Narrowed Down to 2 Lens Choices, Please Help!

PatrickCheung

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
319
Reaction score
8
Location
Markham, ON
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
doubt this thread is gonna get many replies or views, but here goes:

I've been looking at lenses to replace/add on to my focal range. i currently only own my D60's Kit Lens (18-55mm). I really like getting close to my subjects to shoot them, and I'm not too keen on switching and carrying lenses yet. Ironically, i'm looking for a lens with decent image quality, as in minimal distortion for it's range, minimal CA, and preferably sharp images (sharper than the 18-55 kit lens at least) I've narrowed my choices to:

Nikon's 55-200mm F4-5.6 VR ($316 after tax)
[FONT=&quot]NIKON ZOOM LENS AFS 55-200MM F4-5.6 DX VR IF-ED [/FONT]
Pros:
- VR
- cheap
- paired with my kit lens it's a nice 18-200 range
Cons:
- rather slow
- minimum focus distance is apparently at around .95m... which is horribly far
- if i wanna go past 55mm i need to switch lenses

Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 ($396 after tax)
[FONT=&quot]Aden Camera [/FONT]
Pros:
- good reach (18-250)
- Photozone reviews seem to say this lens is better in IQ than 55-200mm
- shorter minimum focusing distance than the 55-200mm
- amazing price....
Cons:
- NO VR... D: (i can only imagine how badly this will affect me when i shoot at the telephoto end of the lens)
- slow...
- NO VR
- clearer out of focus area in telephoto end
- NO VR
- did i mention NO FRICKEN VR?!

anyway.... i'm kinda stuck here. the only thing really holding me back from the 55-200 is the 1meter minimum focus distance (since i like to get close to my subjects)... and the only thing holding me back from the 18-250 is the lack of VR...

is VR really that important (yes i do ask stupid questions)?

if anyone's got any other recommendations please feel free to add.

hopefully i'll get replies from more people (thanks PatrickHMS for replying to my other post)
 
is VR really that important (yes i do ask stupid questions)?
NO it isn't important but it is a nice feature. With VR (IS on Canon) lens will look for motion to freeze it. IF it doesn't exist it might create it. Its actually really cool to lock the focus, recompose and watching how lens starts "moving" around :)
My main 28-105 horsy doesn't have VR and I'm not missing it. Product photogs, say that shooting on tripod and/or with flash you should turn VR/IS off for reasons above.

I used to own Tamron 18-200 3.5-6.3 and found it to be slow - the lens took FOREVER to focus indoors. 6.3 didn't bother me much since I rarely needed to shoot at that aperture - f/8-11 is my average range. By default, lots (not all) Nikon gear are soft, thus you just boost up the sharpness a drop.
Look into older nikon glass. It might be cheaper but it won't have VR :)
good luck
 
Why buy new at new prices?

You can get a Nikon 55-200mm VR lens from CL or eBay for around $175.00 - $200.00.

true. there was a camera shop that was selling atleast 50 or so of these lenses that had been used as demo models and refurbished by nikon and the average range for them was about $130 to $180. Almost bought one myself.
 
I'd stay away from the Tamron and Sigma "super zooms". They are versatile and produce OK images, but the sharpness just isn't there. If you're serious about getting great images, break your lens range into shorter zooms and just buy them over time. You won't regret it.
 
I agree with pug33, I have found that to be best. BTW I am a Nikon guy and I believe in the gear.
 
Me too, don't care for the "super zooms", but I LOVE my Sigma 18-50mm constant 2.8 HSM Macro lens.

If one doesn't like lens changes, they can adapt their use of DSLR to deal with that, or just get a P&S.

No one, or even two lenses will do it all without some kind of trade-off.
 
Last edited:
As PatrrickHMS stated, there is not one magic lens, and if you are getting buy for now I say stay and save for "the" lens you really want. With the Holidays coming and the AFTER Holiday sale you're bound to find one on sale. I shoot mostly primes and only once and a while do I lose a shot swapping my lens. I normally try to read the environment and prepare for the shot. From the lens I really wanted : 2.8 14-24mm & 2.8 24-70mm Nikons to the primes I ended up buying I have saved approx. $3100 dollars. I know this means a little but I also saved about 2.5 lbs in my bag. Just my .02 :mrgreen:
 
If I had 400 dollars to spend on one lens, i'd find a used Tamron 28-75 2.8 with the intention of adding one lens below it and one long zoom above. KEH has a few good used ones for about 350, i'm thinking about picking one up for a "walkaround". The sharpness of this lens is legendary. It would do good for landscapes and portraits. Later you could add a 12-24 or something similar and a 70-200 2.8 for portraits and wildlife. That would make for a good set up.

Of course it all depends on what you shoot mostly.......wildlife, portraits?
 
thanks guys, i really like that used 28-75 f2.8 idea... i'm gonna look around for a used one... a brand new one is around $470 - $500 without tax.

it's aight Patrick :p

really though, thanks guys, switched up my choices haha. i'm probably gonna go with...

if i'm feeling like a big spender and really need that extra 2mm on the wide end and 10mm on the tele end: Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6

if i'm feeling super cheap and want a huge focal range: tamron 18-250mm

but most likely: a new or used Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 :p thanks!
 
There's little joy is carrying around a 28-70 or 28-75mm lens on a 1.5x body; the lens is really not well suited for APS-C bodies. The lens is far too long at 28mm in most social photography situations, unless you live in a palace. There's a reason all of the manufacturer's basic, and higher-level kit zooms begin with a roughly 16,17,or 18mm botom end.

Nikon has 18-70 DX, 18-105 DX,18-135 DX, 18-200 DX lenses which would all be better choices than a 28-75 Tamron as a "universal" or walk-around lens. I have a Tokina 28-80 f/2.8 lens, a real tank of a lens. It's almost useless, and it just sits there. I'd sell it to somebody, but I'd feel guilty passing the what I have nicknamed, "Herr Flaremeister" on to some unsuspecting biuyer.
 
I'd go with the Nikon lens - having VR for a tele zoom is a big plus.
 
Derrel: I've looked at sample pictures of the 18-105 and 18-135, they don't seem to be as sharp as the ones taken from the 28-75mm. but they do have a nice range.

honestly i never considered the 18-70mm nikon until you brought it up, it seems like a nice lens and it's availible to me for $400 brand new before tax, $100 cheaper than the 28-75mm.

both lenses have a relatively close minimum focusing range, which is pretty important to me, both have no VR which i'm sure i can deal with especially with this range. both seem to take sharp enough photos from what i've seen, however the real winner for me is that the 28-75 has a constant f2.8 widest aperture, while the 18-70's widest aperture ranges from 3.5-4.5 or 4... forget. I could really benefit from that f2.8. i also noticed that most of my pictures are taken at >28mm so the loss of the wide angle isnt too big a deal for me, and if i really need the wide angle i could switch to my kit lens (hahah switching to a kit lens sounds weird)

But i'll keep that lens in consideration for now. it can replace the 16-85mm... so i guess my list right now would look like (in order of what appeals to me most):

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 /w motor
OR
Nikon AF-S 18-70mm f3.5-4.5
OR
Tamron 18-250mm F3.5-6.3
 
After more research i've found the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 to fit my criteria too... its a nice range, nice widest aperture range (althought the constant 2.8 is still VERY enticing) too, costs less than the tamron, not as sharp but still good enough for me (if i can get by with a kit lens and not complain about it's sharpness i think i can get by with this lens). it seems like a nice lens, anyone have this one?

i've finally ACTUALLY narrowed it down to 2 lenses now... so.
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 /w motor ($565 after tax brand new)
+ sharper images
+ constant f2.8
- range isn't as nice as sigma's lens

OR

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 HSM ($493 after tax brand new)
+ Amazing Range
+ closer minimum focusing distance
- doesn't have the constant aperture
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top