweet spot of the FF lens on crop, I can recomend the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 was an excellent lens on my D7000. I prefered it to the 17-50's f2.8 DX lenses from Tamron & Sigma. never tried the Nikon though.
 
Last edited:
Have you checked out the classified section here on TP ?
Wex have 2 Sigma 30mm f1.4 in the used section.
Not sure if rules allow links to the items but if you do a search you should be able to find them.
Hope this helps
 
Phiggys said:
Sigma do a lovely 30mm f 1.4 DX lens both fast and should be near enough perfect for you 45mm ?
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=59_61&product_id=258

Your 35mm f2 on Canon crop sensor gave you 56mm near enough
A full frame lens on a 1.5 crop
24mm = 36mm
28mm = 42mm
35mm = 52.5m
Click to expand...

I bought the 35 f/2 over the sigma 30 f/1.4 as I was never particularly interested in the sigma. Specifically while its sharp in the centre it's pretty soft at the edges, great for portrait photographers, not for landscapes. The 35 f/2 was sharp across the board (and I'd recommend it to everyone over the sigma). It also has the problem of being a DX lens and as discussed earlier doesn't have the "sweet spot" factor of a FF lens (one of the reasons the f/2 was much better at the edges).

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Nod said:
A 24mm prime could be too restrictive and too wide, although wide lens shots can always be cropped down to a narrower FoV if necessary. The zoom I recommended (or at least the focal length range) covers most bases and is wide enough for most needs even on a crop body.

Don't forget that most lenses have a drop off in IQ towards the outside of their image circle so FF can show up "flaws" that a crop image crops off. A lens designed for FF can be used on a crop body and should be better at the corners than a Dx lens, although a good Dx lens may be better in this respect than a poor Fx one.
Click to expand...
The problem with cropping a wide angle is the perspective issue. I wouldn't really call that a solution. Tbh I'd choose the sigma 17-70 over the 18-70 (GF has the 17-70), unless you mean the 24/28-70?

Totally agree that the a full frame camera would pick out flaws in a FF lens that wouldn't be picked up by a DX camera.

I'm still erring towards either the Sigma 35 f/1.4 or the Nikon equivalent. I don't need to sell the 17-55 so can use that when needed and if I do move to FF in the future I can still use it.
 
Worth noting that the sigma 35mm 1.4 isn't weather protected. I think the nikon version is weather sealed but a lot more £'s.
 
Crop into a wide angle shot to get effectively a longer lens's perspective and you get the longer lens's perspective. Cheaper wide angles can introduce some distortions which may transfer to cropped sections though. Try it with your current zoom - take a wide angle shot and another at the long end then crop the wide shot down and compare the results.
 
But you don't get the "perspective pull" that you would with a longer lens (is foreground and background closer together).

I recommend you try that yourself and see the difference in the photo you get back. They both have their place but do create very different photos.

gad, I realise that, something I may have to live with as there appears to be a severe lack of weather sealed lenses designed for crop sensors. I guess in part because they are not considered "pro" any more. The 17-55 was produced when Nikon didn't have a full frame digital camera so wanted the professional equivalent of the 24-70 for a DX body.
 
The 16-35 f4? fits right in if you're replacing the 17-55, but ... I wouldn't see a point in that unless you feel the 16-35 would offer something the 17-55 doesn't. It is weather sealed. But then, so is the 17-55 :/
 
At the moment what I'm really missing is the long end, especially if i'm taking the 120-300 over the 70-300. Ideally if I was shooting a zoom I'd want to fill that gap a bit more. As I said though the main reasons for change are I feel the 17-55 just isn't right mid distance* and I feel like using something new.

*The more I think about it the more I wonder if it's just a little soft. I may see about getting it in for a service or something similar as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top