Nikon DX AF-S Lens Dilemma (going round in cirlces)

Zarch

Zarch

Messages
1,045
Name
Mick
Edit My Images
Yes
Since buying my D3100 in January I have sold the 18-55 kit lens and replaced it with an 18-70 from the classifieds. And as well as the 18-70 I have 35mm 1.8 in the bag.

I have 2 dilemmas that keep changing everytime I think about them.

1. Get the sharpest lens all-purpose lens I can (excluding crazy priced Nikon 2.8). By "all purpose" I mean in the 18-70 type range.

2. How to cover the long end? (70mm +)

BUT: Do this in £400 of 2nd hand lens (excluding my 1.8 35mm 'keeper')


The main focus of the my shooting is my little 18 month old, both indoors and now the weather has picked up, in the garden/outdoors too. We are also going on days out with her and visiting animal types places / butterfly houses and things familys do.

Just last week I found that 70mm wasn't quite long enough trying to get tight in on some animals whilst out, hence the need for 70+ in point two.


So covering point two first.(How to cover the long end?)
I had considered the Nikon 18-200 VR as a "do it all" lens. But I found this site today: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2

Which shows up the 18-200 as not being very sharp at all across the board.

And neither does Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

18-200: Jack of all trades master of none? Which has been backed up by other reviews etc of the lens that I've read. Very convienient, but a complete compromise?

So seeing as my main priority is that 18-70 range and I rarely need 70+, do I just pick up a 55-200 VR (£100)? I think as I use that range infrequently I don't think the 70-300 VR (£300) is good use of my cash.

Any other alternatives?

Back to number one. Sharpest Lens for the money.
I don't think getting a 18-200 would help me on this, more than likely a backward step from the 18-70.

My options (2nd hand value in brackets)

a) Keep the Nikon 18-70 (£100) - Learn to use it better? Everyone keeps saying its a cracker!
b) Tamron/Sigma 17/18-50 2.8 (£200)
c) Tamron/Sigma 28-75/24-70 2.8 (£200)
d) anything else i've not thought of?

Options b & c bring their own questions

1) Will I miss the extra 20mm if I went with the 50mm max? I think I probably would after having that restriction with the 18-55.
2) If I go with the 24/28 widest range, will I miss 18-24/28mm at the short end? Is there much difference chasing the little one around? (Check by setting my 18-70 on 28 and see how I get on I suppose?)
3) Would any of the 2.8 lenses possibly replace my 1.8 35mm?


I honestly don't know what to do for the best.

I want the best lens for 90% of my shooting, but within my budget. Buy the best lens I can once for all and stop all this messing about! LOL. :bonk:

Any help or thoughts would be very much appreciated. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
start with the 55-200 VR. It is cheap to try and it will fill your need. I love mine as a walkabout lens and general purpose. Very sharp. small enough to just 'have' and not worry about it. Tough to beat.

If after that you still don't have enough sharpness, then consider the 17-50 2.8. You'll not have any overlap and will still hit the range.

thanks
rick
 
I think 1, 2 and 3 can be answered by spending a bit of time in the EXIF data of the pictures you have taken already.

1) How many photos were taken at a focal length of greater than 50mm? If it looks like a large percentage, then obviously you will miss it.
2) Likewise 1.
3) This time, check how often you shot under f/2.8. The D3100 has good high ISO noise control and you may never need those larger f/stops, but if you do, primes lenses like the 35mm will be the best way. I think if you do get a f/2.8 lens and it does replace it, the 35mm will always have a market (it is pretty much the most raved lens in the lower DX line-up).
 
Recently I have started using
my 55-200mm VR and have to say I definitely like the results compared to the 18-135 kit lens that came with my D80.

It is also a good value lens.
 
Right, 2 no-brainers I suppose after thinking about it.... (again)

1. Get the 55-200 VR to compliment my 18-70 (or replacement). If long term superior sharpness of my 18-70 range is my number one priority, then the 18-200 will not cut the mustard I suppose. Fair comment?

2. Keep the 35mm 1.8 (will always come in handy as its a cracker)

So that just leaves what the devil to do with the 18-70........ stick or twist...... if twist, twist to what? I'm off to check my exif data to see what i've been shooting......

I take it the Tamron and Sigma 2.8 models come highly rated? Comments i've seen suggest so.
 
Although the 18-200 has received okay comments, it's as simple as this - it's difficult to get optimum lens performance across a 10x+ zoom range, and it's a lens that aims to be an easy all-in-one rather than a star performer.
 
I recently bought the Tamron 17-50 non VC f2.8 (£210) and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 (£380), obviously this is nearly £200 over your budget but i can't see myself getting any other lenses other than maybe a 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 for really low light. The tammy and siggy are a great combo that I really would suggest if you can hang on to afford them!

Jake
 
freecom2 said:
Although the 18-200 has received okay comments, it's as simple as this - it's difficult to get optimum lens performance across a 10x+ zoom range, and it's a lens that aims to be an easy all-in-one rather than a star performer.
Click to expand...

That certainly sums it up I think. Maybe if I were going for a weekend away and could only take 1 lens i'd think about saving up and getting it, but it will never beat multiple lenses I suppose.

Looking over the shots i've taken I don't think there is anyway I can lose 18mm from my range as I seem to use it quite a lot....... and it seems the same of 70mm...... i'm not making this any easier am I? :bonk:
 
Your issue with the 18-70 is sharpness, right? Do you have any examples where you are unsatisfied by the sharpness that we could see?
 
The 18-70 is a very good lens, I'd only replace it with the 17-50 Tamron if you really want the 2.8 constant aperture. If not keep the 18-70. The 17-50 is probably better in certain aspects of IQ but not 3 times better.

The 70-200 is quite heavy so maybe consider the 50-150 from Sigma as well?
 
The 18-70 is an awesome lens - its construction and optical quality is nothing like your run of the mill kit lens. If you need f2.8 you would have to look at the 17-55 but is damn expensive, bulky and heavy.

As others have said put up some pictures were you think it is unsharp - maybe it has some fault or something ??

The 18-200 is great if you don't want to take anything else with you - if you are already taking other bits and bobs in a bag then just get the 55-200 and swap lenses when you have to.
 
All the lenses you are listing are a compromise and fit in the Jack of all trades..... bracket that you put the 18-200 in. Thats really not a bad lens. Some people knock it because they dont understand how to use it.

However, if sharpness is your thing, and the 18-70 doesnt fit the bill the only real option is check the exifs on all your shots and go buy primes that fit around the majority of your shots.

I dont really think the Tamron 17-50 will be noticeably sharper than your 18-70 and most f2.8 lenses are not at their sharpest wide open.
Sharpness doesn't come cheap so the cheapest option is to brush up on your technique and make sure you are getting the best out of your lenses.

If I were to choose two lenses for you, I would go for a Nikon 16-85VR and 70-300 VR. Sharp enough to cut you!

Allan
 
Thanks for the replies all, it is appreciated.

For starters i'll probably get the 55-200 and see how I go with that and the 18-70. A small outlay to cover to a good range.

I think i'm becoming obsessed with the word "sharpness" and not really enjoying taking pictures. Getting more obsessed with lens reviews and "blur counts" and other nonsense. :thinking:

I will dig out a few pictures tonight that I don't think look right. At the moment I don't do anything with them apart from view them onscreen and upload to Flickr and Facebook for friends. I'm wondering if the root of my problem is somewhere in LightRoom? Its how they look direct on import that troubles me. (I shoot RAW and convert to Adobe DNG on import) Am I just becoming a pixel peeper? :thumbsdown:

The more I get told the 18-70 is a good lens the more I think i'm either doing something wrong or I have a bad un? (is there such a thing?)

I have been reading over the last few days that I shouldn't be shooting at the lowest aperture to get the best sharpness and look to go 1 or 2 stops down?

Can anyone recommend a good scenario/shot to take to hightlight lens sharpness?
 
Last edited:
ok here's my opinion.

I only really take photos of my kids (6,20months & 12 weeks) so like you i'm always running around with my camera.

I've had a few lenses over since I first started last year but I've now settled on what I think is a great combination.

Firstly I have a 50mm f1.8, I have a D90 so can use the built in motor of the body to power this lens. This is great for indoor shots in low light.

My second lens is a tamron 28-75 f2.8 I brought this for £200 (from here) 2nd hand. Nice and sharp and gives me a nice walkabout lens.

My third lens (and my favorite) is a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which I brought for £210 (from here) Although this lens is huge and built like a tank, it produces great results and you can really blow out the background.

In my opinion buy cheap buy twice. You've probably heard that good glass is important so i'd try and get the fastest glass possible.

In your situation i'd look at a tamron or sigma 17-50 f2.8 & a 70-200 f2.8. Ok your missing the 50-70 range but you could always use your feet in that case!
 
Thanks Ben.

I agree on the buy cheap / buy twice analogy, but I use 70mm+ that infrequently right now that I can't really justify a 70-200 2.8 lens, so i'll stick to my 55-200 VR plan and address that later if required.

I sort of agree with you that 17-50 2.8 may well be the way to go, but i'm going to see if I can get the best out of this 18-70 first as people rave about it.

Although I could still do with some help/thoughts on the topic raised in my earlier post: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=3662039&postcount=13 (post 13)
 
I've just picked up a 24-85 af-s mint and boxed off eBay for £195. My 18-75 has just died, the old loose screw problem. It's noticeably sharper than the 18-70 and whilst I lose 6mm off the wide end I gain 15 on the long. Its an FX lens so uses only the best bits of the elements.....might be worth you having a look at one of these?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top