Support lens to go with the 70-200

[D40]

Well I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and would not get rid of it for anything, I love it. I also have the kit 18-55 which I do not like so I am searching for a wide lens to go with my 70-200. I am looking at the Sigma 17-70 HSM and the 18-50 f/2.8 HSM. I know the benafit of the canstant f/2.8 but I also see that the 17-70 gives me a wider lens plus more range. I may be going to Nicaragua on a mission trip in the summer and I hope to use my camer for the group. The 17-70 will be a better walk around lens since I get all the range but I was wandering what you think. I may not be takeing the 70-200 due to its price and the fact that we will be working and this is not just a photo trip so that also points to the 17-70 as the way to go. Thanks

 

[keith204]

Look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I've researched it a lot, and people love it. Reported to be incredibly sharp.

Nicaragua missions trip? Nice! I know a guy who spends his life doing missions work, and primarily there...Fred Kornis.

 

[kundalini]

I paired my 70-200mm with the 24-70mm f/2.8. I already had a 12-24mm so that filled the slot just fine. Otherwise, I may have been inclined to go with the 17-55mm f/2.8. Much of the reason I chose Nikon was because of the lenses and decided early on to stay with Nikkor only. But that's just me.

 

[Mav]

There's a newer version of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 coming out with a built-in AF-S type motor for all of the motorless Nikon bodies now. I think it's coming out in mid-March. I'd wait for that one since it seems to be a pretty darn good lens - better than the Sigma 18-50/2.8 from what I've read/heard. Or if you can afford it, just go for the Nikkor 17-55. Definitely an outstanding piece of glass in all respects.

 

[D40]

Well, the 17-55 is a bit to pricy for me I do have the D40 so I would need the AF motor in the lens. I will look at that Tamron. So, basically you guys think it is more important to have a fast lens than more reach? I can deffinently see where that is good.

 

[D40]

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens.

is this the one that works on the D40?

 

[sabbath999]

See below post.

 

[sabbath999]

Check out THIS LINK to find out information about the new Tamron lenses that will work with D40's/D60's.

 

[Mav]

Well, the 17-55 is a bit to pricy for me I do have the D40 so I would need the AF motor in the lens. I will look at that Tamron. So, basically you guys think it is more important to have a fast lens than more reach? I can deffinently see where that is good.

Both are nice to have. During the day when there's plenty of light there's no real need for fast and heavy f/2.8 zooms with their limited ranges, so extra reach is nice to have. I personally love my Nikkor 18-135 lens. And despite the slow aperture, it's still pretty useful at night in reasonably well lit areas on the shorter half of the lens, even without VR.

At night if you can't use a flash, even an f/2.8 is slow. You'd do much better with a 50mm f/1.4 or 1.8, even if you have to manually focus. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM is something to consider also, which will AF on the D40. f/2.8 mid-zooms are still great though, because they'll do a little bit of everything and are extremely versatile. Just depends on what you like to shoot, your shooting style, how much you're willing to lug around, etc.

 

[D40]

Well that is the nice thing of the sigma 17-70, it fills the gap for me and I would have a range of 17-200 with the two lens. Then down the road when I can upgrade to a better body I could pick up some of the fast prime lens. The Tamron does look nice but I am affaid of it being a little short. Hard decision!

 

[D40]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545654-USA/Nikon_2178_16_85mm_f_3_5_5_6G_ED_VR.html

This looks very interesting??

 

[JerryPH]

I'd also suggest a look at the Sigma 18-50 EX DC HSM Macro... its sharper than the Tamron as per 3-4 photography magazine shootouts and tosses in a free 3:1 macro that none of them have. CA and flaring are also reduced in comparison to the Tamron.