Thoughts on different AF Nikkors?

[LWW]

Just getting going in Nikon DSLR's.

My glass so far consists of a:

-Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AFD.
-Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 AFD EDIF.
-Nikkor 300mm f4.0 AFD EDIF.
-Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO.

and I am planning on adding either a Nikkor or Tokina 12-24mm f4.0 AFD lens. My leanings are towards the Tokina because of the price and it being very highly rated. OTOH my heart is with the Nikkor as my only other 3rd party lens left me with mixed feelings.

That's part 1.

Part 2.

I also have a Nikkor 28-105mm f3.3-4.5 AFD lens. I bought it as a cheap walk around lens and an upgrade from my 35-70mm f3.3-4.5 Nikkor. The lens has impressed me with how sharp it actually is, although it's fairly slow.

Now being anal about everything photographic I am bugged by having 12-24mm and 28-200mm unbroken but covered optically and NOT having 25-27 mm covered. I understand that in reality this means nothing and is borderline psychotic.

That all being said I can buy a used (have bought all the rest used) Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4.0 AFD lens and fill my gap plus pick up some speed. I could also get a Nikkor 24-85mm f3.3-4.5 AFD and fill the gap with no speed loss. I'm not sure if either is a superior lens to what I have now.

Money is an issue but not a major one.

A 3rd option is to keep the middle zoom I have and also get a Nikkor 20-35mm f3.3-4.5 AFD. My last option is to keep the middle zoom I have and stop being so "Monk"-ish.

Any and all comments and advice is appreciated in advance.

LWW

 

[KevinR]

I'm sorry, I must have missed it in your post. What size straight jacket do you wear?

My thinking is: Do you need 12mm? Alot of distortion to me. Maybe something in the 17-50mm. And yes, I used to have the 28-105 and loved it.

 

[fmw]

I'm a wide angle person. I always have been. A Nikkor 12-24 is simply necessary for me. I can't imagine not having one. I wish it would go to 10mm. It is my most used lens. In 35mm I used to carry an 18mm f2.8 often as a normal lens, only switching to something longer when I couldn't get close enough.

Another option, by the way, is the Sigma 10-20mm lens. I don't know how it is optically but it is half the price of the Nikkor. I would imagine it is probably comparable to the Nikkor optically but not physically. That way you can have a wider hole in your "coverage."

On the subject of "coverage" you should note that framing should be done with the feet. Zooming changes perspective because it changes focal length, not just the "magnification" of the subject. You can make modest adjustments to framing with a zoom but large ones change perspective a lot. "Coverage" of a small range of focal lengths, then, is truly meaningless since the perspective differences are minor. My hole in the "coverage" starts where the 17-55 ends and the 80-200 begins. I never gave it a thought.

 

[telex95]

I'm also thinking about getting the Sigma 10-20mm lens, given the 1.5x factor on all Nikon Digitals, the actual mm is 15mm. Has anyone tried the Sigma 10-20mm lens? How's the focusing on the edges?

I have a Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8 lens, while I think Nikkor lens are the best, one of the downfall of this lens is that the f stop doesn't stay constant when it zooms out. Unlike the Sigma 24-80mm EX f 2.8 lens, where the apperture stays constant throughout. Both lens are almost the same price, you might want to consider this factor if you're planning to go for this range.

 

[Tiberius]

The 24-85 will be no better than your current lens. If you really want to upgrade and cover that range, go with a 17-55f/2.8 or 28-70 f/2.8. The rest of your kit (at least the 12-24, whichever you get, the 80-200, and the 300f/4) are top-quality stuff. Why leave your walk-around "normal range" lens at the consumer level?