Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

  1. #1

    Talking Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Hi

    I would like to hear some advise which lens should I invest in?

    I am currently a Nikkon D300 user and I own a 50mm prime F1.8 lens. I also have a Raynox DCR 150 + 250 for my macro shots.

    PS: Am still trying to figure how to take those beautiful macro shots posted here. Somehow either my settings are incorrect or my methods.


    What I would like to take?
    1) That will be landscape and night scenic shots
    2) Group pictures in events/outings.

    I am wondering should I get a Tokina 11-16mm F2.8. However I am unsure if the group pics will look distorted due to the wide angle nature. I've tried a few shots of a single person with the wide angle and they do look distorted a little.


    Some friends advise me to invest in a 17m- 50mm lens as that can be used as both group and potrait shots. Would that be a waste as I already have a 50mm prime for potrait? Are there other lens that I can consider?

    Any advise is much appreciated and thanks in advance !



    regards,
    Frostmana

  2. #2
    Senior Member Galdor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Planet Gaia
    Posts
    9,544

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Nikon 17-35mm or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for landscape
    Nikon 105mm f2.8 or Tamron 90mm f2.8 for macro.
    Minolta. Konica Minolta. Sony

  3. #3
    Member Shin Howard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North Eastern Region
    Posts
    1,063

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Hi Frost,

    There's a lot of good reviews on the Tokina 11-16mm, and I think it's a very wide lens good for landscape shots. While the zoom range is only 5mm, it might serve as a prime lens for some.

    While your friends actually recommended a more walk-abt lens 17-50mm which is quite versatile due to the zoom range. You can use this Lens for landscape or portraits shots. For lanscape, if you think it's not wide enough. You can take multiple shots then merge them together using software. (Might has less distortion from 11mm focal length lens.)

    Even through you have 50mm prime lens, this does not mean that the 50mm on the zoom lens will be wasted. Prime lens gives you better sharpness while zoom gives you convenience.
    I'm looking at a different perpective of life.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Hi Galdor,

    Thank you for the response.

    I have read some thread saying that 17-35mm for group shots, the 2nd row will appear defocus? Also comparing 17-35mm with 17-50mm, though the 17-50mm gives further zoom but am I compromising on sharpness?

    regards,
    Frost

  5. #5

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Hi Howard,

    Thank you for your advise


    While your friends actually recommended a more walk-abt lens 17-50mm which is quite versatile due to the zoom range. You can use this Lens for landscape or portraits shots. For lanscape, if you think it's not wide enough. You can take multiple shots then merge them together using software. (Might has less distortion from 11mm focal length lens.)

    Am I right to say that I should get the Tokina 11-16mm if I want very sharp quality landscape shots with wider shots? This is more suitable when I go for my holidays and wants to take pure landscape shots with no human subjects in the picture right? However I do get distortion? Anyway to touch up on the distortion or it can be mitigated with the way I am taking my shots?

    Also, if taking multiple shots and merge them using panoromic software, distortion is lesser comparing to the 11-16mm prime? If so, should'nt I consider buying the 17-35mm since I can take landscape with lesser distortion. The only compromise is sharpness?


    Sorry for asking more questions and thanks in advance

    regards,
    Frost

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    A village in a forest
    Posts
    1,515

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostmana View Post
    Hi Galdor,

    Thank you for the response.

    I have read some thread saying that 17-35mm for group shots, the 2nd row will appear defocus? Also comparing 17-35mm with 17-50mm, though the 17-50mm gives further zoom but am I compromising on sharpness?

    regards,
    Frost
    2nd shot defocus?? That sounds more like a lack of depth of field. You will need to select a smaller aperture when taking group shots especially when there are more than 1 row. That is not the fault of the lenses.
    Canon 80D|Panasonic LX3/LX5
    35f2 IS|50f1.8|85f1.8|12-24f4|18-135f4-5.6 IS|28-75f2.8

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    A village in a forest
    Posts
    1,515

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostmana View Post
    Hi Howard,

    Thank you for your advise


    While your friends actually recommended a more walk-abt lens 17-50mm which is quite versatile due to the zoom range. You can use this Lens for landscape or portraits shots. For lanscape, if you think it's not wide enough. You can take multiple shots then merge them together using software. (Might has less distortion from 11mm focal length lens.)

    Am I right to say that I should get the Tokina 11-16mm if I want very sharp quality landscape shots with wider shots? This is more suitable when I go for my holidays and wants to take pure landscape shots with no human subjects in the picture right? However I do get distortion? Anyway to touch up on the distortion or it can be mitigated with the way I am taking my shots?

    Also, if taking multiple shots and merge them using panoromic software, distortion is lesser comparing to the 11-16mm prime? If so, should'nt I consider buying the 17-35mm since I can take landscape with lesser distortion. The only compromise is sharpness?


    Sorry for asking more questions and thanks in advance

    regards,
    Frost
    Using an ultra wide angle lens, some distortion is expected. It really depends on how much distortion you can accept when taking group shot.

    As for sharpness, it is all relative. Most lenses have acceptable sharpness when stopped down.
    Canon 80D|Panasonic LX3/LX5
    35f2 IS|50f1.8|85f1.8|12-24f4|18-135f4-5.6 IS|28-75f2.8

  8. #8

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    For general group and people shots, you can use most kit lenses, as well as the Tamron 17-50mm, as suggested above.

    For landscape shots, you can probably use the same lens, although if you are after a wider experience, ultra-wide angles, such as the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 that you suggested is a good idea.

    Distortion is apparent in most lenses at the widest settings. The trick is probably in the composition and, later on, the pp, to either mask/correct the distortion or to use the distortion to accentuate the picture.

    Sharpest of most of the UWA lens is comparable, and stopping down will give you adequate sharpness for most instances.

    You mentioned that the 2nd row will be out of focus. That sounds like depth of focus to me. Stop down the aperture. Surely, you are aware of that when you do your macro right?

  9. #9

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    There's no debate here. for 1k the tamron90 micro is legendary

  10. #10
    Member Shin Howard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North Eastern Region
    Posts
    1,063

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    For the distortion information on some of the lens, you can visit
    http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests

    Actually end of the day it's up to you to decide, cause buy a UWA Lens like Tokina 11-16mm is not really cheap. So do you take landscape shots that often/much?

    For me, I just sold off my UWA lens to change to more versatile zoom lens cause I hate the trouble of keep changing the lens during travel. Cause I thought zoom lens are suppose to give me convenience, if not what for I buy zoom. But that's just me.
    I'm looking at a different perpective of life.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostmana View Post

    I am wondering should I get a Tokina 11-16mm F2.8. However I am unsure if the group pics will look distorted due to the wide angle nature. I've tried a few shots of a single person with the wide angle and they do look distorted a little.




    regards,
    Frostmana
    you avoid this by putting people in the centre, instead of on the sides

    the trouble is of course, that you will ahve a lot of space around them.

    anyways, can easily correct any distortion in post process, but your liquify skill has to be relatively ok.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Thank you all for taking the trouble to reply

    With your clarification and recommendations:

    I think I will be looking into the Nikkon 17mm-55mm F2.8 or Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 as I myself do not like to keep changing lens.

    I'll explore the UWA lens when I think that the 17-55 is not good enough for me or when my photography skill has moved to another level where I want to specialize more in landscape shots. Else as you all have mentioned. The general 17-55mm lens should be good enough for amateur like me


    I'll start looking into 2nd hand lens of Nikkon 17-55mm or new lens of Tamron 17-50mm.

    Thanks again!

    Frost

  13. #13
    Senior Member jnet6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    not here often anymore
    Posts
    8,169

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostmana View Post
    Thank you all for taking the trouble to reply

    With your clarification and recommendations:

    I think I will be looking into the Nikkon 17mm-55mm F2.8 or Tamron 17mm-50mm F2.8 as I myself do not like to keep changing lens.

    I'll explore the UWA lens when I think that the 17-55 is not good enough for me or when my photography skill has moved to another level where I want to specialize more in landscape shots. Else as you all have mentioned. The general 17-55mm lens should be good enough for amateur like me


    I'll start looking into 2nd hand lens of Nikkon 17-55mm or new lens of Tamron 17-50mm.

    Thanks again!

    Frost
    A 2nd hand nikkor 17-55 F2.8 is worth every cent, Trust me or us!

    100% satisfaction!

  14. #14
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frostmana View Post

    What I would like to take?
    1) That will be landscape and night scenic shots
    2) Group pictures in events/outings.
    The 17-55 will be a well regarded DX lens for the D300.
    A small sidetrack, for night scenic shots, remember to get a tripod.

    Ryan

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •