Lens help for D750, Tamron, Sigma Art series, Nikon? -

[vipgraphx]

Hello fellow TPF members. Its been a while since I posted so I hope I can get some advice on some lens choices.

I am looking to buy a new lens and although I do like the ultra wide angle lenses I am not sure If I really need to go that rout this time but , with some of the newer lenses out I feel like I can get both in one lens.

Here are the lenses I am interested in

Tamron 15-30 F2.8

Tokina 16-28 F2.8

Nikon 20mm F1.8g

Nikon 16-35 F4

Sigma 20mm F1.4 art series

Sigma 24.35 F2 Art series

I only have the nikon 50 1.8 paired with a D750. I used to have the Nion 14-24 but sold it a while back. I have kinda moved from landscapes and tons of HDR to portraits. I know that wide angle lenses are not Ideal for portraits but, I do enjoy the perspective it gives and thus why I am thinking one of the newer wide angle zooms may work for me so I can do both. I will be getting the Sigma 85 1.4 art lens when its available but for now I am looking into lenses above. I was at Disneyland last week with my nikon d750 and 50mm lens and I just could not get many shots I wanted waiting in line or other areas since it was so crowded. I did not have the room to move back enough for to use my camera so I used my iPhone 7 plus most of the time. Which brought me to the question I really need a wider lens that I can used for landscapes, street photography, portraits and indoor family parties.

Any advice would be helpful. I know ultimately its my decision but, I like to hear other opinions as sometimes they make a lot of sense and help to think of things in different ways.

Cheers!

 

[JohnnyWrench]

Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. 24 on a full frame camera is pretty wide. I have the Nikon 16-35 f/4 and since getting the Tamron I never use it any more as I almost never need wider than 24mm. And since you like to shoot portraits, the 70mm long end is very serviceable for portraits in the absence of something longer.

 

[PaulWog]

I have the Tamron 15-30. Only buy it if you will use f2.8, or absolutely need corner-to-corner sharpness and low distortion. That all sounds like awesome features, but most people don't really use those features. If you're shooting buildings a lot with straight lines, then that's a fair reason right there. The downsides to this lens seem minor, but they can be fairly substantial: The lens is large, heavy, and requires a special filter system to attach filters (expensive). The external filter system is clumsy and prone to scratches (large square filters are a paaaain to carry around, mount, and take off again).

The Tokina 16-28 would have the same downsides to the Tamron 15-30, but in addition to that it's less sharp, prone to flare, and has worse color rendition. It's cheaper & represents great value, but if you are getting filters, the Nikon 16-35 will be the same price in the end (It requires an external filter system too).

I would recommend you look at either the Tamron 15-30, or Nikon 16-35... if you need ultrawide.

The 24-35 is fairly pointless compared to a 24-70, unless if you're doing VERY specialized work... and you wouldn't be asking or posting this thread if you needed it.

 

[goodguy]

Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC. 24 on a full frame camera is pretty wide. I have the Nikon 16-35 f/4 and since getting the Tamron I never use it any more as I almost never need wider than 24mm. And since you like to shoot portraits, the 70mm long end is very serviceable for portraits in the absence of something longer.

Agreed, I use my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G as my most used lens.
On 24mm its wide enough for landscape shots and if you really push it on 70mm you can use it for portrait.
I also have a wide lens Sigma 12-24mm II which is not too expensive and is a very sharp lens, it is slow but that perfectly ok as my Nikon D750 has good enough low light performance if I need to push the ISO

 

[vipgraphx]

So after I posted this thread I continued to research and brainstorm asking myself what is it that I really that I need. For starters I have been using the 50mm lens for quite some time now and I know that I have had more times needing a wider lens than a more zoomed lens. I am not the typical photographer that likes to stay in the rules to whats is a true portrait lens. There are some photographers I follow that only use fish eyes and ultra wide lenses for their portrait work and man I dig it!!!

With that said in some of my research there is this guy on you tube which I will link
Theoria Apophasis




He talks about how Sigma is junk and even with the A on the lens (art series) that it doesn't mean squat and they are junk. He said that they are not made good and they won't last like Nikon glass or canon. He did speak highly of tamron. Now I know this is one guys opinion and perhaps he is on this forum but, if Sigma has a high return rate and repair rate to spend the money for those lenses makes me reconsider if I want to go the sigma rout but, man that new 85 1.4 art series lens is something I already put money aside and looks impressive but, if it won't hold up then why by it.

Can anyone add to this Sigma being junk and not lasting more than 10 years?

If this is the case I have just narrowed my decision down and may pick up the tamron 15-30.

 

[Advanced Photo]

I have always liked the image that a Nikkor gives over 3rd party lenses, but sometimes cost is a more important factor than quality. When I can't afford the Nikkor lens I want, I wait and save up more but some like instant gratification. It depends on your budget and needs.

 

[vipgraphx]

I have always liked the image that a Nikkor gives over 3rd party lenses, but sometimes cost is a more important factor than quality. When I can't afford the Nikkor lens I want, I wait and save up more but some like instant gratification. It depends on your budget and needs.

It's not the instant gratification for me its more about what is going to get a lot of camera time and what I need. I don't mind dropping money on a lens that is quality and a lens I will use a lot. Whether it's $500 or $2300 if I use it then it's worth it. If I don't then no matter the cost it's a poor choice.

I guess my biggest issue is trying to figure out what focal length I will use the most and also a lens that is versatile enough to do both landscapes and portrait that I can also take on vacation. Or I need to make a decision to just do primes

 

[PaulWog]

Any YouTuber who obsesses over camera gear needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

They overlook a lot of things. Especially that one guy you linked to... he has mental health issues.

 

[nerwin]

Any YouTuber who obsesses over camera gear needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

They overlook a lot of things. Especially that one guy you linked to... he has mental health issues.

Yeah people shouldn't believe everything he says.

 

[nerwin]

Well I can only speak for the Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR.

I've had for a couple months now and I'm quite happy with it. The lens is a great size, its not too heavy or too chunky which makes it very comfortable to use and handle. It has filter threads so if you wanted to attach filters to the front for landscapes, it's easy peasy. It also focuses pretty close at 35mm (heck, even at 16mm) and the out of the focus areas are quite pleasing when you need it. I've sort of have been using it as a general photography lens too.