Beginner Versatile lens for weekend break

jpgreenwood

jpgreenwood

Messages
1,695
Name
jason
Edit My Images
Yes
Im off to Verona, Italy in a couple of weeks and want to take plenty of pics. Last time I went, I took a 50-200mm and felt really restricted in close quarters. I could take the 18-55 kit lens AND the 50-200 but I'm tight on baggage. So, I've been considering the 18-105 that comes with Nikon kits.
Is this a good option for an all rounder lens and can anyone suggest alternatives. I will probably buy pre-owned and don't want to spend over £150.DSLR is a D3200.
 
I think that lens would do the job, I've used a canon 18-135 STM and found it an excellent "all round" lens. My only quandary for this weekends away is doni take the canon lens and DSLR (18-135) or just take my FZ1000 which I've never really trusted on its own!
 
After a bit of skiving at work, i've stumbled upon the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS. Its double what I wanted to spend but I do have the funds.
I have been quite disappointed with my photos lately and wondering if it was the laptop screen that was poor quality. However, I think I am just getting used to my own work and need to take things a step up. Maybe this lens will reignite my quality issues??
 
Another option may be the Nikon 16-85 VR, many good ones available used at reasonable money and it is a very decent lens.
 
Would I be right in thinking that the Sigma is a "faster lens" than the Nikon though? The sigma is F2.8 and the Nikon F3.5. I would like a faster lens as I think that will produce better results and I'm not much of a landscape photographer. I prefer a bit of action in my photos. I am only an amateur though.
 
jpgreenwood said:
Would I be right in thinking that the Sigma is a "faster lens" than the Nikon though? The sigma is F2.8 and the Nikon F3.5. I would like a faster lens as I think that will produce better results and I'm not much of a landscape photographer. I prefer a bit of action in my photos. I am only an amateur though.
Click to expand...
You're Sigma above isn't constant aperture though, so only at f2.8 at the shortest focal length.

I'd personally look at a Sigma 17-50 f2.8. A belter provided you get a good example and mine rarely came off my D7100 when I had it.
 
Faster lenses don't always produce better results. That's not what they're about.

The 18-105 is a great kit lens that will do you proud on the trip.
I had one on my D7000 and loved it.
 
Ian W said:
I'd personally look at a Sigma 17-50 f2.8.
Click to expand...

The thing with this lens is its got a similar range to my 18-55 kit lens. I want something with better range, but that will also help me progress in quality overall.
 
jpgreenwood said:
The thing with this lens is its got a similar range to my 18-55 kit lens. I want something with better range, but that will also help me progress in quality overall.
Click to expand...
It is, but the quality in the shots produced was far better with the Sigma than any kit lens I've used.

As above, if you're looking for an increased range over speed then you could do much worse than with one of Nikon's own.
 
OK, I'm getting an itchy debit card. Nikon 18-105@f3.5-5.6 (£114 second hand ) or Sigma 17-70@f2.8-4. (£209 second hand) It will be used mainly for medium action type shots (close aircraft, cars drifting, Speedway,as well as a good old all rounder. The Nikon 50-200 was just too slow on its last outing at the speedway.

I already own the Nikon 18-55 kit lens, Nikon 50-200, Nikon 35 prime F1.8, Nikon 300mm prime and an old Nikon manual 50mm f1.8 prime. And a cheapo Sigma 70-300 from Currys which I don't really like. The primes will do landscape just fine for my ability. I will probably sell the 18-55 kit lens and Sigma 70-300 to scale down my hobby/addiction. lol. I really am a useless amateur and get confused easily. Sorry guys. Thanks for all your advice so far though. Keep it coming.
 
jpgreenwood said:
Last time I went, I took a 50-200mm and felt really restricted in close quarters.
Click to expand...


Have a look back at those pictures and see how often you went over 105mm to get shots. I would say that if it's more than 10%, it might be worth going down the 18-200 route. A few options along those lines.
 
I have the scope of using my 50-200 and did use the top end of the zoom quite a lot, but it majorly failed in the close streets of Venice etc. A 17-70 or 18-105 would each be perfect but when I have tried to take photos at Drifting or speedway or action shots, all my lenses have let me down due to not been fast enough to get the shot I wanted. This is the gap I want to fill, and have a good all round lens for nice places.
 
Decided to do a bit more googling. Now stumbled across a Nikon 16-85 for sale locally on a photography facebook page. Im still concerned that the Nikon lenses are F3.5-5.6 and the Sigma is f2.8-4. Am I totally wrong in thinking this would react quicker and improve my action photography?
 
IMHO I think the Nikon 18-55mm VR lens offers excellent value and IQ for the price and should be fine for your trip, see Flickr for some photos. > https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=nikon 18-55 and from my experience I didn't find the 18-105mm any better IQ wise. I would consider either the 16-85mm mentioned or a 17-50mm f2.8 lens from Sigma or Tamron. Make sure you test them out as there can be some sample variations.

You need to weigh up your priorities, do you want the convenience of the longer range zoom lens or the fast f2.8 lens. If the longer range is priority, Nod's suggestion of the Nikon 18-200mm needs to be considered.

Take a memory card to your local dealer, if there is one, and try some of the lenses out and see which you prefer. You may find one of the longer zooms or heavier f2.8 lens too front heavy on your camera.
 
Unfortunately we have no local dealers anymore. The nearest is about 50 miles away in Newcastle. I already use the 18-55 VR so not sure why this has been referred to?? I also own the 50-200VR. I ideally want something that sits in the middle of the 2 (not a prime) and will give me more speed for low light and action . There is a Sigma 17-50 with fixed aperture at f2.8 but again, only gives a similar focal range to my 18-55 kit lens. That's why I'm split between the 17-70 Sigma at f2.8-4 or the 18-105 Nikon at f3.5-5.6.
 
I think you are confusing why these the lenses are called fast. Fast refers to the maximum aperture of the lens, it doesn't mean it will react or focus more quickly, it won't therefore improve your action shots. It will instead give you the option of shallow depth of field. The speed of the focussing is endemic in the design of the lens, some lenses react more quickly to focus than others but that doesn't make them 'fast' (in lens terms).

If your pictures are just for you and you aren't going to be selling / exhibiting them or blowing them up huge, I am a great proponent of the 18-105. I have had one for years and is a great walkabout. lens. Sure, there are better lenses and other options but I have always been happy with mine.
 
Am I right in thinking a faster lens will allow more light in at a lower aperture and therefore allow a faster shutter speed? So a picture taken in low light at f2.8 will be better hand held due to a quicker shutter speed, than say, a lens at f.3.5 in the same situation? Or have I got that totally wrong? I'm still learning, Thanks
 
I loved the 16-85 on my D90 when I used to shoot Nikon. I also tested both this and the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 but preferred the rendering of the Nikon. The Sigma is faster but I just liked the look of the Nikon files more (I tested both in a camera store and uploaded the pics to my laptop to compare).
 
jpgreenwood said:
I have been quite disappointed with my photos lately
Click to expand...

jpgreenwood said:
Unfortunately we have no local dealers anymore. The nearest is about 50 miles away in Newcastle. I already use the 18-55 VR so not sure why this has been referred to?? I also own the 50-200VR. I ideally want something that sits in the middle of the 2 (not a prime) and will give me more speed for low light and action . There is a Sigma 17-50 with fixed aperture at f2.8 but again, only gives a similar focal range to my 18-55 kit lens. That's why I'm split between the 17-70 Sigma at f2.8-4 or the 18-105 Nikon at f3.5-5.6.
Click to expand...

I mentioned the IQ of the 18-55mm, in reference to the bold bit above, which you mentioned in your third post. When I had the 18-105mm it wasn't any better than the 18-55mm so you need to decide what your priority is with the lens you want. If you want a do it all lens, then get the 18-105, 18-200 or 18-300mm lens.

You have some fast lenses with your primes, which are f1.8, these are going to be faster as in aperture to your other lenses, or if you decide for a f2.8 lens. Set your 18-55mm to 35mm and then 50mm and take some photos and then compare these against your f1.8 primes set a f1.8, you will see a difference how these lenses work in low light and shutter speeds, although your zooms have VR which will help with a lower shutter speed over the primes, depends how steady you are.
 
Last edited:
jpgreenwood said:
Am I right in thinking a faster lens will allow more light in at a lower aperture and therefore allow a faster shutter speed? So a picture taken in low light at f2.8 will be better hand held due to a quicker shutter speed, than say, a lens at f.3.5 in the same situation? Or have I got that totally wrong? I'm still learning, Thanks
Click to expand...

Yes pretty much, as long as the shutter speed is adjusted to allow proper exposure. Basically the wider the aperture, the more light goes in, the better it can handle darker conditions. You can of course also increase the ISO so the sensor is more sensitive to light but broadly, increasing the ISO can adversely affect the image quality. Additionally opening the aperture will give you a shallower depth of field which may or may not be desirable, depending on the image you are trying to capture / create. Ultimately it all boils down to a balance of aperture, shutter speed and ISO to create the correct or desired exposure.

Whilst many people wouldn't agree with doing this, you could just stick the camera on Auto and let it work it out for itself, for everyday images you won't go wrong.
 
Took the plunge and purchased a used 17-70mm Sigma f2.8-4. Really pleased with initial trials. WEX were very good throughout the transaction. MPB were quite poor unfortunately and wouldn't price match and were very poor with all channels of communication. £8.95 for postage against WEX free postage won the deal in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top