Help me pick my First Top lens

Elmer_fudd25

Elmer_fudd25

Messages
188
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I have been making do with some ok lenses but have never had any what I would call top lenses.

I shoot all sorts of photography and am trying to get proficient at as many types as I can as I intend to go pro in the futre.

I currently have

Sigma 10 -20mm f.4-5,6
Samyang 24mm F1.4
Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 35 - 70 f2.8 (stolen from my dad, He may want t back at some point)
nikon Nikon AF Micro NIKKOR 70-180mm F4.5-5.6 (stolen from my dad, He may want t back at some point)
Sigma 150 - 600 f5.6 - 6.3 Contemporary


Nikon D300
Nikon D810

Budget £2 - 2.5K

What would you recommend?

Thank you
 
That is a difficult question!

I would base it on your most used focal lengths.

If you go Nikon...

35/85/105 1.4g primes
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8

I use the 70-200 more than anything else so that was always my first choice (both on Nikon and Sony).
 
Elmer_fudd25 said:
I have not purchased from them.

Why are they so much cheaper?

How did you find the lens?
Click to expand...

Grey imports so depend if you mind. Very popular on here, the company is used by many. 3 year warranty too.

Once I got used to the zoom position, it was excellent. It was super fast, accurate and nice colours. Probably the best 70-200 I have used really.
 
Elmer_fudd25 said:
I have not purchased from them.

Why are they so much cheaper?
Click to expand...

I bought a Canon 70-200 F2.8 II IS USM (may have missed some letters) and a Tokina ATX 11-16 F2.8 (IF) DX II for £1200-1300 (can't remember exactly) and it arrived in 5 days. Can't complain at the price, and fingers crossed I never have to send it back :)

EDIT: Sorry, I got confused, I didn't buy from Panamoz, it was E Infinity.
 
Last edited:
Personally I enjoy using my 70-200mm the most out of everything. I had the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS HSM when I had a Nikon camera and found everything just looked better. I now have the 70-200 f2.8 II on a Canon and prefer the look of unedited images against all my lenses.

Unless you wanted a couple of Sigma Art primes as they all seem to get good reviews. I want some but I need more money.
 
Elmer_fudd25 said:
Hi,

I have been making do with some ok lenses but have never had any what I would call top lenses.

I shoot all sorts of photography and am trying to get proficient at as many types as I can as I intend to go pro in the futre.

I currently have

Sigma 10 -20mm f.4-5,6
Samyang 24mm F1.4
Nikon 50mm 1.8G
Nikon 35 - 70 f2.8 (stolen from my dad, He may want t back at some point)
nikon Nikon AF Micro NIKKOR 70-180mm F4.5-5.6 (stolen from my dad, He may want t back at some point)
Sigma 150 - 600 f5.6 - 6.3 Contemporary


Nikon D300
Nikon D810

Budget £2 - 2.5K

What would you recommend?

Thank you
Click to expand...

What do you need? Which of your current lenses is limiting you?

That's particularly pertinent if you intend to go pro; it's a business expense.


fwiw most pros specialise a bit. I doubt there are many who make money by shooting everything from astrophotography to actor's headshots.
Give us a clue - what do you plan to make money from?
 
So difficult to recommend a lens without knowing what it's going to be used for. My favourite lens is my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII ( a great option over the new 70-200mm f2.8e if you don't like that they've swapped the zoom and focus rings around). The 24-70mm f2.8 is a very good lens, built like a tank.
 
snerkler said:
My favourite lens is my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII ( a great option over the new 70-200mm f2.8e if you don't like that they've swapped the zoom and focus rings around). The 24-70mm f2.8 is a very good lens, built like a tank.
Click to expand...

As well as the price hike? Quite a jump I believe.
 
j07cmt said:
As well as the price hike? Quite a jump I believe.
Click to expand...
Yep, the 'e' lens is quite a bit more pricey than the VRII, if you can still get the VRII new that is.
 
JJ! said:
You can but the price is not much different from the 2.8e!
Click to expand...
Oh right, I can’t find it anywhere, just says discontinued (y)
 
snerkler said:
So difficult to recommend a lens without knowing what it's going to be used for. My favourite lens is my 70-200mm f2.8 VRII ( a great option over the new 70-200mm f2.8e if you don't like that they've swapped the zoom and focus rings around). The 24-70mm f2.8 is a very good lens, built like a tank.
Click to expand...

The new E though is far sharper center to edge and in the corners dusts the older lens. The arrangement is odd but as a bit of glass it is truly exceptional.

Shameless plug - if you are after a wide angle zoom I am selling a 16-35 in the classifieds.
 
Last edited:
If it’s people / portraits - I’d recommend two 1.4 primes - not sure how much the 105 is but I’ve seen them used within budget - a truely mind bendingly good lens. It’s a joy to use imo. Plus a 35 (imo).

For anything sport / action related the new 70-200 fl is spectacular. I’ve used (and own some) from both canon and Nikon and nothing comes close to the new fl- it is as good as others are suggesting.

If you’re looking at wildlife / sports then I’d go for a 300 2.8 (used) - you can use teleconverters too for extra reach.

I’ve read the 35-70 is close to the 24-70 in image quality. I’m a fan of the 35-70 and don’t think it’s worth spending the money on a 24-70.

I will say that 2k is a huge amount to spend on lenses as a non pro. I’d look at some of the older, used lenses instead and work out what / where you’ll be earning your money. For example - If it’s portraits - then a used 85 1.4 or a 135/105 DC would be a good choice. Pair that to your d810 and you’ll be very happy.
 
juggler said:
Give us a clue - what do you plan to make money from?
Click to expand...

This^

Seriously if you have a desire to go pro, it’s time to start using logic and data to make considered decisions, if you need the internet to tell you what gear to buy your aspiration to turn pro is a dream not a plan.
 
Thanks all for your comments and suggestions.

I nearly didn't mention about going pro in the future. I have seen so many people come along saying they are going pro asking basic questions about exposure and focus. We have had one recently that comes to mind, and say they are charging for pictures or "Jobs" and get shot down for not learning the craft first. I do have a long-term plan to earn my living doing photography but this will not be for a few years yet. I won't do it until I'm confident that I can produce the goods in any conditions. I have been asked to do two weddings both I turned down. Having seen the albums from the photographers they did use I’m sure I could have done a better job. That's not bosting how good I am but perhaps they didn't choose the right photographers.... I'm not planning to go out and say I'm a pro tomorrow as I have a nice lens. Far from it.


I'm currently trying all sorts of photography for me not for money to see what I like and would like to become a specialist in. If I I had to choose right now I feel pet portraits would be something I would like to do.



I feel the 70-180mm F4.5-5.6 is what's letting me down at the moment. Trying to do portraits of Pets or people I will have trouble with depth of field. The only 2.8 lens I have is the 35-70 this is a bit too wide for my liking especially for pets as I like to be further away from them and use the focal length to limit the background so it's less cluttered.


At the moment I honestly shoot as much as I can and as many things as I can. Last time out was Deer, this weekend its motorsport and landscapes I have joined a camera club that is passionate about getting out and taking pictures not just looking at them in competitions, this is to give me new opportunities to shoot things I would not normally have considered doing.



Phil V

I know you are highly respected and I appreciate your comments, But I'm not dreaming. I see it plenty of times in my line of work with people making decisions that turn out to be unwise because they failed to ask a question and get a different perspective on things. Sometimes these decisions can be costly. I could have made the decision and I Feel I have always had in my mind that the 70-200 f2.8e is the lens that would be most useful but I may have been blinkered with this and others may feel another route would be better. Better to ask rather than get told later did you think about XYZ?
 
Last edited:
Elmer_fudd25 said:
Phil V

I know you are highly respected and I appreciate your comments, But I'm not dreaming. I see it plenty of times in my line of work with people making decisions the turn out to be unwise because they failed to ask a question and get a different perspective on things. Sometimes these decisions can be costly. I could have made the decision and I Feel I have always had in my mind that the 70-200 f2.8e is the lens that would be most useful but I may have been blinkered with this and others may feel another route would be better. Better to ask rather than get told later did you think about XYZ?
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you’re saying, but this is a bit like my response to ‘first camera’ questions.

It doesn’t really matter cos it’s your first, it’s a tool it’ll get replaced, and absolutely no one can tell you what kind of photographer you’ll be in 2 years time, andremember that your XYZ is unique to you.

I nearly wrote a post comparing the kit and outlook of me and @DG Phototraining
We both shoot similar things, but come from a different approach, Dave considers himself a more ‘traditional’ photographer who shoots about 85% ‘documentary’ because that’s what the market demands! I consider myself a documentary photographer who shoots about 15% formal portraiture because that’s what the market demands.:thinking: I consider myself a natural light photographer but have a bit more lighting gear than Dave...:confused:

I could go on, but you’ll get the picture.

My first L lens was a 200mm 2.8, I had it less than a year, my most used L lens over the last 10 years is the 70-200 but I rarely use it nowadays and would happily attend a wedding without it. Because I’ve changed, and Dave will have similar stories but with different kit.

It might seem bizarre now, but when you’re out on a job with 2 or 3 cameras and 6 lenses (all of which you might use) it really won’t matter to you which one you bought first.

That said, you have now considered your question and realise that your telezoom is what’s currently letting you down. So job done*

*except... unless you’re shooting moving pets, a Prime is probably a better option, but then Dave would recommend the 85 and I’d go 135 ;)
 
Phil V said:
I appreciate what you’re saying, but this is a bit like my response to ‘first camera’ questions.

It doesn’t really matter cos it’s your first, it’s a tool it’ll get replaced, and absolutely no one can tell you what kind of photographer you’ll be in 2 years time, andremember that your XYZ is unique to you.

I nearly wrote a post comparing the kit and outlook of me and @DG Phototraining
We both shoot similar things, but come from a different approach, Dave considers himself a more ‘traditional’ photographer who shoots about 85% ‘documentary’ because that’s what the market demands! I consider myself a documentary photographer who shoots about 15% formal portraiture because that’s what the market demands.:thinking: I consider myself a natural light photographer but have a bit more lighting gear than Dave...:confused:

I could go on, but you’ll get the picture.

My first L lens was a 200mm 2.8, I had it less than a year, my most used L lens over the last 10 years is the 70-200 but I rarely use it nowadays and would happily attend a wedding without it. Because I’ve changed, and Dave will have similar stories but with different kit.

It might seem bizarre now, but when you’re out on a job with 2 or 3 cameras and 6 lenses (all of which you might use) it really won’t matter to you which one you bought first.

That said, you have now considered your question and realise that your telezoom is what’s currently letting you down. So job done*

*except... unless you’re shooting moving pets, a Prime is probably a better option, but then Dave would recommend the 85 and I’d go 135 ;)
Click to expand...



Thank you that is very useful and has made me think about a few things I hadn't considered.
 
The answer to your question about a top lens should come naturally from considering what kind of photographs you'd like to be taking, but your current efforts aren't good enough. You've looked carefully at the most important deficiencies in your photographs, done some test photographs, and identified the causes as well known deficiencies in the performance of your lenses. It doesn't sound as though you've done that.

It's easy to be dissatisfied with one's portraits, landscapes, insect macros, or whatever, notice that the professional whose work you admire is using a top class lens, and assume that your inferior lens is holding you back. In fact much of the time the difference between a good lens and an excellent lens will only be apparent in a few carefully chosen test cases, and then often only to photographers who have developed a critical diagnostic eye for that particular kind of difference.
 
chris malcolm said:
done some test photographs, and identified the causes as well known deficiencies in the performance of your lenses. It doesn't sound as though you've done that.
Click to expand...

I believe I have.


I have not listed all the steps taken and all the details of my thought process. I'm not submitting a paper for marking here I know nothing about you but you are coming across like an old bitter lecturer I once had. This is a forum that is used for discussion and asking advice almost like a group of like-minded people having a beer and a discussion down the pub discussing a piece of equipment. I asked for opinions not to be spoken down too.


I believe you are reading far more into this.


As soon as someone comes along asking what camera should I buy everyone tells them to put the money in the glass. This Is what I'm doing. I know that in low light situations I'm having to push the ISO to levels that I'm not happy to do so. I know I'm having problems with having a depth of field that is longer than I would like. None of these decisions have been made by looking at others shots and thinking wow I want a picture like that and believing just because I have the gear that will happen. Yes, gear helps but I'm under no illusion that if you buy a top lens you are a top photographer.


No wonder new people come on here and get the comments they do and leave or get offended. Not the most friendly approach. I'm more than happy to take constructive criticism, in fact, I welcome it as it’s the only way you improve but you really need to work on your people skills.
 
SFTPhotography said:
A 24-70F2.8 is the oldest lens I have - and the first good one I bought. It's a good staple for a range of uses and I still use it today - and if I had to pair my gear right back this would be the one I would keep, followed by the 70-200
Click to expand...

Interesting - because I've had those too and wouldn't ever consider having them again as I MUCH prefer using primes now

Horses for courses :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Interesting - because I've had those too and wouldn't ever consider having them again as I MUCH prefer using primes now

Horses for courses :)

Dave
Click to expand...

Ah but it's a jack of all trades but master of none. If I had to keep just one it does so much.

At F2.8 it's pretty fast but slow compared to a sigma art prime, but will give a good OOF background for a portrait. It's just about short enough for wide angle landscapes and long enough to give a bit of reach for portaits and that OOF look and for landscapes (not all landscapes need a short length(. Sharpness wise they're good and stopped down not that shabby center to edge with only the extreme corners being a bit crap and you can compose around that. It also takes 77mm filters so using a 100mm system is a doddle.

I do like primes as the corners and edges retain more sharpness so overall sharpness is more uniform - and I pixel peep and supply big size images commercially where these things do matter but I've taken many pictures with it that have paid for it many times over. I find I can compose fine with primes but zooms, man, they are flexible and you need a bag of primes which for starting out - doesn't make a lot of sense financially.

Re sale wise they are easy to sell on too which makes them a good guy for me and AF wise they are fast on a good body.

Also they are reasonably dust sealed, solidly made and weather proofed which makes them good for outdoor shooting and day to day working life. It's a good place to start lens wise.
 
Last edited:
Elmer_fudd25 said:
Thank you that's the sort of information I was after very useful
Click to expand...
Except...
DG Phototraining said:
Interesting - because I've had those too and wouldn't ever consider having them again as I MUCH prefer using primes now

Horses for courses :)

Dave
Click to expand...
I’m with Dave.

Like I said, advice from others about what’s the best gear for you is rarely any use, unless you have a really specific question - what’s the best bang for buck std lens? Or similar.
 
Phil V said:
Except...

I’m with Dave.

Like I said, advice from others about what’s the best gear for you is rarely any use, unless you have a really specific question - what’s the best bang for buck std lens? Or similar.
Click to expand...


This has got a discussion going. I'm getting to see both sides and the reasoning behind why they both like what they do. that knowledge is very valuable and interesting. It's exactly why I asked the question. two very experienced photographers giving views on why they use one piece of equipment over another.

Thank you guys,
 
Elmer_fudd25 said:
This has got a discussion going. I'm getting to see both sides and the reasoning behind why they both like what they do. that knowledge is very valuable and interesting. It's exactly why I asked the question. two very experienced photographers giving views on why they use one piece of equipment over another.

Thank you guys,
Click to expand...
And it helps you determine what your gear lacks and how it limits you, how?
 
I already know that. see my previous replies.

It's very interesting to see why one prefers his primes and the other the flexibility of a zoom. both doing the same job but see things in a different way and both getting great results.
 
Elmer_fudd25 said:
I already know that. see my previous replies.

It's very interesting to see why one prefers his primes and the other the flexibility of a zoom. both doing the same job but see things in a different way and both getting great results.
Click to expand...
So in reality the title of this thread should be which prime or zoom for portraits? ;)
But what's really interesting is the how's and why's to people's choice of gear. The method and thought process Given that, you have your takeaway from this kind of threads
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elmer_fudd25 said:
Quite possibly :D but I left it vague as someone may have pointed out things I hadn't considered and as it happens they have.
Click to expand...
But as has been pointed out, neither of them are you, and we don’t know what your preference would be.

Seriously, we’re all wasting our time here.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
But as has been pointed out, neither of them are you, and we don’t know what your preference would be.

Seriously, we’re all wasting our time here.
Click to expand...
I understand that the situation they are in is different than mine.

It has made me think about what they like and don't and apply it to my situation.

My preference would be the 70-200 2.8. I belive that it will be more flexible.
 
It's hard to offer more than general pointers, but if you were to open up the camera bags of a few seasoned photographers you would find some common themes.

There would be standard range zoom like 24-70mm (on full-frame) and that would probably be the most used lens. So it makes sense to invest well in that and build the rest of the outfit around it with a wide-zoom 16-35mm-ish and a telezoom of 70-200mm or so. That's the classic trinity of zooms and every manufacturer makes sure they have those thoroughly covered, usually offering both f/2.8 and f/4 versions. There's not much that you can't have a pretty good go at with a system like that, and by the same token if your outfit doesn't look pretty similar then there needs to be a good reason for deviating from the tried and tested path.

Then you might want to add a few more specialised lenses according to taste, such as a couple of fast f/1.4 primes, maybe a macro, or perhaps something ultra-wide in the 12-14mm range, or with a bit more reach like a 100-400mm or 150-600mm. Not forgetting a couple of speedlights if you really want to raise your game.
 
SFTPhotography said:
The new E though is far sharper center to edge and in the corners dusts the older lens. The arrangement is odd but as a bit of glass it is truly exceptional.

Shameless plug - if you are after a wide angle zoom I am selling a 16-35 in the classifieds.
Click to expand...
Well far sharper is a bit of an exaggeration imo, but yes it’s a better performer in terms of sharpness. I mentioned the VRII in case it was considerably cheaper as it’s still a cracking lens. From what I’ve seen I actually prefer the rendering of the VRII tbh, although I probably prefer the bokeh of the 80-200mm over both :facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top