maybe you can share what is it about your current lenses you wish can be improved, and also how you think the new lenses will be beneficial?
For example, if you say that kit lens IQ is not good enough, there's a chance that the problem is not with the lens, but rather the user I've seen some really amazing shots taken with the kit lens, so don't diss it so quickly.
Hope you don't spend unnecessarily, that's all...
So, I started to bring my tripod to take most of my pictures (both with the kit and 17-55, same settings). Then I realise that there is a diff between 2... And Yes, I know I cannot compare like this (small apple & big apple), but knowing 1 lens can produce better IQ, makes me want it....
As for why I want a prime lens, cause I dont have 1 now... And I want a lens for dark lighting.
Hi TS, from the sentence above, seems to suggest there is a misconception that APS-C / DX lenses have no cropping effect.
All lenses, regardless of Full Frame (FX) or APS-C (DX) will have a cropping on an APS-C (DX) sensor.
All lenses be it Full Frame or APS-C will have their focal length quoted in 35mm (Full Frame) equivalent. As such you need to do the 1.5 multiplier on them.
Why not start with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8?
2.) Like i mention in some of my replies... I never thought of using other brands... I guess it is a branding thing for me.
I will for sure keep a look out for the other brands before my trip...
Thanks for spotting my mistakes in my understanding in the formats.
If you can afford a Nikon 17-55, you'd rather get a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM (or Tamron 17-50) and a Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, both are very good.
The Sigma and Tamron 17-50 are also significantly lighter and smaller than the Nikon 17-55, so they'll feel more balanced on your D3100
Can consider a Sigma 18-50 F2.8 as well for a great walkabout lens too. Replaces your kit lens.
I find that buying stuff sometimes motivates me in photography... I know that's a wrong concept, but I fall prey to it
But I do notice that in Singapore, lots of people spend unnecessarily, chasing that 'magic lens' which will make their photos instantly better, when often it's the photographer that's the weakest link.
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G Prime HK3,950+-
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED Prime HK16,300+-
Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED Zoom HK9,980+-
Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC /HSM Prime HK3,100+-
Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Zoom HK4,850+-
i second the Tamron 17-50 2.8. its budget and its good according to what i see from the reviews. however its not exactly perfect for portrait work. cos its a little short on the tele end.
Gripped A500 kit | Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 | 50 1.8 | Minolta 70-210 4 | HVL-42AM
to Ts , as u mention that u have the d3100 , 18-55 and 55-200 ? i would suggest u go with those for time being to learn how it work , i think most of the bro here will agree on this , if u know how to use those 2 so call kit lens properly it can produce stunning photo compare to pro gear that without knowing how to use it properly
spend some time to shoot with those to kit lens and u will discover later wat u really need
Nikon D600 / D750
Thanks all for those helpful advice. I guess I have a bit more time to think about it.
Appreciate all your advices.
Kit lens no good?
All shot with the 18-55 non-VR on a D40x on a lousy $60 tripod.
BTW, if you want 35mm for DX, you should just go for the 35/1.8G. You will only get the full potential of 35/1.4G on a FX.
Same for 24mm. If you want 24mm for DX, get the 24/2.8 or Sigma 24/1.8. You will only get the full potential of 24/1.4G on FX.
Or you can get a FX body. Then get those lenses.
But in the end, it is how you use the equipment you have. Kit lens is not that lousy, contrary to popular belief. In fact, 18-55 and 55-200 are two very humble but very capable lenses.
Last edited by daredevil123; 2nd November 2010 at 04:54 AM.
If cant decide what to lens to buy then mine advice is dun buy lor .
Coz you may make the wrong choice and end up $$$ wasted.
Mine full name-Betta Macrostoma
Can call me Betta.