Mid-range zoom....

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm having to admit to myself that for general work my 18-70mm f/4.5-5.6 just isn't fast enough. It's a great lens optically and has served me well but something f/2.8 or f/4 is a must now... which is where you guys come in.

Now, I'm not totally au fait with what's out there to replace my Nikon, other than hearing the Nikon 24-70mm and 28-70mm are amazing, but they're so far out of my price range there's no point thinking about them.

By the way, I tend to use it at the 60mm+ end quite a bit, which is where I'm after the faster max aperture for better OOF areas. Oh, and it's for use on a D200 so non-AFS type lenses are fine.

The older Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4 'D' looks okay but quite a few people have pooh-poohed it in the past as being slow to focus and not up to scratch when compared to more modern lenses. I like Nikon stuff but this time I will be open to non-Nikon stuff.

I've had Sigmas before but didn't have ultimate faith in them focus-wise and it seems there are quite a few people who suggest that getting a good one straight from the shop isn't as easy as it should be.

Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 seems to get lots of thumbs up on here but what about the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8?

Are there any other options I have missed that are worthwhile investigating?

I'll probably be looking at used or import (probably the former).

To give you a feel for what I need the 18-70mm currently sits inbetween a 12-24 and a 80-200mm so you can see I need a comparable max. aperture to match those lenses for lower light conditions. I'm not shooting really fast stuff like moving objects (I shoot fishing) and this lens would probably be used more for portraits and general grab shots.

Cheers :)
 
I'm looking for a similar kind of lens too. Did you consider:

-Tamron 28-75 2.8 Perhaps not wide enough for general walkaround lens.

-Tamron 17-50 2.8 with Vibration Control, a little pricey.

-Sigma 24-70 2.8, too many versions to distinguish and mixed reviews put me off even though I have other Sigma lens that I like.

I was also thinking instead to buy an 85 1.8 prime specifically for portraits and then get a cheapish zoom with vr, 18-55 or 18-105. I also think of the Nikon 16-85 every now and then but it is expensive and not low light specific enough to justify owning for me
 
Waht about the Nikon 17-55, or is that a budget blower too?
 
tictoc said:
I was also thinking instead to buy an 85 1.8 prime specifically for portraits and then get a cheapish zoom with vr, 18-55 or 18-105. I also think of the Nikon 16-85 every now and then but it is expensive and not low light specific enough to justify owning for me
Click to expand...

Problem with that for me are the slow max apertures. A prime is good but I do have my 60mm macro f/2.8 that sometimes gets used. I'd just like something with a fast aperture throughout the zoom
 
specialman said:
By the way, I tend to use it at the 60mm+ end quite a bit, which is where I'm after the faster max aperture for better OOF areas.


Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 seems to get lots of thumbs up on here but what about the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8?

Cheers :)
Click to expand...

I am not sure you know what you want
I can say I dont know reading this.
 
Paulie-W said:
Waht about the Nikon 17-55, or is that a budget blower too?
Click to expand...

I considerded it, but the other concern of mine is size and weight. I got a D90 over a D300 or even D700 because I want to lessen the weight and bulk when travelling but wanted more functinality (dual aperture and shutter speed dials) than my D40 offered. Who knows, if I get really confident and well versed in Photo lit I may downsize to whatever replaces the D3000 in time to come But for now it is a mid range zoom at 2.8 that I think will satisfy me at this point.

I wonder if Nikon will be releasing any new higher grade dx lenses.....As a rank amateur, an FX camera is well beyond my need or desire.
 
DigitalRelish said:
Does it have to be a zoom? 85mm f/1.8?
Click to expand...
tictoc said:
I was also thinking instead to buy an 85 1.8 prime specifically for portraits and then get a cheapish zoom with vr, 18-55 or 18-105.
Click to expand...
I was looking for someone to concur this was a good idea, does mean more lens changing and carrying though I assume the 1.8 will outclass any 2.8 zoom. Is this a correct assumption?
 
tictoc said:
I was looking for someone to concur this was a good idea, does mean more lens changing and carrying though I assume the 1.8 will outclass any 2.8 zoom. Is this a correct assumption?
Click to expand...

I have the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 and it's a fantastic lens, but yes, the 85mm f/1.8 easily beats it at 85mm :D

If it's blurry backgrounds with good subject separation you're after as well as low light capability then the 85mm f/1.8 is worth considering. It's a great lens, relatively light and compact, but you might like to try it out for yourself before committing.

Whether or not you'd end up changing lenses more often... :shrug: Only you can answer that.
 
Yes! subject separation is the phrase I was looking for. I only hesitate as I'm not sure if 85 is too long! There is also some hub-bub at the moment for a new afs and/or vr version possibly to come out soon. Seems a reasonable assumption given the recent 50 afs and 35 Dx lens releases. When I look at my Lightroom catalogue, the majority of my portraits are in the 30-70 range. I guess my style will change as I practice and a used 85 1.8 seems an affordable step in the right direction to me.

Would you recommend to also get a 50 1.8? I have a Sigma 30 but wonder if I would miss the range in the middle much or be wasting time and money?
 
Paulie-W said:
What about the Nikon 17-55, or is that a budget blower too?
Click to expand...
Think that's a budget blower. A mate has one and it's certainly the daddy of all DX lenses but it's just too much, even used.

Chaz Photos said:
I am not sure you know what you want
I can say I dont know reading this.
Click to expand...

I know I want an equivalant to the 18-70mm but faster :)

It's strange how fast aperture 'walkabout' lenses relly do make you compromise; most available for Nikon are in the 16/17/18 to 50mm range. I suppose anything longer at f/2.8 is obviously going to cost a lot more.

DigitalRelish said:
Does it have to be a zoom? 85mm f/1.8?
Click to expand...

Primes are an option but then it's a case of carrying more gear and more lens changing which isn't always a good thing when it's peeing down and you're on a boat in the middle of a 600-acre reservoir!! :) I think if I were going to go down that route then a 70-90mm prime would be the choice (the 80-200mm f/2.8 is brilliant but it's heavy) and team that up with either a f/1.8 50mm or a f/1.8 35mm.
 
specialman said:
....you've now got me thinking a 85mm f/1.8 is a good idea.... this is bad ;)
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I am going to go for the 85 1.8. instead of a zoom. Funds are pretty tight at the moment and a friend asked me to take some pictures of his slot car collection, so I might have to get a bigger flash first anyways. Ho hum, I've got an old manual lens that has a macro facility to play with for the time being. If you get the 85, splash some shots on here for us all to see!
 
A f2.8 walkabout lens isn't really something that exists... "walkabout" is usually termed as a sort of wide to mid range tele which needs to be light. "Light" precludes f2.8.

A Nikon 24-70 is not really "walk about", its heavy. "walk about" would be the new Nikon 18-200. Good range, nice and light but not f2.8.

Even the short zooms (18ish to 50 ish) that are f2.8 are heavy, because f2.8 glass is heavy.

The Nikon 85mm's are pretty good - the f1.8 is really light and the subject seperation is superb. But its really a portrait lens... if you want to shoot people and get a really nice result, go for it. For anything else its a limiting really - 85mm on a crop is a long way back....
 
I've got a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 and its excellent, but you don't see them anymore, discontinued. Its sharp, fast and not very heavy (quite heavy though).

Andy
 
desantnik said:
A f2.8 walkabout lens isn't really something that exists... "walkabout" is usually termed as a sort of wide to mid range tele which needs to be light. "Light" precludes f2.8.

A Nikon 24-70 is not really "walk about", its heavy. "walk about" would be the new Nikon 18-200. Good range, nice and light but not f2.8.

Even the short zooms (18ish to 50 ish) that are f2.8 are heavy, because f2.8 glass is heavy.

The Nikon 85mm's are pretty good - the f1.8 is really light and the subject seperation is superb. But its really a portrait lens... if you want to shoot people and get a really nice result, go for it. For anything else its a limiting really - 85mm on a crop is a long way back....
Click to expand...

I concede that 'walkabout' is maybe the wrong term to have used. General purpose is a better phrase I suppose.

Weight isn't a problem; I'm getting grab shots much of the time, so the camera is often just in the bag or on the ground while I wait to get the shot. The key consideration for me is a fast, constant maximum aperture zoom that allows me to get A) good background blur and bokeh to isolate subjects (mainly for cover shots and DP spreads), and B) and low light shots that avoid using too high an ISO.

As for a fixed 85mm, it would be a useful lens although I agree that you do have to stand a fair way away to get wider shots. I'm thinking 50mm might be a bit better and maybe combine that with something like a fast 28mm or 35mm. Still, a good zoom might just allow me more flexibility for the same (or less) money without losing too much IQ over a prime.
 
Ok, I bought a Nikon 18-70. Will decide on the 85 after some use of this lens. Question for those who might know:
I just received it in the post (bought second hand) and while the autofocus is quick and responsive and the photos seem to come out alright there is a tinny rattle somewhere in the lens when shaken lightly. I only have a couple of Sigmas to compare to and they dont make any noise at all. Is this common in any lens? The cosmetic condition is good apart from one small scrape mark (not dent, scratch or drop mark).
 
I've got the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and I love it. It's a little on the heavy side, but very compact. Now there's a new version with VR there should be some good deals about!

Have you also considered the Sigma 17-70? It's f/2.8 at the widest end, but goes to something like f/4.5 at the very longest?
 
My 18-70mm does the same just a little loose in where the barrel rotates I think. Doesn't seem to affect it though.

Andy
 
Sigma 50-150 would be a good solution, finding a used one though could be a little tricky.
 
Andysnap said:
My 18-70mm does the same just a little loose in where the barrel rotates I think. Doesn't seem to affect it though.
Andy
Click to expand...

Cheers for that. Thought I was caught out for a moment there. The seller mailed me to say the same thing and I will be keeping it. It will do me for now as I also bought an sb600. A 2.8 zoom will have to wait until I next go on holiday (my usual justification). The 85 I'm not decided on, may try to rent one to see how we get on and theres still a few odds and ends that I want such as batteries and the like. Black hole this photography lark :bonk:
I hope the OP finds what he is looking for!
 
chris321 said:
I've got the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and I love it. It's a little on the heavy side, but very compact. Now there's a new version with VR there should be some good deals about!

Have you also considered the Sigma 17-70? It's f/2.8 at the widest end, but goes to something like f/4.5 at the very longest?
Click to expand...

Just bought a Tamron AF17-50mm f/2.8 Di-II LD - hopefully will get it by the weekend and be able to do some shallow DOF stuff on my little boy :)

£150 off ebay - bargain :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top