new camera or new lens?

[jamiebonline]

Hi all,

OK so I am not really expecting you to answer the question in the heading. I need to work that out myself but I will tell you what I need advice on..

What I have is a D7000, a 50mm 1.8G and a Sigma 17-50 1.8

I want to get a full frame camera (actually a D800) but I also really want to get a lens in the region 70-200. My work is 80 per cent portraits but I am also interested in getting closer in landscape work.
My question: are there any issues with putting a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 on a crop body like the D7000? It should alter the mm like it does with the 50, right?

Also... Any cheap but good alternative to the current tamron or sigma 70-200?

Thanks a lot

J

 

[Raj_55555]

I want to get a full frame camera (actually a D800) but I also really want to get a lens in the region 70-200. My work is 80 per cent portraits but I am also interested in getting closer in landscape work.
My question: are there any issues with putting a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 on a crop body like the D7000? It should alter the mm like it does with the 50, right?

Also... Any cheap but good alternative to the current tamron or sigma 70-200?

Thanks a lot

J

I'd say get the lens first, and the camera later.. You can't really go wrong with the 70-200 2.8, but keep in mind I've never used one but have seen enough samples to know the difference. I'm sure more experienced folks will comment, but if it was up to me, I'd get the Tamron 70-200(due to better IQ).. if you're looking for something cheaper try buying used. I've heard the 85mm 1.8g (or 1.4g even better) is sweet for portraits, but I don't think it'll be at the same level.
You may look into some of the older lenses if you can find them, like the nikon 135mm f2 which I've heard is a super portrait lens.


And yes, it'll alter the effective focal length(mm) of your lens on the crop body (d7000).. it'll effectively be 105-300 mm
Disclaimer: Everything I've said is the internet talking, I've no hands on experience whatsoever.. I just like to read about stuff!

 

[Village Idiot]

For portraits:
Light > Lenses > Cameras

Those are greater than signs, not arrows.

 

[Raj_55555]

Very different subjects, but here are a few samples taken by Kris recently with the Tammy 70-200.

 

[snowbear]

A crop body does NOT alter the focal length of a lens. This is a misconception.
A 50mm lens will be a 50mm lens on ANY camera body. What changes is the View Angle of the lens.

FX lenses work on on a DX body just fine. You will only use the center of the lens so you might actually get less distortion on a DX body. I have eight lenses that I use on my D40 and only one is a DX lens - the rest are FX.

 

[Big Mike]

My question: are there any issues with putting a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 on a crop body like the D7000? It should alter the mm like it does with the 50, right?

As mentioned, the focal length is not altered. A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, no matter what camera you put it on. A 70-200mm is always a 70-200mm.

What does change, between a full frame camera and a crop frame camera, is the field of view. A crop frame camera will give you a narrower FOV than a full frame camera, with a lens of the same focal length.

And no, there are no issues using those lenses on a crop (of full frame).

Also... Any cheap but good alternative to the current tamron or sigma 70-200?

The Tamron and the Sigma 70-200 ARE the 'good but cheap' alternatives...to the Canon & Nikon 70-200mm lenses.

 

[Solarflare]

What I have is a D7000, a 50mm 1.8G and a Sigma 17-50 1.8

I want to get a full frame camera (actually a D800) but I also really want to get a lens in the region 70-200. My work is 80 per cent portraits but I am also interested in getting closer in landscape work.
My question: are there any issues with putting a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 on a crop body like the D7000? It should alter the mm like it does with the 50, right?

Also... Any cheap but good alternative to the current tamron or sigma 70-200?

There is no such thing as a 17-50mm f1.8 from Sigma. Do you have the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 - or the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ? Either way this is a DX lens and you cant use it on a FX D800 (at least not in a comfortable way, it would only use the central 15 Megapixel DX frame and the viewfinder would be painful because only the DX area in the center will get light).

The tamrons and sigmas are already the cheap but good alternatives to the Nikon originals AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR2 and AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR (the later of which I use). Theres also the used market. Depending upon how old glas you get, it can get really cheap. But other people can tell you better about that.

About the D800, you can only use the 50mm on that one right now (comfortably, anyway, as explained above). So IMHO getting it now is really no good option for you anyway. You would need at least also a 85mm f1.8 so you can still do portraits well, and maybe the new 20mm f1.8 for wide angle landscapes, as the cheapest options of high quality. Theres also a good 28mm f1.8 (that I use) which would complete this nice set of prime lenses.

 

[snowbear]

Solarflare: I know the newer FX Nikons use a DX mode when shooting a DX lens so only the equivalent part of the sensor is used. Is there any indication, such as an overlay, projected into the viewfinder?

 

[goodguy]

Cheap alternative to the Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ?
LOL, these lenses are the "cheap" alternative to the Nikon 70-200mm VRII but they are still expensive.
I have the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC which is just an amazing lens for portraits and lots other things, I use it on my D7100
I plan on moving FX but I went with good glass first and when my D7100 will be a bit older I will make the jump.
Also consider getting the D810 over the D800, yes its more expensive but worth the extra cash.

 

[Vince.1551]

Don't get the D800. You should consider at least the D800e if you are interested in the 800 series


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jamiebonline]

Thanks for correcting my mistake about the Sigma. Of course I meant 2.8 not 1.8.
1 and 2 are next to each other on my keyboard
I know that Tamron and Sigma are cheap alternatives to the Nikon. I just thought there might be even cheaper ones. I mean, perhaps there is an old 80-200 that is less or an older version of the Tamron and Sigma lenses.

But in any case I got the answers I needed so thanks Particularly the comment about field of view is useful.

Just one more thing, do you think 70-200 is a good lens for portraits on a DX body? It will be like this for me for a year or so, at which point I will buy the D800.

J

 

[Vince.1551]

D800 -.(\

Get the D800e

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[goodguy]

Oh yes, the 70-200mm 2.8 is a fantastic portrait lens on DX and by the way for indoors I use my trusty Nikon 85mm 1.8G for portrait.

If you want to get a used lens I would lean more toward the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8
The older none VC Tamron is very sharp but from what I read has issues auto focusing in low light.

 

[Derrel]

A 70-200 does work for portraits on a DX body, yes. Why? Because ANY 70-200 or older 80-200 is a very good to an excellent zoom lens. What the crop body does is changes the field of view, as Big Mike mentioned, but it also, more importantly, forces you to STAND FARTHER AWAY than you might wish to be, in many situations. Indoors, in smaller shooting areas like living rooms or garage studios, a 70-200 on a crop-body means you have very little zoom range that's truly useful, except on tight shots. On full-length shots, you need about 30 feet of distance, approximately, so you will in effect, have ONLY the 70-80mm ranger of zoom available for full-length shots in MOST rooms you will encounter.

Honestly: I prefer my old Nikon 50-135mm f/3.5 as a single-lens option for portraiture,and for outdoor walkabout uses, on a crop-body Nikon. It's just simply the RIGHT range of focal lengths for a camera of that format, in normal, everyday, real-world places. The 70-200 is better for long-distance work. You might want to look into one of the third-party 50-150mm lenses if you have the funds to buy "a good lens" to use for an entire year's worth of work.

There is a reason the camera makers came out with the 55-200 lenses for APS-C bodies. There is a very substantial difference in angle of view between 55 and 70mm, although it might not seem like it. The more you shoot indoors, the more valuable the 50-150 would be over a 70-200.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hi all,

OK so I am not really expecting you to answer the question in the heading. I need to work that out myself but I will tell you what I need advice on..

What I have is a D7000, a 50mm 1.8G and a Sigma 17-50 1.8

I want to get a full frame camera (actually a D800) but I also really want to get a lens in the region 70-200. My work is 80 per cent portraits but I am also interested in getting closer in landscape work.
My question: are there any issues with putting a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 on a crop body like the D7000? It should alter the mm like it does with the 50, right?

Also... Any cheap but good alternative to the current tamron or sigma 70-200?

Thanks a lot

J

I used my Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 OS with a D5100, D5200 and now with my D7100. Works like a charm, never had any issues on any of the various bodies I've used it with and it's always produced great results.

The 70-200 makes a wonderful portrait lens as well - so it really is multipurpose in that regard. Depending on your shooting style if your willing to go with either the non-VC version of the Tamron or the non-OS version of the Sigma you can generally get either for something in the neighborhood of $500 or so used.

I paid roughly $700 for the OS version used - in retrospect I've noticed I don't really use the OS that much myself, it's rare for me to be shooting at shutter speeds low enough where it's actually needed.