Looking to upgrade lenses

[cjwhitby]

Hi all,

I'm looking to upgrade my glass and I am looking to spend around 2500 at the most. I currently own a 50mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8 (DX), and 85mm 1.8 all nikon. I was thinking of maybe getting the 1.4 or 1.2 version of the 50 and then getting a nice zoom. In your opinion(s), how do the sigma and tamrom 24-70 and 70-200 lenses match up with Nikons? I really want to get at least 2 really good lenses with that budget. I'm shooting on a D600.

 

[KmH]

I would recommend:
Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens
This lens has a 1:2 Macro capability from 35 mm to 85 mm. Good used copies of the lens can be had for as little as $350.

and a good used copy of the first version (not the current VR II) of the
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

Since the difference in distance from 35 mm to 50 mm is essentially 1 large step, I would sell the Nikon AF-S DX 35 mm f/1.8 and the Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 and get the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime AF-S Nikkor Lens

 

[cjwhitby]

I just read some reviews for the Nikon 50mm 1.2 and it seems to be a pretty awesome lens. I may be leaning toward that one.

 

[goodguy]

I just read some reviews for the Nikon 50mm 1.2 and it seems to be a pretty awesome lens. I may be leaning toward that one.

Just remember its a manual focus lens, for me that's a deal breaker but for you it might not.

I was in your place only few weeks ago.
I decided I want to get a pro lens from the 24-70mm range and the 3 obvious candidates were Sigma, Tamron and Nikon.
From what I read each has its pro's and con's

Sigma is the cheapest but optically is the inferior (doesn't mean its a bad lens but compare to the other two its the worst).

Tamron in many ways is close to the Nikon optically and has the potential to be close to the Nikon but I read many people got bad examples of this lens so I have a feeling Tamron has QC problems with this model.
It also has VC which the other lenses doesn't have.

Nikon is the best and only main drawback it that its the most expensive.

After a careful thinking I decided to go with the Nikon, amazing sharpness!!!
If I wasn't so careful with Tamron I think I would go with it but I just felt when investing so much money might as well go safe and sure and go with the best, price difference between the Nikon and Tamron for me made it pointless to for with the second best and I think that was the right thing to do for me.

I also wouldn't use a DX lens on a full frame camera, I would sell the 35mm 1.8G and get the Nikon 28mm 1.8G

 

[Coasty]

I just read some reviews for the Nikon 50mm 1.2 and it seems to be a pretty awesome lens. I may be leaning toward that one.

As goodguy mentioned, it is a manual lens. I love it as it is the only 50mm prime I have, but it is a fickle lens. Build quality is top notch, low light is awesome, bokeh is good, DOF at f1.2 is shallow, very shallow. You will be working within millimeters and what looks like a nailed shot on camera, turns out to be just a hair out of focus larger. I usually have it tethered to my laptop so I can see the results, and that means it is not used as much as I would like at f1.2. At f2 and above, no problems, other than manual focus.

 

[jaomul]

I would recommend:
Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens
This lens has a 1:2 Macro capability from 35 mm to 85 mm. Good used copies of the lens can be had for as little as $350.

and a good used copy of the first version (not the current VR II) of the
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

Since the difference in distance from 35 mm to 50 mm is essentially 1 large step, I would sell the Nikon AF-S DX 35 mm f/1.8 and the Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 and get the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime AF-S Nikkor Lens

The original vr supposedly is poor on fullframe. I am open to correction

 

[Braineack]

and a good used copy of the first version (not the current VR II) of the
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

why would you suggest this for an FX body?

 

[yioties]

If i had $2500 I would get the Nikon 70-200mm f4 and the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8. The Nikon is super sharp and $1000 cheaper than the 2.8 version and the Tamron is pretty close to the more expensive Nikon version!

 

[Braineack]

The Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC is roughly $1200 used and $1400 new. The Nikon 70-200 f/4 is roughly $1100 used and $1400 new. How does that save $1000?

 

[MGRPhoto]

I would recommend:
Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens
This lens has a 1:2 Macro capability from 35 mm to 85 mm. Good used copies of the lens can be had for as little as $350.

and a good used copy of the first version (not the current VR II) of the
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

Since the difference in distance from 35 mm to 50 mm is essentially 1 large step, I would sell the Nikon AF-S DX 35 mm f/1.8 and the Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 and get the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime AF-S Nikkor Lens

The original vr supposedly is poor on fullframe. I am open to correction

I used the original VR on a D700 for years. My favorite combo. I've always regretted selling my D700...

 

[TheLost]

I would recommend:
Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens
This lens has a 1:2 Macro capability from 35 mm to 85 mm. Good used copies of the lens can be had for as little as $350.

and a good used copy of the first version (not the current VR II) of the
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

Since the difference in distance from 35 mm to 50 mm is essentially 1 large step, I would sell the Nikon AF-S DX 35 mm f/1.8 and the Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 and get the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime AF-S Nikkor Lens

The original vr supposedly is poor on fullframe. I am open to correction

The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 is a great lens on FX... the VR2 however, is better in the corners.

Car example: Get the Porsche 911 Turbo S since its way better then the standard 911 S (Not everybody can afford the extra $80k for the Turbo.. the standard S is still an amazing car and i would take it any day over a Toyota).

 

[Mach0]

The original vr supposedly is poor on fullframe. I am open to correction

I've used it. It's good. The vr2 is better in the corners. So if you need sharp corners I wouldn't get it

 

[Braineack]

The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 is a great lens on FX... the VR2 however, is better in the corners.

Car example: Get the Porsche 911 Turbo S since its way better then the standard 911 S (Not everybody can afford the extra $80k for the Turbo.. the standard S is still an amazing car and i would take it any day over a Toyota).

I drive a miata with a turbo, of course I like corners.

Here was a good explanation given by Derrel about it (with examples): http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/nikon-lenses/347678-f2-8-zoom-lens-nikon-2.html#post3121808

 

[TheFantasticG]

I drive a miata with a turbo, of course I like corners.

Like corners? Try a good 650cc motorcycle like a ninja or gsxr. You'll love corners so much more... And I say that being a car guy (and now motorbike guy).

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...look at just a few sample photos I made that show OBVIOUS loss of image quality at the corners on 24 MP Nikon FX...with a "good copy" of the 70-200 VR.

70-200 VR I corner issue Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

The original 70-200 VR has good VR, good focusing, and absolutely WONDERFUL HANDLING, due to the unusually skinny barrel, and well-designed focus-lock buttons on the front part of the barrel, but it really was designed to be best on DX-sensor cameras. It delivers very high central resolution on FX, but the corners are...WEAK on 24MP or higher FX Nikons. The older, 12MP FX bodies kind of hid the corner weakness, but now that we have really high-resolution sensors with big MP counts, it's much easier to literally SEE the corner weaknesses. It has fantastic balance on a heavy-ish camera like a D2 or D3 or a Nikon with a dual-battery grip on it, and it is actually a REALLY great lens in terms of handling and fit and feel.

I think the much newer 70-200 f/4 AF-S G might be a lens worth looking into, for its NEW optical design, for the new, high-megapixel cameras we have nowadays, and its smaller size, lighter weight, and better balance with lighter cameras like the D600 and D610 and the D7100 and so on. f/4 is not such a huge limitation now as it was 20 years ago.