A Do-All lens or a mixed bag?

[Santa Gertrudis]

For the record the sigma 70-200 is noticably soft until around f/4-5.6 so although its faster dont expect the shots to look much better

Hmmmm. I've shot with one before, and it didn't seem too bad. I didn't look into the shots a whole whole lot thought however.

 

[JimmyO]

For the record the sigma 70-200 is noticably soft until around f/4-5.6 so although its faster dont expect the shots to look much better

Indeed. Faster doesn't mean its going to produce better optical images. You're 18-200mm is pretty respected in the all purpose category for its optical ability.

yupyup

We all understand the undeniable desire to upgrade equipment, but this might be one of those times when just buying the best will get you no where.

f/2.8 is fast, but f/1.8 is really fast. The only reason to upgrade is if you NEED to shoot in low light situations without flash, or you need a different focal length. I spent years owning a crapload of lenses and carrying them everywhere thinking i would never be without what i need. Eventually i realized it was dumb so i sold everything and started fresh with just what i needed.

Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye (I shoot bmx 50% of the time)
Nikkor 35mm 1.8 (Low light/walk around)
Tokina 50-135mm (portraits, sports, nature)

So for me 3 lenses can cover pretty much everything.

 

[Santa Gertrudis]

The 18-200 does everything I need 90% of the time. I just need to scratch that itch to buy something new! :lmao: Sounds like the 35mm will be it!

The only thing is, I feel like I wont use it much due to the fixed length. Has this ever been true for you?

 

[iAstonish]

The 18-200 does everything I need 90% of the time. I just need to scratch that itch to buy something new! :lmao: Sounds like the 35mm will be it!

The only thing is, I feel like I wont use it much due to the fixed length. Has this ever been true for you?

Its more about situation than length. If you were buying a lens for the length you wouldn't be buying many lenses considering how much range the 18-200mm covers.

 

[JimmyO]

The 18-200 does everything I need 90% of the time. I just need to scratch that itch to buy something new! :lmao: Sounds like the 35mm will be it!

The only thing is, I feel like I wont use it much due to the fixed length. Has this ever been true for you?

I used to shoot with the 50mm 1.4. It was an amazing lens but i didnt like the range. It was to wide for most portraiture i do, but to long for a walk around lens. The reason 50mm becamse such a famous length is becuase it seems perfect on a film camera. The 35mm is the 50mm equivalent on a DX camera and i love it for walk around and close range full body portraits like these:

 

[Santa Gertrudis]

Alright, I'm starting to see the usefulness. Thanks for all the input, guys. It really helps!

 

[mrmacedonian]

The only two lenses I own are a 50mm and a 18-270mm from Tamron.

With that in mind, I agree with the above poster(s) that the 50mm on a crop feels to tight for most walk-around situations. I've been doing some portrait shots since I got my 50mm and with it's 80mm equivalence on a 1.6x Canon 50D its proven to be a pretty good portrait lens. Seeing the limitations it has indoors I believe my next purchase will be the 24mm I was considering or perhaps the 35mm.. honestly at this point I think you and I (and anyone else considering lenses) would do well to find a gear-rental place and rent it for 7-10days. The prices are generally reasonable enough (it was 27$ for 10days for the 50mm) and I'd rather spend 20-30$ than the hundreds the wrong lens (for your needs) lens will cost you.

 

[Village Idiot]

What do you prefer? Obviously a do-all is more convenient, but is it worth it? Is swapping lenses all the time worth it? I've got the Nikon 18-200 VRII right now and the versatility is great, but I'm considering covering that focal range with a few lenses instead. Thinking about these:

Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

What are your thoughts?

Super zooms usually have soft spots at some point in their zoom range and variable apertures suck. I use Canon's 17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 as my zoom lenses. I couldn't live with a variable aperture lens at this point and I want better image quality than one could deliver.

Well seeing as you shoot a d5000 your pretty limited. FOR SURE grab the 35mm 1.8, its an amazing lens and a hell of a bargain.

When i shot a D40 i shot with a sigma 10-20,18-50, and 70-200 and slowly each of them turned out to be **** =[. So my recomendation is to stay away from Sigma.

But a simple 35mm prime + 18-200 should cover tons and tons of shots.

I've used the Sigma 10-20 on a 30D quite a few times and always felt it was a great lens.

 

[rocdoc]

The more you shoot primes the more you will have trouble moving back to zooms. I found the quality to be just unmatched. Depends what you are looking for. I don't make money with photography, so I very much enjoy walking around with my 35mm, and if I miss the occasional shot due to lack of range, oh well, it happens... When I do get a good shot the sharpness, bokeh, focus and colors are all visibly better than with the zooms. I have a 35 mm and a 50 mm on a Nikon DX body, so 52 and 75 mm equivalents, and I do most of my shooting with these. Since you already have the long zoom for situations when you MUST cover everything, you should be good with something similar. You can add a wide prime, but those are expensive by comparison, and you may be better off relying on the wide end of the 18-200.

 

[JimmyO]

What do you prefer? Obviously a do-all is more convenient, but is it worth it? Is swapping lenses all the time worth it? I've got the Nikon 18-200 VRII right now and the versatility is great, but I'm considering covering that focal range with a few lenses instead. Thinking about these:

Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

What are your thoughts?

Super zooms usually have soft spots at some point in their zoom range and variable apertures suck. I use Canon's 17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 as my zoom lenses. I couldn't live with a variable aperture lens at this point and I want better image quality than one could deliver.

Well seeing as you shoot a d5000 your pretty limited. FOR SURE grab the 35mm 1.8, its an amazing lens and a hell of a bargain.

When i shot a D40 i shot with a sigma 10-20,18-50, and 70-200 and slowly each of them turned out to be **** =[. So my recomendation is to stay away from Sigma.

But a simple 35mm prime + 18-200 should cover tons and tons of shots.

I've used the Sigma 10-20 on a 30D quite a few times and always felt it was a great lens.

10-20's built was solid but it ended up having AF issues.

 

[PhotoXopher]

I tried primes, liked them and didn't like them. Sure, they're nice but they are limited so I went with fast zooms instead.

About the only prime I think I might like to get at this point is an 85mm, I find I need to get too close with a 50 or especially a 35.

 

[Sirashley]

Well, I would suggest this... Keep the 18-200mm... Then buy the 10-20mm sigma, then buy a 200-400mm... THat's what I did and its worked out well for me The sigma 10-20 is my favorite lense!!!