Wide vs. Normal Zooms - There can only be one!

[Sn00bies]

This may seem like a strictly personal dilemma, but I'm looking for opinions to help me decide because I haven't been able to come to a conclusion.

I currently own a Sigma 10-20, Nikon 50 1.8, and Nikon 55-200. I had the kit 18-55 that came with my D40X, but I ended up selling it with the body. Now I find myself without what seems to be a primary lens for many.

I just purchased the 10-20 a month ago, but with the arrival of my new daughter I am beginning to wonder if I should have invested in a good 2.8 normal zoom. I do love to shoot landscape, and love having wide angle, but I wonder if a 17-18mm on the short end of a normal zoom would serve me well for most purposes.

When I think about selling the sigma, I wonder if having a normal zoom will really be worth losing wide angle, considering the other two lenses I have. Granted the 55-200 isn't of amazing quality, and the 50mm is prime, so I would have a high quality zoom in a shorter lens, but I just can't say for sure what would be the better option. Switching around $500 like I change my underwear (don't worry I change them more often than monthly) isn't something I want to do unless I know it's for good.

Could anyone share some thoughts on this? I realize to some this may be chump change, but it's a hefty decision for my pocketbook, otherwise I'd have both! Thanks!

 

[Josh66]

What you have now looks like it covers a pretty good range.

I personally wouldn't worry about the gap between 20mm & 50mm...

I shoot Canon, so I don't really know how good thoses lenses are, but the range looks nice.

 

[Sn00bies]

You're all about primes if I remember right...? What do you do in the case of photographing a moving object with a prime lens? It seems too difficult to always be running around trying to shoot a picture with a prime when you could just use a zoom. I'm curious of your techniques... or do you break down and use zooms as well? I was under the impression that you only use primes.

 

[PhotoXopher]

My lens lineup at the moment:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 35-70 f/2.8
Sigma 18-250 f/3.5-6.3

I really don't find myself looking for more at the moment. With 3 little kids ages 1-6 I have pretty much everything covered with the 35-70 f/2.8 for day to day stuff, the 50mm for the occasional lucky portrait shot and the 18-250 for packing light on trips to the zoo, little league, etc.

 

[Josh66]

You're all about primes if I remember right...?

You remember right.

What do you do in the case of photographing a moving object with a prime lens? It seems too difficult to always be running around trying to shoot a picture with a prime when you could just use a zoom. I'm curious of your techniques... or do you break down and use zooms as well? I was under the impression that you only use primes.

I only use one zoom - 70-200 f/ 4 L.

Subject moving around a lot? 3 things you can do-

1 Predict where the subject will be when you take the shot.

2 AF - Servo mode will follow the subject.

3 High shutter speed (flash might be required - depending on the light). Freeze the subject.

You could also focus manually, but I find AF faster most of the time.

It sounds like you're more concerned with filling the frame than focusing. Focusing isn't any harder with a prime than it is with a zoom. To get the composition you want, you just have to be in the right place.

 

[Bigpopa]

I run my Tamron 28-75 2.8 most of the time and love it ....I think this would be a good choice for you............

 

[Dao]

If you do not mind using a DX lens, the focal length range between 17mm to 55mm is pretty good for general type walk around shots.

Any of those F/2.8 lenses from Tamron, Sigma and Nikon should be pretty decent.

And my Tamron 17-50mm lens is on my camera most of the time. Of course, I do have 4 fast prime lenses and a telephoto zoom lens.

 

[JerryPH]

Sigma 18-50 DC EX HSM F/2.8 macro is my suggestion to you. On my D200, that was the most often lens I used over any of my other ones, and I had a good selection to choose from too.

 

[manaheim]

Somewhere in the 18-70 range would be a all purpose workhorse. The wide angle isn't the best lens to be taking baby pictures with as to get the baby in the shot and taking up the frame you will necessarily need to get really close to her/him which would result in bad effects.

The 50mm will be AMAZING... but eventually the baby will start to move and you'll find you're going to need to run around a lot to get those shots.

The 10-20 is a great lens, but whether or not you really need it depends very much on your shooting style. I use mine quite a bit, so I would never part with it. But that's me and my style.

 

[bigtwinky]

I run my Tamron 28-75 2.8 most of the time and love it ....I think this would be a good choice for you............

Same here.

I went with a fast zoom from a 3rd party (Tamron) instead of the more expensive Canon version. The Canon version is great, never read up on the Nikon version

BH has it for $399, with a $10 mail in rebate. Not a bank breaker, great lens. My only issue is that sometimes, the 28mm is not wide enough. I chose to not go wide enough and get the 75mm on the long vs going with a 17-50 and being wide enough but not long enough.

Tamron | 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) | AF09NII-700

If you search these forums, there are a bunch of topics on the lens, most with great reviews

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/418-tamron_2875_28_5d

 

[itznfb]

why not just pick up a 18-55mm non-VR. doesn't really seem like you need this lens in your arsenal except for around the house type shots. no need to drop hundreds on it when the high quality of the 10-20 you currently have seems like it will serve you better.

 

[Sn00bies]

why not just pick up a 18-55mm non-VR. doesn't really seem like you need this lens in your arsenal except for around the house type shots. no need to drop hundreds on it when the high quality of the 10-20 you currently have seems like it will serve you better.

Well that's just it, overall I don't think the 10-20 will serve me better per se. For me it seems to be more of a specialty lens, to fit only a handful of situations. On the other hand, with a normal zoom I can use it in hundreds of different applications. I've made do with my 50mm and 55-200 ever since I got rid of my 18-55 non VR, simply out of necessity, however that's not to say that a new 2.8 normal zoom would be the least used lens in my collection, rather likely on the contrary. My 50mm would probably come out rarely, only with still subjects, and my 55-200 only used on the longest end.

In a nutshell, I'm a high quality freak when budget allows - and if I trade in the Sigma, the budget will allow. The main issue I have is that all of the "good quality" 2.8 lenses either start at too long a focal length, or end too short. For instance, Tamron's 28-75, which I'm sure is a great lens, would be even better (for my preferences anyway) if it were 18-75, much like their 17-50 would entice me more if it were 17-80. Is there any recommended choice among good 2.8 lenses that is in the 17,18-80ish range? I think I would feel much more comfortable giving up the Sigma, knowing that I'd at least have a 17-18mm range with which I could get some sort of wide angle shots, even if I had to stitch two together.

 

[icassell]

My favorite walk-around lens (my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8) has been in the shop for 3 weeks (don't ask :greenpbl , so I have been forced to use only my Sigma 10-20 or my Canon 50mm f1.8. I miss the Tamron for the convenience more than for the focal length, but have been doing just fine without it and am learning to enjoy the prime. I just wish I had a prime in the 28mm range (Canon 30D crop-sensor) to round it out.

 

[Dwig]

What you have now looks like it covers a pretty good range...

Seconded...

Back in my old film days, my common kit was 20, 35, 105 (13, 23, 70 in DX terms). I rarely used or wanted anything else (I also had a 55 Micro and a 300 for use when the task required them). Today I shoot with the equivalent, in DX terms, of a 16-55 and rarely find myself using anything other than the long and short ends and occasionally want more of either.

In terms of focal lengths covered, I could be happy with your kit. The only thing missing would be speed at the wider end of "normal". The 20mm long end of the wide zoom is a perfectly fine FL for general use, but the f/5.6 can be a bit limiting. If you can add a faster lens in the gap I'd suggest you do it. If its a case of losing the 10-20 to get speed in the middle I wouldn't unless it was at less as wide as a 16mm (my preference).

 

[Derrel]

It looks like you made a mistake in getting rid of the 18-55. A good solution would be to look for the 18-70, which was a popular kit lens for the D70s (the follow-up to the D70). The biggest problem however with the slower-aperture kit lenses is that they do not allow you a wide enough aperture to really get good foreground/background separation, nor do they allow you to shoot indoors without flash under most conditions. Being "stuck" with an f/5.6 telephoto setting is the main disadvantage of the slower, f/3.5~5.6 kit lenses, so you might have to bite the bullet and buy the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 to replace the kit lens you sold, but with a much more-versatile and capable lens that will allow you to shoot without flash under more situations.

A 10-20 is just not a good lens for a lot of social photography; you need a lens that can span wide-angle to at least normal, and preferrably short tele in one lens, right? Well, you have 18-50 f/2.8 and 28-75 f/2.8 aftermarket lenses from Sigma and Tamron which are both pretty good quality performers; the real problem lies in your desires versus what is actually on the market for crop-frame Nikon cameras. The lens you would LIKE simply doesn't exist, like an 18-70mm f/2.8; you can have 18-70, there are a zillion 18-70 kit Nikkors out there, but Nikon does not offer f/2.8 aperture across that span of focal lengths-- if they did, it would probably retail for $1499.

"You can't have your aperture and zoom range and eat it too". Isn't that the famous quote? Take heart though--Thom Hogan expects more new Nikon lens announcements before the end of this year. Otherwise, maybe you could decide which end of the zoom range you need the most,and select from one of the many older Nikon zooms, like the low-priced 28-80mm AF-D plastic mount--which was a surprisingly SHARP and good-performing lens, available now for very,very little money. I have one among my many lenses, and it's actually quite a good optical performer. I bought a refurbished model back in 2001 or so for $59 at a Nikon Days event. Of course this is an f/3.5~5.6 lens, so you're back to using bounce flash indoors for photos of the wife and new baby...

Nikon 28-80mm AF-D