Spec me a lens (Nikon)

N

Naphta

Messages
128
Name
Jake
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a D5100 at the moment and its great, but I definitely want to get a different lens for some more flexibility vs the kit lens. Now I know in a perfect world I would have snapped up the 24-70 in a heartbeat as it looks like the perfect lens for me, however sadly I can't afford that any time in the foreseeable future.

My budget is around 400, but I can be persuaded to wait longer and get a more expensive lens.

In lightroom my most used focal length is 55mm, however I'm quite sure more recently I've been using closer to 35mm and for the sake of flexibility I'd like the maximum minimum focal length (if that makes sense) to be 28mm.
 
Check out the 16-85mm?
A friend bought my "old" one and is a happy shooter now... :D
 
what about the Nikon12-24mm f4 lens: a little bit more than your budget @£550 but worth saving for.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
Naphta said:
I have a D5100 at the moment and its great, but I definitely want to get a different lens for some more flexibility vs the kit lens. Now I know in a perfect world I would have snapped up the 24-70 in a heartbeat as it looks like the perfect lens for me, however sadly I can't afford that any time in the foreseeable future.

My budget is around 400, but I can be persuaded to wait longer and get a more expensive lens.

In lightroom my most used focal length is 55mm, however I'm quite sure more recently I've been using closer to 35mm and for the sake of flexibility I'd like the maximum minimum focal length (if that makes sense) to be 28mm.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the D5100 needs AF-S or HSM (Sigma's version of it). That puts a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 a little over your £400 budget, with the HSM version being £499 while the non HSM one is £349. Someone was recently arguing that the lower end Nikon bodies' lack of an internal AF motor was a complete non issue - well, a 30% difference in 2nd hand price seems to be a fairly serious issue to me! (Prices taken from Mifsuds's ad in AP, cover date 27th Oct.)

I have to say that I love my 24-70 Sigma! It's almost welded to my D700 and also saw a lot of use on my D70 before I lent that to a friend. An excellent lens on FF and very good (I did miss the width!) on Dx. I really would suggest you save a little longer until the budget's high enough for the 24-70 f/2.8 Sigma - maybe a quiet word in santa's ear could persuade him to drop of the shortfall a little early? Check out other 2nd hand dealers too - MPB or Ffordes may have a cheaper copy. I wouldn't recommend e-bay (ever but that's just me!) for 2nd hand Sigmas - it seems to be the preferred offload point for poor (soft and/or misaligned) copies.
 
If you could wait and up the budget to about £500-£600, you'd be able to get a Nikon 28-70 2.8 AF-S. It's the predecessor to the 24-70 2.8 and is every bit as good, i.e. utterly superb!
 
gad-westy said:
If you could wait and up the budget to about £500-£600, you'd be able to get a Nikon 28-70 2.8 AF-S. It's the predecessor to the 24-70 2.8 and is every bit as good, i.e. utterly superb!
Click to expand...

It's also getting harder to find 2nd hand - can't find one in either Mifsuds or Ffordes ads in AP but haven't trawled the web to look at MPB and elsewhere. £500-£600 is also £100-£200 above current budget but is as you say, worth the extra saving time.
 
For your budget you could get both the AF-S 35mm f/1.8 and the AF-S 50mm f/1.8.
 
Nod said:
It's also getting harder to find 2nd hand - can't find one in either Mifsuds or Ffordes ads in AP but haven't trawled the web to look at MPB and elsewhere. £500-£600 is also £100-£200 above current budget but is as you say, worth the extra saving time.
Click to expand...

Must admit I've probably been lucky with mine in that both times I've been looking for one there have been a few to choose from. I bought one from Aperture UK and one was bought privately. I've since had a 24-70 as well but I think I preferred the 28-70 overall. Well worth seeking out.
 
Surprised i havent seen the tamron 17-50 2.8 mentioned.You also have the option of a VR version (Tamron use the initials VC).

Ive decided to stick with DX for the meantime, so my intended lens list

Nikon 10-24
Tamron 17-50 VC
Nikon 70 300 VR

Nikon 35 1.8
Sigma 105 2.8 macro

Only need to buy the 70 300 to complete the list. Also thinking of a longer prime, possibly one of the 85mm 1.8's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want a single lens to do everything then I'd suggest looking at the Tamron or Sigma equivalent of the 24-70. As mentioned above, check the focus compatibility with your camera.

If you are buying second hand then you could possibly get the Nikon 35mm 1.8 (£100), 50mm 1.8 (£75) and 85mm 1.8 (£200) within your £400 budget. That would give you 3 excellent quality lenses that will give far better images that any zoom lens you could buy for £400.

Just putting it out there.
 
-Rob- said:
If you want a single lens to do everything then I'd suggest looking at the Tamron or Sigma equivalent of the 24-70. As mentioned above, check the focus compatibility with your camera.

If you are buying second hand then you could possibly get the Nikon 35mm 1.8 (£100), 50mm 1.8 (£75) and 85mm 1.8 (£200) within your £400 budget. That would give you 3 excellent quality lenses that will give far better images that any zoom lens you could buy for £400.

Just putting it out there.
Click to expand...

Dont you think 24 is a little long on dx?
You also have the significant difference in weight and size between a 24-70 and a 17-50.
 
+1 for the tamron 17-50

I also have the nikon 35 and 50 f1.8, 85f1.4 (Samyang), 105f2.8 micro nikkor and a sigma 70-200.

The tamron has the majority of time on my d90. Gets some great results with it.

Hope that helps.

S
 
The Sigma 24-70 looks great but the 82mm filter thread is a turn off as it seems that decent ND filters are as rare as hens teeth on that thread (maybe I'm being blind, wouldn't surprise me!) And there are a few report of it being a little soft although when compared to the nikon equivalent which is double the cost I think it has every right to be.

The Nikon 28-70 might be something I could keep an eye out for from now until xmas as it looks incredibly nice although the cost of it seems to be around the 750 mark from what I can see right now.

As for a set of primes, I've considered it, I'm not sure how much I'd like having to move/swap lens every single time as I do find myself changing focal length quite a lot on my kit lens.

The 17-50 looks rather good, would be a shame about losing a little bit of flexibility but I'd definitely be all for just upgrading my lens in general, but what about the Sigma version of it? Would it be worth the additional cost realistically?
 
r1bazza said:
Another :thumbs: for the 16-85 here too.
Click to expand...

16-85 is rather nice, I had one before I treated myself to nikons 24-70. It should fall within your budget too. However if you want a constant aperture then I'd suggest you save up a bit more and go for sigmas 24-70 (make sure you get the hsm one or it won't autofocus). I've heard alot of good things about it.
 
Is the 16-85 any sharper than the kit lens though?
 
I don't understand the 24-something suggestions? Won't you run into the "need wider" again and again? And especially on DX...

Or is that just me? :D


/edit as posted same time as Naphta.

Check out what Thom says: http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm

I could have lived forever happy with the 16-85... if it could reach to 12mm!
But that's of course depending on what you shoot.
 
Last edited:
Jan K. said:
I don't understand the 24-something suggestions? Won't you run into the "need wider" again and again? And especially on DX...

Or is that just me? :D

/edit as posted same time as Naphta.

Check out what Thom says: http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm

I could have lived forever happy with the 16-85... if it could reach to 12mm!
But that's of course depending on what you shoot.
Click to expand...

Yeah it could be an issue, but for what I do I generally find 24mm (36mm on my crop sensor) is sufficiently wide enough. If I really need a good wide angle, ill know in advance (such as landscape time lapses) and ill take my wide angle with me (12-24mm).

If you want an all round, one size fits all, look at the 18-200 or is there a new 18-300 or something now? But when I was looking at reviews most of them suggested fairly poor performance at both ends and an ok performance in the middle, nothing to jump with joy about. But I suppose that's the trade off you have to pay if you want 1 lens to do everything.
 
I do have plans to go FX in the future but right now I don't feel I need to vs get some better lenses, anyways as of right now I rarely go that wide and if I find in the future I need to, I can always get a wide angle lens.
 
Last edited:
Jan K. said:
I don't understand the 24-something suggestions? Won't you run into the "need wider" again and again? And especially on DX...
Click to expand...

As a general walkabout lens, the 24-70 is my choice - if I need wider, I do have a 12-24 Sigma and an 8mm fisheye in the bag. Wide angle subjects aren't usually the fastest moving ones so the few seconds it takes to swap the lenses won't usually result in a missed shot.

Were I to have to choose between the 12-24 and the 24-70 as my only lens, I would go for the 24-70. I would miss the 12-24 but would have more problems missing the 24-70
 
Nod said:
As a general walkabout lens, the 24-70 is my choice - if I need wider, I do have a 12-24 Sigma and an 8mm fisheye in the bag. Wide angle subjects aren't usually the fastest moving ones so the few seconds it takes to swap the lenses won't usually result in a missed shot.

Were I to have to choose between the 12-24 and the 24-70 as my only lens, I would go for the 24-70. I would miss the 12-24 but would have more problems missing the 24-70
Click to expand...

Hi Nod - you are using FX and the OP is a DX user, meaning the 17-50 will essentailly be the off similar range as the lens you use on FX.
 
Rapscallion said:
Hi Nod - you are using FX and the OP is a DX user, meaning the 17-50 will essentailly be the off similar range as the lens you use on FX.
Click to expand...

Very true. I'm old enough to think in 35mm terms and rarely do (or need to do) the 1.5x conversion of the FoV. I was also thinking slightly ahead...

Naphta said:
I do have plans to go FX in the future but right now I don't feel I need to vs get some better lenses, anyways as of right now I rarely go that wide and if I find in the future I need to, I can always get a wide angle lens.
Click to expand...

If you're planning a FF upgrade in the foreseeable future, don't spend any money on Dx lenses - you'll only end up dropping some on trade in or selling on to fund the upgrade. Buying 2nd hand can reduce that loss but remember that more people are moving from Dx to Fx and selling their Dx lenses, so prices will be falling.
 
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 it has a built in motor so can be used with the D5100, most used lens on my D80 for general shots, I've been using it since March, a big improvement on the kit lens
 
I'd rather get FX lenses for the future as I'll probably at this rate get a full frame late next year.
 
In which case the Tamron 28-75 is a cracker for the money.

Personally I'd rather get a DX lens for a DX camera - buy 2nd hand and sell it and you won't lose any money with the bonus that you won't have to lug unnecessarily heavy lenses around AND you'll get proper wide angle, as opposed to 24 or 28mm.
 
Since I was a 35mm film user before I went FF, I've always bought FF lenses. One advantage they have over crop specific ones is that some lenses show softness in the extreme corners - if you're not using that part of the projected image, that softness isn't a problem. Also, FF lenses can be used on Dx/crop bodies while Dx/crop lenses on FF bodies neuter the body - IIRC, the Dx mode on my D700 gives a 5MP image - I'm better off using my D70!
 
Iffacus said:
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 it has a built in motor so can be used with the D5100, most used lens on my D80 for general shots, I've been using it since March, a big improvement on the kit lens
Click to expand...

Seems like the best option to me if you really don't want that much width but a bit of extra reach.

From what I'v heard it holds up much better on a DX camera and size wise isnt much different to the 17-50mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top