Lens over body...?

[n.hubb22]

In a previous post, I mentioned I am looking to upgrade my body from a D3000, to a D7000. I was initially going to get the body, and then a 50mm f/1.4 nikkor lens to do concert stuff.

After thinking about it for a day or two, I am thinking that I may go for a nice lens prior to getting the body, that way once I do get the new body, I will already have some real nice glass to go with it.

I have been drooling over a wide angle for some time now. After thinking about it, I do mostly landscape and concert stuff now and a wide angle would be a good fit for me.

Now it comes down to which one? I have been thinking of going with a Tonika due to prices. I've read a lot of reviews on them too and they seem to be pretty much all satisfactory.

I've been looking at the Tokina 11mm - 16mm F/2.8 ATX Pro DX.

I would expect it to do well in low light situations with live concerts and landscape as well..


THoughts?

 

[djacobox372]

Lenses are a better investment then bodies, as they dont drop in value as fast. With a body, it u wit a while youll end up with something significantly cheaper, or better--thats not as true with lenses.

As for the lens: id recommend the newer 50mm f1.8g over the more expensive f1.4; as the f1.8 is sharper and has better contrast at f2 and below.

 

[analog.universe]

I have one, and it's nice! Quite sharp, bit of CA, but otherwise really well corrected. f/2.8 is generally not what I think of as a low light lens however. The 50 1.4 you mentioned is a full 4 times brighter... that's ISO 1600 vs. ISO 6400 for the same shot. Before I picked up my 1.4 I shot a concert with a 2.0 and felt restricted.. That being said, the D7000 is great at high ISO... so you'll have to weigh your priorities. The Tokina's a great landscape lens though, mine gets a lot of use.

 

[n.hubb22]

you think a 35mm f1.4 or f1.8 would be better for concert shots? I feel like the 50mm would make you feel a little restricted in small venues with small stages....

 

[2WheelPhoto]

My Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 mated with my fairly low-light capable D7000 has been wonderful in tight dark places

 

[analog.universe]

you think a 35mm f1.4 or f1.8 would be better for concert shots? I feel like the 50mm would make you feel a little restricted in small venues with small stages....

That would be my preference... from what I understand Nikon has a really nice 35mm 1.8 at a reasonable price. Any 35mm 1.4 will be much more costly unfortunately.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

you think a 35mm f1.4 or f1.8 would be better for concert shots? I feel like the 50mm would make you feel a little restricted in small venues with small stages....

That would be my preference... from what I understand Nikon has a really nice 35mm 1.8 at a reasonable price. Any 35mm 1.4 will be much more costly unfortunately.

I sold mine on CL due to chromatic aberations.

 

[analog.universe]

Scratch that then

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Scratch that then

 

[n.hubb22]

you think a 35mm f1.4 or f1.8 would be better for concert shots? I feel like the 50mm would make you feel a little restricted in small venues with small stages....

That would be my preference... from what I understand Nikon has a really nice 35mm 1.8 at a reasonable price. Any 35mm 1.4 will be much more costly unfortunately.

I sold mine on CL due to chromatic aberations.

you sold your 1.8 or your 1.4??

 

[n.hubb22]

Am I wrong when I say this (and please let me know if i am), but does the 35mm 1.8G seem like a cheap or low end lens since it's only 200.00!?!

 

[analog.universe]

Am I wrong when I say this (and please let me know if i am), but does the 35mm 1.8G seem like a cheap or low end lens since it's only 200.00!?!

I think that's what 2Wheel was getting at.. I personally don't have experience with the Nikon lens lineup.

 

[manaheim]

Like ALL questions that ask "should I buy X or Y" the answer is: it depends.

1. It depends on your budget.
2. It depends on your needs.
3. It depends on what you currently have.

For example, at one time I had a D100 and a 10-20mm decent lens and a 24-100 piece of crap lens. i was shooting commercial real estate photography. I could really have used a 24-70 2.8 for the work as the 24-100 was absolutely killing me with quality issues. However, the graphic designers at my clients were complaining about my low-res images, and I only had about $1800 available to spend. I chose to buy a D300. A new body was the right choice at the time.

Later on I was really starting to want better low-light performance and better quality on my colors and dynamic range. At the same time, I was needing a longer focal length lens to grab detailed shots on my buildings and get pictures of my daughter at her events. I debated purchasing a D700 or a 70-200 2.8 VR2. I had about $2500 to spend. I wound up getting the 70-200 2.8 because if I got the D700 I would only have ONE full frame lens to use with it, and the 24-70 would wind up being too wide for most of the things I did. In addition the D700 was getting a bit long in the tooth and might be replaced in the near future. If I got the 70-200 I would have an extra FF lens, and would have some time to wait out Nikon to see what they would replace the body with.

There

are

no

simple

answers.

You have to try to make a decision that makes sense for you based upon your circumstances.

 

[n.hubb22]

Like ALL questions that ask "should I buy X or Y" the answer is: it depends.

1. It depends on your budget.
2. It depends on your needs.
3. It depends on what you currently have.

For example, at one time I had a D100 and a 10-20mm decent lens and a 24-100 piece of crap lens. i was shooting commercial real estate photography. I could really have used a 24-70 2.8 for the work as the 24-100 was absolutely killing me with quality issues. However, the graphic designers at my clients were complaining about my low-res images, and I only had about $1800 available to spend. I chose to buy a D300. A new body was the right choice at the time.

Later on I was really starting to want better low-light performance and better quality on my colors and dynamic range. At the same time, I was needing a longer focal length lens to grab detailed shots on my buildings and get pictures of my daughter at her events. I debated purchasing a D700 or a 70-200 2.8 VR2. I had about $2500 to spend. I wound up getting the 70-200 2.8 because if I got the D700 I would only have ONE full frame lens to use with it, and the 24-70 would wind up being too wide for most of the things I did. In addition the D700 was getting a bit long in the tooth and might be replaced in the near future. If I got the 70-200 I would have an extra FF lens, and would have some time to wait out Nikon to see what they would replace the body with.

There

are

no

simple

answers.

You have to try to make a decision that makes sense for you based upon your circumstances.

First off, thank you for the reply. Appreciated.

Although I am not looking for someone to tell me which lens to buy. I am simply asking for input from others who have used/own these lenses, or simply hearsay is welcomed prior to any purchase. I am weighing my options and figuring what will work with my budget & shooting style.

cheers.