Some adive in upgrading Kit lens.

Dogmatix

Dogmatix

Messages
268
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all.

After doing a few lower than normal light missions, I found my camera and I didn't agree. The camera wanted a longer exposure than I could handhold, and I didn't want to carry my tri-pod.

I currently own a 18-55 3.5-5.6 VR Nikon Kit lens.
Although its a very good lens, I wouldn't mind something thats a bit sharper, and with a little more reach? something like 18-70 or 18-105. I do have a Tamron 70-300 (non-VR) and I find I rarely use it, due to 70mm being too long to start with on some occsions.

With a bit of reading on here, I'm guessing I'd need to look at something with say a 2.8 or 1.8? to help cope with the low light condictions?

Help would be fantastic, as if I get the right lens, I very much doubt I'll be changing it for anything else.

Cheers.

Mart
 
There are faster lenses that could replace your kit. For example the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro but none of these are longer than yours (only 50mm)

That said , I have the Sigma (in a Canon version) and it's a very versatile lens. Sharp, well built and with better than normal close focusing abilities.
 
As faster zooms have a limited reach (like 17-50mm f2.8) or cost a lot (like a 24-70mm f2.8) maybe you could think about keeping your existing zoom lenses and getting a fast prime like the Nikon 35mm f1.8 which I think is around £160, cheaper than the excellent Sigma 30mm f1.4.

I'm not too familiar with Nikon's so don't take my word on this lens, best check compatibility if you're interested.
 
50mm 1.8 or 1.4?

I don't know if this fact stands for all 50mm 1.4s (I believe they're all pretty similar) but mine is certainly better wide open than the 1.8 was (Canon).

A 1.4 will cost you more though, and gains you very little in terms of extra light in real world performance compared to a 1.8. If the Nikon 1.8 is the same quality wise as the 1.4, don't bother spending the extra, IMO. Time to do some research.
 
Budget will play a significant part in your eventual decision...
Look at paying £1000-ish for a decent f/2.8 zoom bought new - 2nd hand, a couple of hundred less...
If you can live with prime lenses (non-zoom) then a good 28 or 35mm f/2 will be fine - with care, I can hand-hold down to 1/4 sec with no noticable camera-shake, though subject blur will be unaffected...
50mm f/1.8 lenses are silly-cheap as we all want the faster, better-made f/1.4 variants...mostly because we're kit-whores...lol
 
Dogmatix said:
After doing a few lower than normal light missions, I found my camera and I didn't agree. The camera wanted a longer exposure than I could handhold, and I didn't want to carry my tri-pod.

....

Help would be fantastic, as if I get the right lens, I very much doubt I'll be changing it for anything else.
Click to expand...

What were these low light missions - Landscape or events / action?

For landscape work a tripod is a must and no lens can substitute that. ISO1600 and f/2.8 held at 1/10s is hardly any good even for £5k overall package. If you are doing action shots then by all means look for a f/2.8 lens, and maybe a fast prime (50mm f/1.4 would do). If you want cheap-ish, then look for Tamron 17-50/2.8. If better kit is important and you may fancy D700 in the future, why not get the best - Nikkor 24-70/2.8. For events the range is fantastic on both crop and FF. For wide stuff you could always add Tokina 12-24mm whilst with crop. This would work great for landscapes too *on a tripod*.
 
If you must know it for urbex and general photography work.
50mm tried and it's too long, I will admit looking though my photos, the average is around 30-35mm.

Mono and tripods do get used where I can, but when out exploring, they can become a hinderance, rather than a god send. Hence wanting something faster to help me gain sharper images, but having a faster shutter, yet having the required amount of light to expose the subject correctly.

For landscapes, my current kit lens seems to be coping, it's just hand-help stuff, the pics seem either soft, or blury :-(

Money-wise, well I can save for the lens that's going to suit me :-) so 18-70 2.8 sounds awesome, but do other makes such as tamron, sigma for example, follow the nikkor quality?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top