What telephoto lens to complement 17-50 for crop sensor

[matrosov]

Good Afternoon. Glad I found this forum. I have Nikon D5100 body and looking to get back into more advanced photography in addition to taking snapshots of my kids at play. To date I’ve used kit Nikon 18-55, 55-200 variable aperture and 35mm f1.8 prime. End results out of the box for the first two were ok, but nothing to write home about and required quite a bit of tweaking in lightroom. While 35mm prime is light years ahead in terms of technical quality of photos and allows me to actually focus more on artistic side of things. So with that I am looking to upgrade the two kit lenses. Besides snapshots of kids I’m interested in shooting architecture and great outdoors. With that in mind I figured I need an every day lens that can take care of kids and architecture aspect of things and set my sights on Sigma 17-50 EX 2.8 constant aperture, but I’m totally at a loss what to get for a medium telephoto zoom side to complement the 50. Ideally I want something that is faster than a kit 200 so it will allow me to focus more on composition side of things.

So two fold question is Sigma 17-50 a good choice and what do I get for medium telephoto zoom? Thank you for your help.

 

[astroNikon]

..into more advanced photography in addition to taking snapshots of my kids at play. To date I’ve used kit Nikon 18-55, 55-200 variable aperture and 35mm f1.8 prime. End results out of the box for the first two were ok, but nothing to write home about and required quite a bit of tweaking in lightroom. ...

can you post examples of your "ok" shots. many times it's learning the controls of the camera, focus mode and type, proper shutter speed, etc.

and also include a budget, otherwise the "sky's" the limit.

 

[Destin]

A 70-200 2.8 is the gold standard for a fast telephoto lens. Nearly every professional portrait or event photographer I've met has one, and uses it more than most of their other lenses combined.

These can range in price from $600 (used sigma 70-200 EX DG HSM II) all the way to $2800 for Nikon's latest, greatest model.

I've owned two of the sigma I mentioned in the past and loved both copies of it. Great lens to learn on and grow with, and sharp enough for most people's needs.

In the middle falls the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC (I just picked up a used one on eBay for $800). You could also get a Nikon 70-200 VR for $900-1100 or a VRII for $1300-1600.

It all depends on what you want to spend. If you need more reach than 200mm however, and want to maintain a fast aperture, price, weight, and size begin to increase exponentially.

 

[matrosov]

..into more advanced photography in addition to taking snapshots of my kids at play. To date I’ve used kit Nikon 18-55, 55-200 variable aperture and 35mm f1.8 prime. End results out of the box for the first two were ok, but nothing to write home about and required quite a bit of tweaking in lightroom. ...

can you post examples of your "ok" shots. many times it's learning the controls of the camera, focus mode and type, proper shutter speed, etc.

and also include a budget, otherwise the "sky's" the limit.

Thanks astro. Sorry should have mentioned the budget. Let's say 1K and less, does not have to be Nikon branded lens. As far as shots here are some. I try to shoot mostly in aperture priority, manual if I have time to stay in one place for a little while.

 

[Derrel]

I think I would spend a few bucks on Michael Freeman's book on digitial photography and composing for digital shooting, or the very-newest Bryan Peterson book. I looked both over a couple minths ago in the library. I'm not try to be a smart-alecy or anything, but spending money on instruction, or on books or videos, brings a LOT MORE return on investment than lenses do.

You have the camera, the 18-55, and thr 35/1.8 DX, and the 55-200 under your belt, so...I guess the 17-50/2.8 would be an okay addition...but the Lego shot of the kids...a speedlight, and more knowlegfe of flash would have helped more than any lens. Same with the shots of Aruba...the improvement should come from your end, not the lens end. I think framing, leveling,light quality/light direction issues are the areas where $18.95 on a book, or getting it for free from the library, could leverage your entirte camera and lens kit, within 30 days.

 

[astroNikon]

^^ I double what Derrel said.
The Lego shot was at Shutter Speed 1/15 which is normally way too slow for kids even standing there. You need to be at, say, 1/200 unless they stand still really well. The low IQ can be attributed to movement.

Focus mode and point I wasn't able to determine. Maybe the girls hair lower than her shoulder or nose (about the same position in relation to depth).

In (A)perture mode you are allowing the camera to select a Shutter Speed, in this case it was too low. (S)hutter Priority may have been better in this situation, or (P)rogram/(M)anual.

Lego Photo
Camera: Nikon D5100
Lens: 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6
Shot at 22 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Not Defined, 1/15 sec, f/4, ISO 400

 

[matrosov]

I think I would spend a few bucks on Michael Freeman's book on digitial photography and composing for digital shooting, or the very-newest Bryan Peterson book. I looked both over a couple minths ago in the library. I'm not try to be a smart-alecy or anything, but spending money on instruction, or on books or videos, brings a LOT MORE return on investment than lenses do.

You have the camera, the 18-55, and thr 35/1.8 DX, and the 55-200 under your belt, so...I guess the 17-50/2.8 would be an okay addition...but the Lego shot of the kids...a speedlight, and more knowlegfe of flash would have helped more than any lens. Same with the shots of Aruba...the improvement should come from your end, not the lens end. I think framing, leveling,light quality/light direction issues are the areas where $18.95 on a book, or getting it for free from the library, could leverage your entirte camera and lens kit, within 30 days.

Thanks Derrel I'm in the middle of creative live classes right now. I will pick up Michael's book as well. My reasoning to get a speedier lens was to crutch the inept shooter to some extent so I can focus on learning one thing at the time. I got to the idea by comparing over few years time what came out in purely exposure and sharpness quality with 1.8f vs 4f lenses. Composition stunk with both . The idea is to sell the kit ones and partially fund purchase of the speedier type.

Just to add and get some more feedback. This is one of the many shots that I poured over that got me thinking about speedier lens.

 

[matrosov]

A 70-200 2.8 is the gold standard for a fast telephoto lens. Nearly every professional portrait or event photographer I've met has one, and uses it more than most of their other lenses combined.

These can range in price from $600 (used sigma 70-200 EX DG HSM II) all the way to $2800 for Nikon's latest, greatest model.

I've owned two of the sigma I mentioned in the past and loved both copies of it. Great lens to learn on and grow with, and sharp enough for most people's needs.

In the middle falls the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC (I just picked up a used one on eBay for $800). You could also get a Nikon 70-200 VR for $900-1100 or a VRII for $1300-1600.

It all depends on what you want to spend. If you need more reach than 200mm however, and want to maintain a fast aperture, price, weight, and size begin to increase exponentially.

Thanks Destin. Are there any issues mounting say 70-200 sigma on a crop sensor body since it is full frame? And also in terms of balance will it sit ok on a smaller D5100 body for offhand shots?

 

[weepete]

Not usually, just you'll have a narrower field of view. Normally you can use full frame lenses on cropped sensor cameras but not the other way round because of the distance between the back of the lens and the sensor.

Usually there are also f4 models of the 70-200mm lenses as well which are a bit cheaper and lighter but still offer good IQ.

Fast lenses can be good, but often you'll want a deeper depth of field which means you'll be shooting at narrower apertures anyway. That being said, fast glass tends to be sharper and better quality.

I'd also echo Derrel's comments though, it looks to me like it's more your photographic knowlege that's causing issues rather than your gear, and you can't really leverage that too much with better lenses.

 

[Destin]

A 70-200 2.8 is the gold standard for a fast telephoto lens. Nearly every professional portrait or event photographer I've met has one, and uses it more than most of their other lenses combined.

These can range in price from $600 (used sigma 70-200 EX DG HSM II) all the way to $2800 for Nikon's latest, greatest model.

I've owned two of the sigma I mentioned in the past and loved both copies of it. Great lens to learn on and grow with, and sharp enough for most people's needs.

In the middle falls the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC (I just picked up a used one on eBay for $800). You could also get a Nikon 70-200 VR for $900-1100 or a VRII for $1300-1600.

It all depends on what you want to spend. If you need more reach than 200mm however, and want to maintain a fast aperture, price, weight, and size begin to increase exponentially.

Thanks Destin. Are there any issues mounting say 70-200 sigma on a crop sensor body since it is full frame? And also in terms of balance will it sit ok on a smaller D5100 body for offhand shots?

The lens will function fine on a crop sensor camera, but will have an effective focal length range of 105-300mm because you have to multiply focal length by 1.5 when mounting on a dx camera body. For my, this is an advantage. It makes the lens much more useful because you get more range out of it than you would on full frame.

In terms of balance, with a d5100 it's definitely going to get a little front heavy. But I had the sigma on my d40 back when I was getting started, which is the same size. Sure it was awkward and looked funny, but it made great photos. If you want a fast telephoto lens, you're not going to find one that balances well or proportionally on your d5100.

Invest in the good glass now. Cameras are getting cheaper every day. You can get a D7100 for $500 or so on eBay if you decide to upgrade and in a year or two the d500 will likely be selling used for around $1000. Good glass will hold its value for years to come and is never a bad investment.

 

[matrosov]

Not usually, just you'll have a narrower field of view. Normally you can use full frame lenses on cropped sensor cameras but not the other way round because of the distance between the back of the lens and the sensor.

Usually there are also f4 models of the 70-200mm lenses as well which are a bit cheaper and lighter but still offer good IQ.

Fast lenses can be good, but often you'll want a deeper depth of field which means you'll be shooting at narrower apertures anyway. That being said, fast glass tends to be sharper and better quality.

I'd also echo Derrel's comments though, it looks to me like it's more your photographic knowlege that's causing issues rather than your gear, and you can't really leverage that too much with better lenses.

Agreed

 

[SquarePeg]

Have to agree that learning and practice will make a much bigger different than more expensive glass. That being said, new glass is always fun!!!!! I had the exact kit that you currently have. I went with the Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 70-300 VC. I like them both a lot, especially the Sigma because it's a great walk-around/vacation lens and also it can focus right up close and can therefore function as a pseudo macro. I've used the 70-300 a bit less than the Sigma but it's great in decent light and the VC feature really helps me to get sharp pics. I bought that one mostly to get shots from the stands of my daughter cheerleading. I did upgrade the 5100 to a used 7100 and that was also a big improvement as far as function goes, although I do miss the movable screen.

 

[matrosov]

Have to agree that learning and practice will make a much bigger different than more expensive glass. That being said, new glass is always fun!!!!! I had the exact kit that you currently have. I went with the Sigma 17-70 and Tamron 70-300 VC. I like them both a lot, especially the Sigma because it's a great walk-around/vacation lens and also it can focus right up close and can therefore function as a pseudo macro. I've used the 70-300 a bit less than the Sigma but it's great in decent light and the VC feature really helps me to get sharp pics. I bought that one mostly to get shots from the stands of my daughter cheerleading. I did upgrade the 5100 to a used 7100 and that was also a big improvement as far as function goes, although I do miss the movable screen.

Thanks SquarePeg, yes the screen that I can close and not worry of bumping, scratching cracking is why I'll run this 5100 into the ground before I even think of upgrading . I'm in the midst of getting intensive crash data download from creative live courses, books forums, applying it is going to be the real challenge . One more follow up question if I decide to go the used route where is the best place to buy them?

 

[Destin]

One more follow up question if I decide to go the used route where is the best place to buy them?

Craigslist is a good place to check. If it's in good condition and functions on your camera, it's likely fine to buy.

More reputable online dealers would be: B&H, KEH, Adorama, or MPB.

Lately I've been watching MPB used gear. Prices are actually pretty reasonable, and they make it easy to trade in your old gear and give fairly reasonable trade values.

 

[SquarePeg]

I have bought used and/or refurbished lenses and bodies from Adorama, B&H, Cameta and Nikon's website. All transactions have been excellent. I have made returns with A and B&H with no issues. One I changed my mind and the other was my mistake on compatibility with my camera body.