[Lens] f/2.8 wide to normal zoom for Nikon

Author	All Replies
UnaFragger Hi There Premium join:2002-03-05 Richmond, VA clubs: ·Verizon FIOS	[Lens] f/2.8 wide to normal zoom for Nikon I'm looking to get one of the wider f/2.8 zooms on a budget of around $400. The wife and I are going to an aquarium in a couple of weeks (VA Beach, I think), and I'm hoping to take a single lens with me. I've also wanted one for a while, as none of the other lenses I have are really quick enough for shooting indoors with the exception of the Thrifty Fifty. I also enjoy shooting macro. It would likely be used mostly for indoors and so I like the wide angle. However, I also am not sure that 50mm is really enough zoom for things like aquariums or museums (places I'd likely use the lens). I'm looking at these 4 options, but am open to other suggestions. Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Autofocus »www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3···_DG.html Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) »www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/2···_Di.html Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Macro »www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5···_DC.html Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] »www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5···_II.html I'm leaning slighty more away from the tamron 17-50 as it's a bit more expensive than the others, but if it's significantly better then it's a definite option. Thanks in advance! -- Team Helix - Folding for Cures! Overclocker Cafe - The hardware site for the rest of us.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-12 17:04:51 ·
Kringle Dr.D Premium join:2004-02-27 Pierrefonds, QC ·Bell Sympatico 4 edits	Since you have a D80, I would suggest that you take a serious look at this lens: »www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3···_DG.html It costs a bit more but I've found it to be a really sweet piece of glass. All of my California shots were done with it (it's all I brought with me). On my XTi, the AF works better than any other lens I have. It's something that I think would serve you very well for a long time to come. My box shot: »Re: The One, The Only...Box Shot Thread! (part three) EDIT: If you plan on doing any outdoor work, don't forget the 82mm CPL. It makes for a beautiful combination. EDIT2: This is transformed from RAW and resized for posting to show how it does a macro shot (no other processing). I need to get extension tubes! Look into the Iris: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi 70mm 1/60th F10 ISO100 Macro Capability Sample (70mm) BTW, click to view full.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-12 17:32:21 ·
TigerNutz Laissez les bons temps rouler Premium join:2000-12-23 Little Rock, AR	I second what Kringle says, I have that lens, great piece of glass. Kinda big but a sharp lens. But you can't go wrong with the Tamron lenses. The 28-75mm has a reputation as one very fine lens for the money.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-12 18:36:58 ·
bfreas Premium join:2001-06-16 Franklin, KY ·Comcast	reply to UnaFragger I'd lean a little more toward the 17-50. There's a huge difference between a starting point of 17 and 24 on the wide end. If the aquariums and museums are as tight quarters as I think, you'll wish you had the wider lens. -- My Gallery Site Sunny 16 Camera Club
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-12 19:44:42 ·
Dream Killer Graveyard Shift Premium join:2002-08-09 Forest Hills, NY clubs:	reply to UnaFragger I'd go with the Tamron. 17-50mm is the sweet spot in standard zooms. If you go with the 24mm or the 28mm models, you're really going to wish you had a wider angle.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-12 22:19:24 ·
Kringle Dr.D Premium join:2004-02-27 Pierrefonds, QC ·Bell Sympatico	reply to bfreas I found that the 24mm wide end was pretty good in all kinds of museum situations. The aquariums, however, might be a different story. My suggestion was based on the stated need for macro and general purpose indoor shooting. For what I do, 50 would be too short a tele end and I'd be stuck supplementing with another lens. What's the distortion like at 17mm?
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-13 00:34:54 ·
bfreas Premium join:2001-06-16 Franklin, KY ·Comcast	said by Kringle : What's the distortion like at 17mm? Photozone's tests show that it has about average distortions for a lens in that focal length range. Pronounced barrel distortions at 17 and moderate pincusion at 50. Here's the review: »www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-a···--review -- My Gallery Site Sunny 16 Camera Club
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-13 11:34:13 ·
Kringle Dr.D Premium join:2004-02-27 Pierrefonds, QC ·Bell Sympatico 2 edits	Thanks for that link! Looks like a very decent lens. From what I can see, the main differences are: 17-50 More plastic in construction (upside = a bit lighter to carry) 7 blade iris Close focus = 1:4.5 24-70 Construction comparable to Canon "L" pro glass 9 blade iris Close focus = 1:3.8 (better for macro) Less Chromatic aberration than the 17-50 The differing number of iris blades will change the look of the diffraction sparkles in night shots ( »dptnt.com/2007/12/what-causes-th···-photos/ ) and, subjectively, the bokeh isn't quite as smooth with the 17-50. Both lenses seem like very good choices and the final conclusion will obviously boil down to the intended applications versus total cost.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-13 12:06:11 ·
mhhack Premium join:2005-03-29	reply to UnaFragger Hi - I've got an older Nikon D70 and one of my still older film lenses is a 35-70mm f2.8 with macro capability. It is a fantastic lens and I used it in my film days, and am just beginning to try it with digital. You can read many reviews - even »www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm has one. They are sometimes available on ebay and sometimes BH has them. By comparison with the short focal lengths of the above lenses it may be somewhat restricted for your purposes.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-13 17:38:54 ·
yock TFTC Premium join:2000-11-21 Fairfield, OH	reply to UnaFragger f/2.8 won't seem so fast when you can't use your flash because you're constantly looking through the contorted lexan structure of the acquarium. -- Have more fun with your GPS. Geocaching.com
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-17 12:11:45 ·
UnaFragger Hi There Premium join:2002-03-05 Richmond, VA clubs: ·Verizon FIOS	said by yock : f/2.8 won't seem so fast when you can't use your flash because you're constantly looking through the contorted lexan structure of the acquarium. While I don't doubt that at all, it seems like it will be a bit better than my next-best option right now. That is either my 18-135mm which gets a max aperature of f/5 at 50mm, or my 50mm f/1.8 prime, which doesn't really offer any zoom. I would just take that, but 50mm seems pretty tight for the inside of an aquarium or museum or something. -- Team Helix - Folding for Cures! Overclocker Cafe - The hardware site for the rest of us.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-17 14:29:48 ·
UnaFragger Hi There Premium join:2002-03-05 Richmond, VA clubs: ·Verizon FIOS	reply to UnaFragger BTW, you guys have convinced me on either the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 18-50. I went through a ton of shots the other day and I was very surprised to find that I do shoot more in the 18-28mm range than I do in the 50-70mm range. I was also playing around with the 24 - 70 Sigma macro that was reccommended, but I do think I'd miss the wide-angle of the 17 or 18mm a bit more. Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'll have a post in the box-shot thread eventually. hehe. -- Team Helix - Folding for Cures! Overclocker Cafe - The hardware site for the rest of us.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-17 14:33:22 ·
Kringle Dr.D Premium join:2004-02-27 Pierrefonds, QC ·Bell Sympatico	Excellent!!! You have analyzed the situation well and you've come up with a solution that will work best for you most of the time and save you some bucks in the process! Do let us know when you pull the trigger.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-17 14:39:45 ·
Jodokast96 R.I.P Bassman442 Premium join:2005-11-23 Erial, NJ ·Verizon Online DSL	reply to yock Flash is more difficult, but not impossible. A makeshift hood using something like this »images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=···3D1&um=1 and some off camera flash is an option. The results of the guy that tried it: »www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post···ges.html And his thoughts: »www.pentaxforums.com/forums/gene···aquarium
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-17 17:28:41 ·
UnaFragger Hi There Premium join:2002-03-05 Richmond, VA clubs: ·Verizon FIOS	reply to UnaFragger Not that anyone is super interested, but I just plopped down the $450 on the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF]. It had more better reviews than the Sigma. The sigma claimed "Macro" but the difference in focal distance was so minimal that it barely mattered. Also, I have 1 extra mm of zoom! hehe. Anyway, I'll post some shots when it comes in next Tuesday! -- Team Helix - Folding for Cures! Overclocker Cafe - The hardware site for the rest of us.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-24 21:54:07 ·
gugarci Premium join:2004-02-25 Bergen Co	reply to UnaFragger Sorry but I don't like any of the current new Tamron lenses with the built in motors made for Nikon's. They focus too slowly compared to other lenses. I have played around with them at different times at Adorama and have yet to buy one.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-24 22:21:56 ·
jza80 join:2005-10-29 Sacramento, CA	said by gugarci : Sorry but I don't like any of the current new Tamron lenses with the built in motors made for Nikon's. They focus too slowly compared to other lenses. I noticed the same thing when trying out a old (no motor) and new (built in motor) Tamron 17-50. The difference in focus speed is noticeable, so much so that I bought the older one without motor.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-25 05:36:37 ·
B52GUNR KM 7D love and D3 Nirvana Premium,MVM join:2001-03-06 Vallejo, CA clubs: ·Comcast ·DSL EXTREME	reply to UnaFragger said by UnaFragger : BTW, you guys have convinced me on either the Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 18-50. I went through a ton of shots the other day and I was very surprised to find that I do shoot more in the 18-28mm range than I do in the 50-70mm range. I was also playing around with the 24 - 70 Sigma macro that was reccommended, but I do think I'd miss the wide-angle of the 17 or 18mm a bit more. Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'll have a post in the box-shot thread eventually. hehe. This is not surprising. 18-28mm on an APS-C sensor is the same field of view as 27-42mm on a 35mm sensor which is a very versatile range. The lens I use the most on my D3 is the 24-70 (12-35mm lens on an APS-C camera). -- Some assembly required, your mileage may vary, no pixels were harmed in the writing of this post. Brain cells, though, are a different matter. You want fries with that?
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-06-29 15:00:47 ·
UnaFragger Hi There Premium join:2002-03-05 Richmond, VA clubs: ·Verizon FIOS	reply to gugarci said by gugarci : Sorry but I don't like any of the current new Tamron lenses with the built in motors made for Nikon's. They focus too slowly compared to other lenses. I have played around with them at different times at Adorama and have yet to buy one. As I haven't ever used one of the older lenses, I can't really compare. I noticed with the 17-50 that if I let the camera choose the autofocus point (Auto Area AF) then it seems to be pretty slow, and sometimes has a hard time finding a focus point. If, however, I use Single or Dynamic area (»www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d80/us···m.htm#02), the autofocus is very fast and extremely accurate. It does make a little bit of noise, but nothing I would consider inappropriate. I'm really glad I bought the lens and I really like it so far. -- Team Helix - Folding for Cures! Overclocker Cafe - The hardware site for the rest of us.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-03 09:51:30 ·


Tuesday, 10-Nov 04:56:55	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com. republican-creole page compression OFF