Back again... Lens HELP

Heather Koch · Feb 22, 2015

Alright guys, I am yet again...back to see ya'lls opinions on lenses.

I have decided to sell most of my gear except the D7100. I have been successful and all I have left to sell is my 12-24mm.

So heres the low down:
- I have around $1000 to spend, give or take some extra bucks
- I will be getting the Tokina 11-16mm (already decided)
- I need a mid-range lens and a zoom lens to accent that wide angle
- Landscapes, portraits, family, etc, etc.

I'm not sure if I want a prime for my portrait lens or not, because my thinking is I could use the mid-range for more than just portraits (walk-around lens as well). For the zoom, I don't need anything fancy, just using for those occasions where I see an awesome moon or sky, or need a zoom.

My original thoughts were to get the sigma 24-70mm and nikon 85mm with the sigma 70-300mm but now that I have decided to sell my 12-24mm, I don't want to miss out on that extra length. Yes, I am a perfectionist so that 16-24m bothers me ...

My thought process is, I will be doing occasional portraits starting this spring, when the season picks up. I am also starting a custom wood furniture/decor business with my father, so photos of those pieces is necessary for my blog/website (which I'm sure any lens will do for those,but...)

SO all your opinions are appreciated and I hope I am not being "annoying," by continuously changing my mind... HAH.

weepete · Feb 22, 2015

Well I've been pretty happy with the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 OS HSM C. Sounds like that would cover the focal length you need and it's pretty good as a walk around lens.

Heather Koch · Feb 22, 2015

Thank you! Just checked it out and definitely something I can afford and am interested in.

I am open to all options, researching everything!

pixmedic · Feb 22, 2015

since you are getting an 11-16...
tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or sigma 17-70 f/2.8-f/4, and nikon 70-300 VRII

Heather Koch · Feb 22, 2015

I think you are getting somewhere! ^

Heather Koch · Feb 23, 2015

Anyone else have any recommendations?

Mr.Photo · Feb 23, 2015

I own the Tamron 17-50 2.8, and it is a wonderful lens. As far as having a long zoom lens another option aside from the Nikon is the Tamron 70-300 VC. I own this lens as well, and it actually is a bit sharper wide open between 200-300mm than the Nikon. Another bonus is that it is between $100-150 cheaper than the Nikon (New). If buying used you can get the Tamron for around $275-300 where as the Nikon tends to retain a bit higher resale at around $350-400 or so.

I tested both the Nikon and Tamron 70-300's side by side before buying, and as I mentioned above the Tamron is sharper wide open on the long end, and the VC on the Tamron is actually better than the Nikon by at least a stop. I can consistently get sharp shots at 300mm in the 1/125 range, and have gone as low as 1/60 with fairly good results.

Heather Koch · Feb 24, 2015

Thank you very much!! Now I have to decide between the Nikon, Sigma or Tamron 70-300mm...

Derrel · Feb 24, 2015

An 11mm-16mm zoom seems like a (pardon my honestly) really dumb idea to me....I have NO idea why the lens maker went with such a narrow, restrictive zoom ratio...the lens has no "top end"...which makes it a lens that must frequently be switched out for something just a little bit wider; a 10-22 or 12-24mm option seems much,much smarter, and more useful.

I dunno...ultra-wide-angle pictures tend to look so boring and "small and faraway" to me...not a fan.

I think lenses that have a bit more "top end" make much more sense. I'd look at Sigma and Tokina's other options in the wide zoom category. As far as other zooms, there is usefulness, versus aperture, and small, slow-aperture, light weight and affordable vs. fast aperture and larger,heavier,and expensive. Not sure what lens focal lengths YOU like to use.... 17mm-50mm f/2.8 seems like a sweet spot, since all the camera makers and most of the lens makers offer an optical with those same specs or very close.

I think on DX, an 85mm prime lens is too narrow for much use, especially indoors in normal-sized rooms. As a longer-reach, light, SUPER-sharp telephoto, the 85/1.8 G series is impossible to bat for price/performance/weight, but again, it's a bit too long for many situations unless the distances are longer.

Mr.Photo · Feb 24, 2015

The Sigma 70-300 is a significantly older design than either the Nikon or Tamron 70-300's. Also it does not provide any type of stabilization like the other two lenses. If you can spring for it go for either the Tamron or Nikon.

I actually own the older Quantaray branded copy of the Sigma lens. It's not too bad for the price, but compared to my Tamron it is a night and day difference.

Heather Koch · Feb 24, 2015

Mr.Photo said:
The Sigma 70-300 is a significantly older design than either the Nikon or Tamron 70-300's. Also it does not provide any type of stabilization like the other two lenses. If you can spring for it go for either the Tamron or Nikon.

I actually own the older Quantaray branded copy of the Sigma lens. It's not too bad for the price, but compared to my Tamron it is a night and day difference.

I think what has me going "AHH" is the macro part of the sigma, which is silly. But I think I am leaning towards the Tamron based on yours and others reviews.

Derrel, I appreciate your honesty. You would recommend the 17-50 over the 17-70?

Derrel · Feb 24, 2015

I was thinking of the Tamron 17-50/2.8, but the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8~4 might be alright too. I don't know enough about the Sigma 17-70 to say one way or another....but the added 20mm on the top end would be handy.

Mr.Photo · Feb 24, 2015

Heather Koch said:
I think what has me going "AHH" is the macro part of the sigma, which is silly. But I think I am leaning towards the Tamron based on yours and others reviews.

The "Macro" feature of this lens is nothing more than a switch that lets you get a bit closer focusing distance when using the lens between 200-300mm. If you want true macro capability get a set of extension tubes, or a dedicated macro lens. I can take photo's using my Tamron 70-300 VC then crop the image and still end up with better image quality than I would using the Sigma. I've done some brief brush up research regarding the Sigma lens today and it's a stark reminder just how poor this outdated lens really is compared to the Tamron and Nikon offerings.

All 4 of these shot's where captured using my Tamron 70-300 VC on my D7000.

Heather Koch · Feb 24, 2015

Mr.Photo said:
Heather Koch said:

I think what has me going "AHH" is the macro part of the sigma, which is silly. But I think I am leaning towards the Tamron based on yours and others reviews.

Click to expand...

The "Macro" feature of this lens is nothing more than a switch that lets you get a bit closer focusing distance when using the lens between 200-300mm. If you want true macro capability get a set of extension tubes, or a dedicated macro lens. I can take photo's using my Tamron 70-300 VC then crop the image and still end up with better image quality than I would using the Sigma. I've done some brief brush up research regarding the Sigma lens today and it's a stark reminder just how poor this outdated lens really is compared to the Tamron and Nikon offerings.

All 4 of these shot's where captured using my Tamron 70-300 VC on my D7000.

Yes I was naive lol... Thank you! I think the Tamron is the one for me at this time. Thank you! I was planning on getting a 2x extension tube as well.

Mr.Photo · Feb 25, 2015

Heather Koch said:
Yes I was naive lol... Thank you! I think the Tamron is the one for me at this time. Thank you! I was planning on getting a 2x extension tube as well.

Don't confuse extension tubes with teleconverters. Teleconverters have lenses in them which magnify the lens they are attached to by a set amount hence the number 1x, 2x etc. An extension tube is simply a hollow tube that moves the rear lens element further away from the sensor shifting the entire focus range of the lens allowing you to move closer to the object and be able to bring it in to focus.