~£350 to spend on a lens - what to get?

Astraeus

Astraeus

Messages
1,057
Name
Ciaran
Edit My Images
Yes
I have freed up about £350 from my camera fund as I've decided to postpone buying a D90 until its replacement is announced. However, I'm fed up of living with the kit 18-55mm on my D40 and so some money is going towards a lens (or lenses).

The below graph charts the focal lengths I use most often. From this, I can only assume it is in my best interests to supplement/replace the 18-55mm with a lens for landscapes which leads me onto the likes of the Tokina 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm and Nikon 12-24mm. From the graph, it seems the Nikon or Tokina has the most appropriate zoom as that'll cover 18-24mm (most of my photography).

Focal_length_graph.jpg


However, I'm stuck on what to get now. I don't mind a second-hand Nikon 12-24mm or a second-hand Tokina 12-24mm. I don't think I mind the fact that they don't AF on my D40 (as surely they're focused to infinity 99% of the time anyway) and I don't mind buying new for £300ish.

However, I'm also toying with the idea of buying a nifty fifty. Does that work with the above chart - I'm thinking the 60-80mm range would be covered by the 50mm and a bit of legwork.

I'm really puzzled by all the options, hence my abundance of threads, so any help is much appreciated. :shrug:
 
hi
How did you get all that info ,did you scan through all your files ???
nifty fifty are great although if you use that focal length (18mm)the most i would defo spend as much as poss on a that and pick up a second hand 50mm as a rule if you lens is wide open at 18 mm try and get one that's wide open at say 10mm and shut 24mm so that the 18mm focal will be better quality, i think im right in saying that the quality is better in between both ends ,
having said all that im no expert i have only got this info from others and don't know if true or not ,would be nice for me and you if info can be confirmed by a semi-pro or someone with more knowledge than me
 
Nikon 12-24mm should autofocus on a D40... it's an AF-S lens so has an in-built motor. :)

I like mine. Bought for £450 used from the classifieds sections. For full RRP (£800+) it's a stretch when you see how good the Tokina is for half the money new. However, there are lots of Nikon ones going for less than £500 used these days - check the used dealers list. MPB usually have a good turnaround of them....

There's a Nikon 10-24mm but I'm not sure how it stacks up against the 12-24mm, plus it's not a constant f/4 aperture, if that's of matter to you. :)
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
Nikon 12-24mm should autofocus on a D40... it's an AF-S lens so has an in-built motor. :)

I like mine. Bought for £450 used from the classifieds sections. For full RRP (£800+) it's a stretch when you see how good the Tokina is for half the money new. However, there are lots of Nikon ones going for less than £500 used these days - check the used dealers list. MPB usually have a good turnaround of them....

There's a Nikon 10-24mm but I'm not sure how it stacks up against the 12-24mm, plus it's not a constant f/4 aperture, if that's of matter to you. :)
Click to expand...

The Nikon would be a real boon and putting it under £500 does tempt me towards it. However it looks like it's only really circling around the £490 mark which means it's well over £120 above the Tokina and, with holidays in the offing, I can't justify (nor afford) the additional expense.

Do you AF or MF on the 12-24mm? This is the question I can't get answered - how much I really need the AF ability on the Tokina. Is it worth £100?
 
I AF all the time on all my lenses except when I'm doing macro shot of fly-tying with the 60mm.

However, at 12mm the DoF is so deep that you can MF and you'll be there or thereabouts. It focuses down to about 20cm (portrait mode, bottom AF point on a D2x), although Nikon says it's actually 0.3m. Still close enough to really fill the frame with a subject and perfect for doing in-situ portraits of people. In MF mode it would be a doddle.

I'm currently considering whether to get rid of mine and scale up to a 14-24mm, although I'm itchy about paying £1000 used for one stop more. If I don't move up, the 12-24mm will stay with me as long as I stay on DX bodies, it's that good a lens.

BTW, Sigma does a 12-24, not with a constant max. aperture but it's supposed to be good. Another very good lens is the Sigma 15-30mm. My mate had one on a 40D and it was awesome. On a 1.5x crop sensor like those of Nikon's, it'll be plenty wide enough but retain enough zoom range for it to be useful as a walkabout lens. Don't think it's that expensive either and it's designed for FF and is optically very good. Don't know if it's a HSM model with the in-built motor for models like the D40 and D60. Best to check the Sigma site for tech details....

EDIT: MPB has one here for a very good price.
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
BTW, if you need good lens advice, go to photozone.de - quality site with in-depth, useful lens reviews.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I'm browsing it now and it looks very good. (y)

mastertrinity said:
it seems like you frequently use 60mm so possibly a nifty fifty also, as for wide angle, look at the sigma 10-20mm and tamron 10-24mm.
Click to expand...

Reviews suggest the Tokina 12-24mm outperforms the Sigma and the Tamron and I feel as though I'd prefer the extra 4mm on the long side as opposed to the extra 2mm on the short side of the Sigma.

-Rob- said:
Have a look at the Tokina 11-16mm. I don't know if it auto focuses on a D40 but if you shoot most of your shots at 18mm at the moment I reckon you'd probably love shooting at a wider angle.
Click to expand...

That's my thinking - I'm constantly trying to get as short as possible. Unfortunately, as much as I'd love the 11-16mm, I can't find it at a price that fits my price range. I'm also slightly concerned about losing the 16-24mm range although my Nikon kit picks up at 18mm, albeit unremarkably. :bang:
 
For landscape photography, am I being stupid in looking at the 11-16mm Tokina over the 12-24mm Tokina? I do a lot of low-light landscapes but they'll need tripodding anyway so the f/2.8 doesn't really matter. I like the more creative options the 11-16mm offers me in the UWA region but, all in all, am I being daft?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top