Walkaround Lens? Input Please!

[tevo]

Hello!

I posted a few threads a while back about a telephoto, which I got (Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 .). Now, my arsenal is 80-200/2.8, 18-105/3.5-5.6, and a 50/1.8 (all Nikon). I plan on getting an AF version of the 50mm soon, but as of now my "walkaround" glass is the Nikon (kit D7000) 18-105 3.5-5.6 lens. The pictures are acceptable, but not the sharpest, and the AF tends to hunt. I am looking for a lens in the avenue of 500 dollars that takes sharp pictures (better than my current), has reasonably fast AF, and preferably a wider aperture. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Hello!

I posted a few threads a while back about a telephoto, which I got (Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 .). Now, my arsenal is 80-200/2.8, 18-105/3.5-5.6, and a 50/1.8 (all Nikon). I plan on getting an AF version of the 50mm soon, but as of now my "walkaround" glass is the Nikon (kit D7000) 18-105 3.5-5.6 lens. The pictures are acceptable, but not the sharpest, and the AF tends to hunt. I am looking for a lens in the avenue of 500 dollars that takes sharp pictures (better than my current), has reasonably fast AF, and preferably a wider aperture. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance!

Why not do what I did Tevo, my friend? Sell your 18-105, get a 10-20 Sigma and Nikon 35 1.8g. They are both good walkaround lenses to my mind. Then obviously you have your telephoto for long shots..

If you want a mid range zoom though, I hear the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS is just amazing and I know alot of the people here recommend the Tammy 17-50.

 

[tevo]

Why not do what I did Tevo, my friend? Sell your 18-105, get a 10-20 Sigma and Nikon 35 1.8g. They are both good walkaround lenses to my mind. Then obviously you have your telephoto for long shots..

Possibility! I was hearing that the 35/1.8 had a very prominent 'line' between the focused area and the OOF area, but that the pictures were reasonably sharp. Is this accurate? And what's the f/# on that Sigma?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I sold my 35 mm 1.8 because of the mad aberations I had to deal with (or try and fix in PP)

 

[tevo]

If you want a mid range zoom though, I hear the new Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS is just amazing and I know alot of the people here recommend the Tammy 17-50.

Will look into them! How much do you think I can get for my 18-105?

 

[tevo]

I sold my 35 mm 1.8 because of the mad aberations I had to deal with (or try and fix in PP)

eek.. CA is a no-no for tevo

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Why not do what I did Tevo, my friend? Sell your 18-105, get a 10-20 Sigma and Nikon 35 1.8g. They are both good walkaround lenses to my mind. Then obviously you have your telephoto for long shots..

Possibility! I was hearing that the 35/1.8 had a very prominent 'line' between the focused area and the OOF area, but that the pictures were reasonably sharp. Is this accurate? And what's the f/# on that Sigma?

Not that I'm aware of... the 35 1.8G is OK for bokeh, it's actually better than the 50mm 1.8D from my own experiences with bokeh. The photos are very sharp not just quite sharp, I know though there are lots of people on here who mention the CA, I am not finding it a huge problem though. I have to say it seems to be fairly sharp even at 1.8 which impresses me.

The Sigma 30mm prime is a 1.4. This lens has mixed reviews, but at the same time it can produce incredible photos. I have seen many examples on Flickr.

 

[tevo]

Not that I'm aware of... the 35 1.8G is OK for bokeh, it's actually better than the 50mm 1.8D from my own experiences with bokeh. The photos are very sharp not just quite sharp, I know though there are lots of people on here who mention the CA, I am not finding it a huge problem though. I have to say it seems to be fairly sharp even at 1.8 which impresses me.

The Sigma 30mm prime is a 1.4. This lens has mixed reviews, but at the same time it can produce incredible photos. I have seen many examples on Flickr.

I'll go to the camera shop and try it out. That Sigma sounds tasty, but 30mm is a bit of an odd focal length to me.. if I were to buy something like that I'd shoot for either 35 or 50. Are those 17-50 lenses wide angle (relatively)?

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Not that I'm aware of... the 35 1.8G is OK for bokeh, it's actually better than the 50mm 1.8D from my own experiences with bokeh. The photos are very sharp not just quite sharp, I know though there are lots of people on here who mention the CA, I am not finding it a huge problem though. I have to say it seems to be fairly sharp even at 1.8 which impresses me.


The Sigma 30mm prime is a 1.4. This lens has mixed reviews, but at the same time it can produce incredible photos. I have seen many examples on Flickr.

I'll go to the camera shop and try it out. That Sigma sounds tasty, but 30mm is a bit of an odd focal length to me.. if I were to buy something like that I'd shoot for either 35 or 50. Are those 17-20 lenses wide angle (relatively)?

The 30mm is actually quite useful, as it's 45mm on DX which is actually the way the human eye sees things, so ofcourse this perspective can be useful. Sigma do make some decent primes in my opinion, their lenses generally have better bokeh than Nikon for a start if you like shallow depth of field photography.

17MM is fairly wide yes, it will be abput 26mm on a DX camera. BUT I'm a wide angle freak so 17mm would be very restricting to me, 80% of my photos on a day out will be taken at about 10-16mm. This is why my Sigma 10-20 is usually my walk around lens. Not to mention the fact an UWA lens has less distortion than any mid range zoom at it's comparative focal lengths, for example the Sigma has allot less distortion at 18mm than your 18-105 has...

 

[tevo]

The 30mm is actually quite useful, as it's 45mm on DX which is actually the way the human eye sees things, so ofcourse this perspective can be useful. Sigma do make some decent primes in my opinion, their lenses generally have better bokeh than Nikon for a start if you like shallow depth of field photography.

17MM is fairly wide yes, it will be abput 26mm on a DX camera. BUT I'm a wide angle freak so 17mm would be very restricting to me, 80% of my photos on a day out will be taken at about 10-16mm. This is why my Sigma 10-20 is usually my walk around lens. Not to mention the fact an UWA lens has less distortion than any mid range zoom at it's comparative focal lengths, for example the Sigma has allot less distortion at 18mm than your 18-105 has...

That 10-20 is sounding interesting.. I
am also a wide angle freak I think that paired with a 35 (a/o a 50) is a good setup.

 

[tevo]

day 2 bumpppp!

 

[Nikon_Josh]

day 2 bumpppp!

haha. The Nikon 24-70 2.8?? It will only take you ten years to afford it!

 

[2WheelPhoto]

day 2 bumpppp!

haha. The Nikon 24-70 2.8?? It will only take you ten years to afford it!

+1, that one indeed.