Lenses for nikon, cant make my mind up.

[Muttley99]

So i have smashed my 18-55 kit lens and not sure which way to go.

My current kit consists of...
Nikon D5000 (hopefully getting upgraded at some point this year)
1.8 35mm AF-S
1.8 50mm non AF-S (MF)
70-300mm AF-S
SB900
+various remotes tripods etc

I shoot lots of different things from kite surfing and wake boarding, skate parks, nature and wildlife, and landscapes & people. So quite varied really.

Anyway, down to the point.

I have about £500 ish max and have been looking at various lenses (new).

I'm not sure weather to go wide and use the 35/50 to cover the 18-55 range which i have been doing for the last month and get a 10-20mm

or to replace the range of the lens that i smashed.

The lenses that i have been looking at are...

Wide..

sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 ex dc hsm @ around £450
"""""F3.5 constant""""" @ around £500 (how much better is this lens)


18-55 replacement...

Nikon 16-85 F3.5-5.6 ed vr nafs @ around £460 (hear its really sharp but not sold on the aperture for low light eg skate parks etc but managed with my kit lens so...)

Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 dc os hsm @ around £360

Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II VC @ around £350 (i hear about vc issues with this lens and would prefer the non vc but it hasn't got a built in motor hence i'm thinking wide and get the non vc when i upgrade the body)

For the last month i have been constantly changing my mind and still don't know which way to go.

Has anyone been in this situation before, which way did you go?

Also if anyone has any views on the lenses or wants to confuse me even more by adding another suggestion then feel free.

Thanks in advance.

Matt.

 

[badboy1984]

for £500 you can stretch to another £50-100 and get a used Nikon 17-55 f2.8 lens.

Get that you will find yourself use that lens most of the time.

 

[Muttley99]

forgot to add the sigma 17-50 2.8 hsm

for £500 you can stretch to another £50-100 and get a used Nikon 17-55 f2.8 lens.

Get that you will find yourself use that lens most of the time.

Cheers badboy, I have had a look at that but i hear its massive and heavy to use as a walk about lens. I've also heard that image wise theres not much in the tamron non vc and the nikon, which kinda pit me on to going wide and getting that after i had upgraded the camera later in the year. Was thinking of going for the nikon in the first place but kinda gone round in circles.

 

[badboy1984]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC optic performance is on par with the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, but Nikon have its advantage.

I'm not saying the Tamron is bad because i would love one myself but here is the obvious.

The builder quality on the Nikon much better, the AF is quicker (in my eyes) and Nikon is the lens that can last you for years and it can carry on. Also buy used and it hold its value well.

 

[Muttley99]

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC optic performance is on par with the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, but Nikon have its advantage.

I'm not saying the Tamron is bad because i would love one myself but here is the obvious.

The builder quality on the Nikon much better, the AF is quicker (in my eyes) and Nikon is the lens that can last you for years and it can carry on. Also buy used and it hold its value well.

That's true but if i did go for that i couldn't see myself selling it haha. I know your probably right but its stretching the wallet a bit, especially because i wouldn't mind a UWA too.

 

[badboy1984]

The only time when you will sell that lens is when you move to Full Frame and you sell that lens for the 24-70 lol.

 

[Muttley99]

I had a bit of bad luck last night, went out to shoot the moon and while adjusting my tripod one of the clamps broke. So with me needing to replace this I definitely won't be able to afford the Nikon 2.8.

So the question is back on.

Been reading reviews on the lenses and still not sure. Liking the look of the 17-70 sigma but it has some bad reviews about a pink color cast to name one. Also most of the reviews put it against the 16-85 nikkor and most go for the nikkor. Has anyone had any experience an any of the lenses?

I'm thinking if I go back to looking at second hand then I shouldn't loose too much if I decide to upgrade

 

[badboy1984]

in that case, get yourself a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and you won't be disappointed if you love sharpness.

 

[cambsno]

forgot to add the sigma 17-50 2.8 hsm



Cheers badboy, I have had a look at that but i hear its massive and heavy to use as a walk about lens. I've also heard that image wise theres not much in the tamron non vc and the nikon, which kinda pit me on to going wide and getting that after i had upgraded the camera later in the year. Was thinking of going for the nikon in the first place but kinda gone round in circles.

I personally find the beast (24-70 Nikon) fine as a walkabout!! Try the Tamron 28-75 2.8 if that range would be better, second hand they are about £200. The cheaper sigma 10-20 is also the better one!

 

[terryt]

I love my 16-85mm. Pin sharp, you have the flash for low light situations, and the primes if you want small dof.

 

[Muttley99]

in that case, get yourself a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and you won't be disappointed if you love sharpness.

I've read that the non vc has two different versions, one has the BIM and one doesn't but there is no addition to the name? Apparently the newly manufactured lenses all have a BIM. Wex's website says that the non vc doesn't have a motor. Do you know if this is true?

I personally find the beast (24-70 Nikon) fine as a walkabout!! Try the Tamron 28-75 2.8 if that range would be better, second hand they are about £200. The cheaper sigma 10-20 is also the better one!

I'm sure it would be ok weight wise, i'm fine carrying the 70-300 around all day. Never seen the 17-55 2.8 in real life, its just what i've read.

I don't think the 28-75 range would really suit me but thank for mentioning it.

I wonder why the cheaper 10-20 is better, seems a bit strange to me but i haven't really researched those lenses.

I love my 16-85mm. Pin sharp, you have the flash for low light situations, and the primes if you want small dof.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about this lens, i quite like the idea of that range. Every review I've read says its a great lens but most would like it to be faster. Ken Rockwell's review says just get the 18-55 kit lens and save the money.

Maybe i should stop reading and just buy something!