Advice for a Nikon fit f2.8 lens

steelerdean

steelerdean

Messages
618
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I'm after some advice please. I am taking the plunge and upgrading to a full frame professional Nikon body (currently trying to decide between the D3 or pushing the boat out for the D3s). I currently have 2 lenses - a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS and a Nikon 18-200 f3.5-5.6 DX. The Sigma will obviously be fully compatible on the full frame, but the Nikon DX will not, so I need to replace that lower focal range with something in the 24-75 or similar range which is fully compatible on the full frame body.

At this time, as much as I'd love to pick up the Nikon 24-75 f2.8, I just can't afford it so need something from one of the budget companies in the short term i.e. Sigma/Tamron. I will be shooting sports mainly so it ideally needs to be a good performer in that kind of scenario. I fully accept that I won't be getting the kind of high end af speed and sharpness that the Nikon would offer, but I can't afford to be without something in this focal range and the Nikon is out of my range at the minute.

Any advice anyone could offer me would be greatly appreciated. :thumbs:

EDIT - I've just seen this at Harrison's -

http://www.harrisoncameras.net/productdetail.kmod?Productid=12120

Does anyone have any thoughts on this lens?
 
Last edited:
Nikon 24-70 would be ideal but go for around £900 s/h.
Nikon 24-120 f4 is a good lens and will be cheaper either new or s/h.
Nikon 28-300 cheaper still and not bad quality by all accounts.
Sigma do a 24-70 but there are an awful lot of reports of issues - I had one and it was ok but not a patch on the Nikon.
 
I use a Nikon 35-70mm 2.8 (the older push-pull lens) on FX which I love, but sometimes its not really wide enough. The thing that puts me off the 24-70mm (in addition to price) is the weight. Many people opt for the lighter Tamron 28-75mm - but that's might not be wide enough at times either. One other thing to consider is filter size (step rings are an option).
 
gramps said:
Nikon 24-70 would be ideal but go for around £900 s/h.
Nikon 24-120 f4 is a good lens and will be cheaper either new or s/h.
Nikon 28-300 cheaper still and not bad quality by all accounts.
Sigma do a 24-70 but there are an awful lot of reports of issues - I had one and it was ok but not a patch on the Nikon.
Click to expand...

It's definitely the 2.8 I'd need as I'd be shooting indoor sports so the aperture size is a must.

I've also read some bad reviews on the Sigma lens - some people seem to suggest the Tamron equivalent is better, with the model with the built if af motor being pretty good.
 
If you do go with the D3S I would be surprised if you had a problem with the 24-120 f4

I am very impressed by how well the Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR performs. It is a sharp lens that is very comparable to professional lenses such as Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II, yielding great results throughout its focal range. During my lab and field tests, my goal was to see how well it performs against the Nikon 24-70mm lens, since many readers have been asking about it (I also wanted to find out for myself, whether I should be looking at potentially replacing my 24-70mm or adding it to my bag for travel and everyday use). After shooting with this lens for about 3 weeks and capturing over 1,800 images, I can say that the lens exceeds my expectations and I found it to be more useful than my favorite Nikon 24-70mm lens not only due to longer focal range, but also due to Vibration Reduction that is extremely useful for low-light situations. I managed to get sharp images hand-held while shooting at extremely slow shutter speeds of 1/2 seconds at 24mm – try that with the Nikon 24-70mm!
Click to expand...

(Mansurovs)
 
Hmmmm, that does make for interesting reading. I wonder if that was while shooting sports though. Thy being said, I get the impression the ISO on the D3s can be pretty high before noise starts to play a big effect on pictures.
 
gramps said:
If you do go with the D3S I would be surprised if you had a problem with the 24-120 f4

(Mansurovs)
Click to expand...

Thing is though. Impressive as all that sounds, vr isn't going to freeze movement when shooting sports as the op says he is doing. No idea what your budget is but I would say that the tamron has the best reputation of all the non Nikon alternatives, though the Nikon 35-70 is worth looking at if it's wide enough for you. If your budget is bigger, take a good look at the Nikon 28-70 as well, they're superb.
 
That's a good point and apologies, I should have posted my budget as that will help guide the discussion. In reality (and please don't laugh!), I'd be looking at around £250 at the minute.
 
gad-westy said:
Thing is though. Impressive as all that sounds, vr isn't going to freeze movement when shooting sports as the op says he is doing. No idea what your budget is but I would say that the tamron has the best reputation of all the non Nikon alternatives, though the Nikon 35-70 is worth looking at if it's wide enough for you. If your budget is bigger, take a good look at the Nikon 28-70 as well, they're superb.
Click to expand...

VR alone won't but coupled with a higher shutter speed enabled by upping the ISO it will, unless the light is really poor - moot point anyway due to price constraints.
 
steelerdean said:
That's a good point and apologies, I should have posted my budget as that will help guide the discussion. In reality (and please don't laugh!), I'd be looking at around £250 at the minute.
Click to expand...

Then it has to be the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 when having a budget sub £250.00 IMO...:thumbs:
 
Thanks Steve. Would you recommend going with the 17-50 or the 28-75? The difference in focal range doesn't worry me, the quality of the lens is most important and the images it will produce.
 
steelerdean said:
Thanks Steve. Would you recommend going with the 17-50 or the 28-75? The difference in focal range doesn't worry me, the quality of the lens is most important and the images it will produce.
Click to expand...

17-50 is DX only.

Don't mean to be harsh, but are you sure you're going about this the right way? There are a number of lens/body combinations that will have more capability for less money than a D3s+Sigma 70-200...
 
steelerdean said:
Thanks Steve. Would you recommend going with the 17-50 or the 28-75? The difference in focal range doesn't worry me, the quality of the lens is most important and the images it will produce.
Click to expand...

I dont know anything about the 17-50 Dean but have got the 28-75 which i think is a very capable lens with a good range on the DX (42-112.5) and works well for portraits and a walk around lens.

Steve (Bristolian) has just sold his on here....take a look at the quality of his images..:thumbs:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=411361
 
ausemmao said:
17-50 is DX only.

Don't mean to be harsh, but are you sure you're going about this the right way? There are a number of lens/body combinations that will have more capability for less money than a D3s+Sigma 70-200...
Click to expand...

Not being harsh at all mate, I'm here for advice so please feel free to dive in and stop me spending money one way if you think another is better. It's looking more likely that I'll be going down the D3 route though as I'm almost certain that the D3s is also a stretch to far at the minute.

Whatever body I go for, it needs to have a 'professional' shutter speed I.e. 8fps upwards. It has to perform well in low light - a minimum of D3 quality in low light. As I mention earlier, the kit will be used primarily for indoor sports shooting so all these qualities are a must. The lens needs to to be fast enough I.e. f2.8, faster af the better.

So, let's put a budget on all this then. I've been looking at an average of £1600 for the body and £250 for the lens so let's work with a budget of £1850. Based on that, what would your recommendation be?
 
SteveF said:
I dont know anything about the 17-50 Dean but have got the 28-75 which i think is a very capable lens with a good range on the DX (42-112.5) and works well for portraits and a walk around lens.

Steve (Bristolian) has just sold his on here....take a look at the quality of his images..:thumbs:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=411361
Click to expand...

Was looking at that thread earlier. The images look really nice and crisp but could really do with an opinion on its use in sports, or at least shooting some kind of moving object. Don't suppose you've ever done any of that kind of shooting on yours have you?
 
steelerdean said:
Was looking at that thread earlier. The images look really nice and crisp but could really do with an opinion on its use in sports, or at least shooting some kind of moving object. Don't suppose you've ever done any of that kind of shooting on yours have you?
Click to expand...

No not really Dean but one or two of the guys on here (pro/semi pro) have i'm sure.

Why not put up a post specifically to get feed back from Tamron 28-75 users?
 
steelerdean said:
Not being harsh at all mate, I'm here for advice so please feel free to dive in and stop me spending money one way if you think another is better. It's looking more likely that I'll be going down the D3 route though as I'm almost certain that the D3s is also a stretch to far at the minute.

Whatever body I go for, it needs to have a 'professional' shutter speed I.e. 8fps upwards. It has to perform well in low light - a minimum of D3 quality in low light. As I mention earlier, the kit will be used primarily for indoor sports shooting so all these qualities are a must. The lens needs to to be fast enough I.e. f2.8, faster af the better.

So, let's put a budget on all this then. I've been looking at an average of £1600 for the body and £250 for the lens so let's work with a budget of £1850. Based on that, what would your recommendation be?
Click to expand...

Why not go D700 + Grip route and have a few pounds to add to your lens budget..:thumbs:
 
Good idea on the thread front. Will set one off in a sec.

I did think about the D700 gripped - quite seriously actually. The D700 is going for around £1200 with the grip for around £150 for a total of £1350. I can't help but think that taking that little bit of extra pain financially would be worth it to have a fully professional body. Feel free to sway me if you think otherwise though!
 
Last edited:
Lets say for arguments sake that I went for the D700 gripped meaning my lens budget would be bumped up to £500, would people be of the opinion that i'm opening many more doors? Still can't help that the Nikon f2.8 is the best tool for what I need, but i'd still only be half way towards that.
 
steelerdean said:
Was looking at that thread earlier. The images look really nice and crisp but could really do with an opinion on its use in sports, or at least shooting some kind of moving object. Don't suppose you've ever done any of that kind of shooting on yours have you?
Click to expand...

I used mine for indoor sports - judo, karate, gymnastics - with very good results. I'm not at home at the moment but will post some example images when I get back later this evening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top