Nikon Lens Advice needed

G

GoLotus

Messages
939
Name
G
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a D300 together with a VRII 2.8 70-200 and have been lusting after similar quality lens as replacement for my 18-70 3.5-4.5 for a long long time now.

I finally have the oppertunity for such a thing but am unsure what to go for. You see, the thing is, I am often wishing the 18-70 could zoom out a bit more, and what with that being a DX lens, and the 2.8 24-70 being FX I'm not really sure thats the way forwards.

However, I'm also not sure that the 2.8 14-24 on a DX camera is going to zoom out enough more than the 18-70 does, and nor am I sure I want to loose that much range. In an ideal world I guess the 18-70 would be replaced by the 14-24 and the 24-70 - but this is not an ideal world - I only have the oppretunity for one new lens.

Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions what might be the best way forwards?
 
The Tamron 17-50 2.8's get good feedback which would be my suggestion if you plan on staying with DX. It's a fraction of the price of the two Nikon lenses too.

If you plan on moving to FX anytime in the future then I'd get the 24-70 now as you'll really appreciate it later.

Have you looked through your photos to see what lengths you most commonly use?:shrug:
 
If you often wish an 18-70 could go wider, then the 14-24 might be fine for you. Couple it with a 50mm 1.8 to fill the gap, very cheap lens, great optical quality. Sorted.
 
Check what focal lengths you use most often. I used to have only a 17-70 Sigma, and would use it mostly at 17mm or 70mm very rarely in between. It's now been replaced with a Tokina 11-16mm, a Tamron 17-50mm and a Sigma 70-210mm (f2.8 all of them). I rarely use the 17-50!
 
IMHO the 14-24 is wasted on a crop sensor. Yes, the IQ will be amazing, but you are only using the centre part of the image circle, so unless you are planning to go full frame in the future, it's a lot to pay out for an effective 21-36mm lens.
I would consider something along the lines of a 10-24, or 12-24, or, as mentioned the 11-16, with a 50mm to fill the gap?

Another consideration is what is the lens primarily going to be used for? If low light, then a 2.8 lens could be important, if however it's for landscapes, then you'll be shooting at f8 (ish) most of the time, so an f4 lens might be ok. (Obviously that is a generalisation, but you get the idea)
 
Sigma 12-24? Not as fast as the closest Nikkor offering but wider than Lisa Riley's rear end! 35mm EFL works out at 18-36 (the 18-70 is in comparison 27-105). I used my 12-24 for a few years on crop bodies and 35mm and now use it on an Fx D700. No issues with my copy even on FF and on Dx, any potential edge softness (not apparent on my copy) will be lost in the body's crop.

Some people have whinged about the lens not accepting filters. Well, it does! When on FF, the only option is gels behind the rear element (cutting template included in box) while on Dx, it's possible to unclip a "traditional" lens cap from the bucket type full hood and screw filters (or an adaptor ring for square systems) into that.
 
GoLotus said:
I have a D300 together with a VRII 2.8 70-200 and have been lusting after similar quality lens as replacement for my 18-70 3.5-4.5 for a long long time now...
Click to expand...
I used the good 18-70 for a long time and upgraded it to a 16-85 mm Nikkor. "Much better" and quite a fair bit wider despite only 2 mm shorter focal length...

Unfortunately my taste in photos ended up requiring an even wider lens, so here we are. :D Final lens choice in sig...
 
Thanks for all the replies guys, some very intersting suggestions there.

I'd had it in mind to stay with Nikon gear (not been very happy with the 3rd party lenses I've had in the past) and also thought it best to aim for FX lenses what with them being future proof in terms of going full frame later. However, because of the crop factor the D300 is likely to end up being replaced with another crop sensor camera.

As such, I'm wondering if the 12-24 F4 DX lens is the way to go, to compliment the 18-70 rather than replace. Does anyone have anything to say about this lens?
 
I wouldn't buy lenses with DX in mind if you're as there not going to be ideal for the crop camera. The best replacement would be the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G, but i would personally buy a used tamron 17-50 f2.8 that you can sell on when you go full frame and not lose any money. 3rd party lenses have come a long way in recent years. However if you insit on buying with DX in mind then the 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S would be a better lens for your DX model.
 
Last edited:
GoLotus said:
I'd had it in mind to stay with Nikon gear ... I'm wondering if the 12-24 F4 DX lens is the way to go, to compliment the 18-70 rather than replace.
Does anyone have anything to say about this lens?
Click to expand...
erhm... *cough* :D

Plus one for going the Nikkor way. I also decided, they must have a golden ring.


Re. using the 12-24 f/4 as supplement... I did so with the 16-85, but only until I had raised money for the 24-120.

Used a lot of time searching before choosing for the 12-24 f/4. Thom was the deciding voice...


I was visiting MBP Photograping in other businesses and couldn't help noticing a nice 16-85mm for £249 and a 12-24mm for $440. :p

Happy Hunting!
 
Last edited:
Why do people always slate third party lenses? Some third party lenses outgun their Nikon counterpart and aren't necessarily cheaper either ;)
 
V8burble said:
Why do people always slate third party lenses?
Click to expand...
Just to make sure, no slating was intended in my posts.

During the research, it quickly became clear, that more lenses are "superior" to the Nikon. If you want to go wide, at least Tamron 11-16 *must* be considered.

And the new 70-300 Tamron beats at least two Nikkors. The guy, I sold mine to, later rang me up to tell! :lol:
He compared his new lens with two of his mates Nikkor 70-300's and they all agreed, the Tamron was the clear "winner".

But as explained, it's only a decision, that future lenses must be golden ringed Nikkors :D
Not based on rationale, logic or anything like, more a love thing.


Luckily I don't have any money, so only able to drool over some Zeiss'...
And keeping an eye on the upcoming Samyang 24mm T/S...
Oh! the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 looks very, very, very good... :nuts:

The Tamron 120-300 f/4 is also under scrutiny...


Slating thrid party lenses? Me? No! :D
 
Jan K. said:
Just to make sure, no slating was intended in my posts.

During the research, it quickly became clear, that more lenses are "superior" to the Nikon. If you want to go wide, at least Tamron 11-16 *must* be considered.

And the new 70-300 Tamron beats at least two Nikkors. The guy, I sold mine to, later rang me up to tell! :lol:
He compared his new lens with two of his mates Nikkor 70-300's and they all agreed, the Tamron was the clear "winner".

But as explained, it's only a decision, that future lenses must be golden ringed Nikkors :D
Not based on rationale, logic or anything like, more a love thing.

Luckily I don't have any money, so only able to drool over some Zeiss'...
And keeping an eye on the upcoming Samyang 24mm T/S...
Oh! the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 looks very, very, very good... :nuts:

The Tamron 120-300 f/4 is also under scrutiny...

Slating thrid party lenses? Me? No! :D
Click to expand...

The tamron 70-300 vc beats the nikkor??? At what??
 
Phil Young said:
Not slating 3rd party... wondering what lenses beats the manufacturer versions??
Click to expand...

Without getting in a argument as with always the case with lens reviews it depends where you're a looking, but i've seen 50mm f1.4, 24-70mm f2.8, 10-24mm and the 35mm f1.4 all been beaten or matched by there 3rd party counterparts.
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
The tamron 70-300 vc beats the nikkor??? At what??
Click to expand...
Full name was Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 Di VC USD and yes, he did tell me, it did beat the Nikkors in both sharpness and clarity...

Here's a review of mentioned Tamron: http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/


But the main point was to give an example of label doesn't necessarily means better quality...

Alan Clogwyn said:
Jan K. said:
I also decided, they must have a golden ring.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you are going for the Tamron 17-50, good man! :p
Click to expand...
Ah! wouldn't mind it, if it didn't so fail on the label bit! :D
 
Jan K. said:
Full name was Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 Di VC USD and yes, he did tell me, it did beat the Nikkors in both sharpness and clarity...

Here's a review of mentioned Tamron: http://photo.net/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/


But the main point was to give an example of label doesn't necessarily means better quality...so fail on the label bit! :D
Click to expand...

Here's the tamron vs the nikkor.

I don't think it was successful at beating it with sharpness.......

Still! Maybe it did with "real world" samples ;)
 
rjbell said:
Without getting in a argument as with always the case with lens reviews it depends where you're a looking, but i've seen 50mm f1.4, 24-70mm f2.8, 10-24mm and the 35mm f1.4 all been beaten or matched by there 3rd party counterparts.
Click to expand...

Don't want to sound like a fanboy but I didn't think that was correct...and apparently it isn't.

The point is - I'm yet to see a 3rd party lens that is better optically than Nikon glass. I stand to be corrected...but can't find any direct competitor lenses that manage to "beat" them.

Nikon 50mm afs f1.4 vs Simga HSM

Nikon 24-70 f2.8 vs Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC

Nikon 10-24mm vs Sigma 10-20mm (the tamron wasn't even in the same race...)

Nikon 35mm f1.4 vs Sigma 35mm f1.4 - bit of a funny one this, the Nikon beats in the edge but Simga beats in the centre.
 
Phil Young said:
The point is - I'm yet to see a 3rd party lens that is better optically than Nikon glass. I stand to be corrected...but can't find any direct competitor lenses that manage to "beat" them.
Click to expand...

The current crop of sigma primes 35/50/85 f/1.4 are all thought of atleast as highly as the Nikkors, if not better (and I own the Nikkors)
 
Last edited:
Not sure why there's always the suggestion to buy an FX- compatible lens just in case there's a move to FX sometime in the future.... Seems a strange train of thought.....

Anyway, get a 17-55mm if you want pro build quality.... And then team it up with a Tokiba 11-16mm.... I use this combo and can't see why I'd not opted for the 11-16mm earlier; stunning lens...
 
Many thanks for all the suggestions. I think I am going to go for the 12-24
 
Uhhh... I must warn you then! :D


Soon you'll find the overlap with your 18-70 being a little bit too big...

And you will probably want your 18-70 to have same IQ as the 12-24...

... then you maybe will be looking at the 24-120 and then...


No, I say! Run while you can! :gag:



Would be nice to hear how this story ends. :thumbs:

Is it the Nikkor 12-24, btw.?
 
Phil Young said:
Don't want to sound like a fanboy but I didn't think that was correct...and apparently it isn't.

The point is - I'm yet to see a 3rd party lens that is better optically than Nikon glass. I stand to be corrected...but can't find any direct competitor lenses that manage to "beat" them.

Nikon 50mm afs f1.4 vs Simga HSM

Nikon 24-70 f2.8 vs Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 VC

Nikon 10-24mm vs Sigma 10-20mm (the tamron wasn't even in the same race...)

Nikon 35mm f1.4 vs Sigma 35mm f1.4 - bit of a funny one this, the Nikon beats in the edge but Simga beats in the centre.
Click to expand...

Like i said it depends where you look.
 
specialman said:
Not sure why there's always the suggestion to buy an FX- compatible lens just in case there's a move to FX sometime in the future.... Seems a strange train of thought.....

Anyway, get a 17-55mm if you want pro build quality.... And then team it up with a Tokiba 11-16mm.... I use this combo and can't see why I'd not opted for the 11-16mm earlier; stunning lens...
Click to expand...
I'm with you.
 
specialman said:
Not sure why there's always the suggestion to buy an FX- compatible lens just in case there's a move to FX sometime in the future.... Seems a strange train of thought.....
Click to expand...


Not really, some lenses are more expensive than the body, and they hold value better. Also some FX lenses are great on DX bodies. If money is not an issues, obviously.
 
Jan K. said:
Uhhh... I must warn you then! :D


Soon you'll find the overlap with your 18-70 being a little bit too big...

And you will probably want your 18-70 to have same IQ as the 12-24...

... then you maybe will be looking at the 24-120 and then...


No, I say! Run while you can! :gag:



Would be nice to hear how this story ends. :thumbs:

Is it the Nikkor 12-24, btw.?
Click to expand...

Yeah, its the the Nikkor 12-24. But not bothered about the overlap - it'll help stop me needing to swap lenses too often :lol: But you're right, I do already lust after the 24-70 F2.8 - it didn't take at all long to get used to what the 70-200 F2.8 could do.
 
Cagey75 said:
Not really, some lenses are more expensive than the body, and they hold value better. Also some FX lenses are great on DX bodies. If money is not an issues, obviously.
Click to expand...

Thats kind of the point - money is an issue. My thinking is that by getting a lens that might be, well, "future proof" can save money in the long run :shrug:
 
The problem with the 24-70 is that's its not wide enough on a crop. I know you have mentioned a 12-24 too but you don't want to be swapping lenses all the time just to get any sort of wide shot. If the 24-70 suited the crop cameras no one would have produced 17-55, 17-50, 18-50, 18-55, 18-105 etc... lenses. If you're gonna make the FF move just do it now before forking out on a 12-24 which is only a few hundred shy of a d600/d700. You could sell the d300 and get a d700 and a 17-35.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Not really, some lenses are more expensive than the body, and they hold value better. Also some FX lenses are great on DX bodies. If money is not an issues, obviously.
Click to expand...

No arguing there - I have a couple of FX lenses for my DX bodies, although they were bought for actual function and not to future-proof myself. If a lens works for the user then fine...But all lenses generally lose some value, no matter if they're FX or DX.

Just seems to be the first thing people post about on here is when (not 'if') the OP will be moving to FX, as if DX is some kind of second-rate format....

GoLotus said:
Thats kind of the point - money is an issue. My thinking is that by getting a lens that might be, well, "future proof" can save money in the long run :shrug:
Click to expand...

But don't compromise yourself, that's all I'm saying. As already mentioned, something like a 24-70mm is going to be optically great but will compromise your shooting if it's not what you're looking for right now. There are some amazing DX lenses out there that rival FX lenses in both IQ and build :)
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
The problem with the 24-70 is that's its not wide enough on a crop. I know you have mentioned a 12-24 too but you don't want to be swapping lenses all the time just to get any sort of wide shot. If the 24-70 suited the crop cameras no one would have produced 17-55, 17-50, 18-50, 18-55, 18-105 etc... lenses. If you're gonna make the FF move just do it now before forking out on a 12-24 which is only a few hundred shy of a d600/d700. You could sell the d300 and get a d700 and a 17-35.
Click to expand...


A good point, but until I can also afford something longer than the 70-200 to go with a full frame I really need to stick with DX
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top