Mid Zoom lens - Advice please

M

musicalbloke

Messages
218
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to upgrade some of my lenses to better quality one's but am in a slight quandry as to what to go for.

The lenses I'm interested in are:

Nikon 28-70 f2.8
Nikon 24-120 f4
Sigma 50-150 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Nikon 24-85 f2.8-f4

I'm shooting from a Nikon D200 so doesn't have to be an FX lens, but would be very useful to have for future upgrades.

My thoughts are that I like the idea of a longer zoom length (24-120) but would still like to keep the option of having an f2.8 stop for low light conditions (Sigma 50-150). I know the 24-120 has VR on it, but what benefits will that give me?

To help I currently have:

Sigma 70-200 f2.8
Nikon 50 f1.8
Nikon 18-70 f3.5-f5.6
Tamron 35-105 f2.8

As I very rarely shoot at 18mm, the last two lenses would go and make way for the new arrival.

So I'm asking for some advice as to the order you may rank my 5 choices in, if one or two are definite "don't do it or you'll regret it for the rest of your life" choices, or if there's something I've missed completely.
 
Hi Adrian

I have a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and its a splendid mid zoom with a wide aperture of f2.8throughout the range, I think this lens would compliment your 70-200mm nicely, for portrait work


Les :thumbs:
 
How does it fair as a "walkabout" lens? Does it work well for that, or are their times when you're looking for a bit of extra reach? How does it perform if you add a 1.4x or 1.7x converter? I know you'd lose 1 or 2 stops, but does IQ suffer at all?
 
i have and use the Nikon 28-70 f2.8. Is one heck of a lens, good optic and sharp (even wide open). Only down side is the weight but you get what you paid for. Pro build and quality lens.
 
When I used the D200 I paired it with the Tamron 17-50 2.8, and that is what was stuck on there 90% of the time. Sweet little lens, excellent quality - I directly compared it to the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and you couldn't tell the difference. I was sadder selling on that lens than I was my D90.

That's a bit short for your needs, but the 28-70 Tamron 2.8 is apparently just as good.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
When I used the D200 I paired it with the Tamron 17-50 2.8, and that is what was stuck on there 90% of the time. Sweet little lens, excellent quality - I directly compared it to the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and you couldn't tell the difference. I was sadder selling on that lens than I was my D90.

That's a bit short for your needs, but the 28-70 Tamron 2.8 is apparently just as good.
Click to expand...

Plus one on the tamron 17-50 f2.8. I uses that lens as well on my D7000 and like above mention, it was kinda glue to my camera.

Optic is fantastic for the money you paying.
 
I hadn't considered the Tamron mainly because of the Tamron lens that I currently have and aren't that happy with.

I'd like a bit more reach than 50mm so if the 28-70mm is "nearly" as good as the Nikon one, then that might well be a contender.

Does anyone use, or has used, the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 as I'm very interested to hear how that fairs.
 
How do people rate the 24-85mm f2.8-f4.0? Is this a sharp lens at both ends as wide open as it can go?

I wish I could make up my mind!!!!!
 
Someone talked about the nikon 24-85 f2.8-4 on a different thread and he said the lens is sharp enough for day to day use.
 
Recently chopped my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 in against aNikkor 24-120 VR f/4. Never really been a fan of ultra shallow DoF but do like low light photography which the VR's 3-4 stop help still allows. Paired with a D800, unavailable light shots are possible!!! I used to have an older 24-120 VR, the variable aperture one and while it served a purpose, I soon sold it on once I got the Sigma.
 
Nod,

Would you go back to a 24-70 again, or does the 24-120 do all that you need, regardless of being 2 stops more?

Also, have you only ever used them on a FF camera or did they get use on a Crop Sensor?
 
From 2.8 to f4 is only one stop, no?

The newest cameras are so good with ISO, that it doesn't matter quite as much these days. Unless you constantly shoot indoors in dim lighting, or do night sports. I use both my cameras at f/4 indoors a lot, just bump the ISO a stop. The difference between ISO 400 and 800, for example, is very little really in terms of end quality. It is nice to have the 2.8 option, for that bit shallower DOF, but it always comes at a price.
 
Last edited:
That's a half stop, if you have the dial set to half-step increments, as most do [either 1/2 or 1/3], you'll find 3.5 in between. Mine is set to 1/3 stops, so between 2.8 and 4 I get 3.2 & 3.5. I have the ISO set to 1/3 stops also, to match. I would suggest having both set to the same, whether full or half or 1/3 stops.
 
Last edited:
Ha, don't worry about it, I still get mixed up. I think aperture and ISO were the hardest things for me to get stuck in my head.
 
musicalbloke said:
Nod,

Would you go back to a 24-70 again, or does the 24-120 do all that you need, regardless of being 2 stops more?

Also, have you only ever used them on a FF camera or did they get use on a Crop Sensor?
Click to expand...
Mine's on a DX sensor... and it does not do all I need. Had to add a 12-24 f/4... :lol:

A nice review: http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-24-120mm-f4g-vr


musicalbloke said:
Well, there you go, every day's a school day.

(Hangs head in shame at schoolboy error)
Click to expand...
tsk... tsk... :D
 
musicalbloke said:
Nod,

Would you go back to a 24-70 again, or does the 24-120 do all that you need, regardless of being 2 stops more?

Also, have you only ever used them on a FF camera or did they get use on a Crop Sensor?
Click to expand...

Both. Mainly just for test purposes to see how the old D70 performed with a better lens than the kit 18-70. Never used in full anger on the D70 though. Not sure I would go back to a 24-70 now. I don't miss the extra stop as much as I enjoy the extra 30mm and the VR. The 24-120's significantly cheaper than the 24-70 Nikkor too!
 
Cagey75 said:
From 2.8 to f4 is only one stop, no?

The newest cameras are so good with ISO, that it doesn't matter quite as much these days. Unless you constantly shoot indoors in dim lighting, or do night sports. I use both my cameras at f/4 indoors a lot, just bump the ISO a stop. The difference between ISO 400 and 800, for example, is very little really in terms of end quality. It is nice to have the 2.8 option, for that bit shallower DOF, but it always comes at a price.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, musicalbloke is using a D200, and ISO 400 and ISO 800 are challenging indeed. I loved my D200, but a low-light camera it ain't!
 
I don't find it too bad up to iso800, but above that its quite dire. You may smile at that but my previous camera was a D50.

I'm leaning more and more to the 24-120 as it covers a good focal range and also allows upgrades to FF if funds allow.

I'd be very interested to hear more comments or thoughts though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top