Upgrading lens
- Thread starter WatWatz
- Start date
This sure looks like another BBB virus infected patient....Answer a short quiz
- any reason to upgrade (dun tell me cos I see the lens then heart itchy...)?
- anything the current equipment can't do what you can do?
- what's your shooting style (e.g. Action, Micro or landscape etc)
- any reason to upgrade (dun tell me cos I see the lens then heart itchy...)?
- anything the current equipment can't do what you can do?
- what's your shooting style (e.g. Action, Micro or landscape etc)
Hi bro. As for me, I had just upgraded my 18-105 kit lens to a Tammy 17-50 2.8 because I shoot more indoors and I'm loving the faster Tammy. Do you really need the slight 1.8 to 1.4 upgrade?
i wanted to get 16-85 for quite sometime.. but that time i dun really have enough cash.. so i got for 18-105... now im not sure to get 50mm 1.4 or 16-85 first...
i ever consider 17-50 but the range is a little short... i do shoot indoor.. that y i consider 50mm 1.4
i ever consider 17-50 but the range is a little short... i do shoot indoor.. that y i consider 50mm 1.4
Last edited:
Hi bro. As for me, I had just upgraded my 18-105 kit lens to a Tammy 17-50 2.8 because I shoot more indoors and I'm loving the faster Tammy. Do you really need the slight 1.8 to 1.4 upgrade?
for 50mm 1.8 i always shoot with f2.8 to get sharp pic... but if i upgrade to 1.4 i can use may b 1.8 or 2 to get sharp...
If I were you I'd go for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS HSM if you want to upgrade your 18-105. If you buy the 16-85, you are still stuck at f3.5-5.6. If you buy the Tamron 17-50, the AF will be rather slow (I have not tried the non-BIM version, nor tried that lens on a D90, but I have tried the BIM version on my D5000, and the AF is painfully slow, about 2-3x slower than my 18-55 kit lens in low light. I do not know the AF performance of a non-BIM version on a D90, however). The 2mm difference that the 16-85 gives you is quite big, but if you want wider, a UWA would be better (Tokina 11-16, Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20).
Last edited:
i normally use
- 50mm for indoor (not very dark lighting) walk about
- 18-105 for my landscape and walk about and i believe 2mm more for wider will b very usefull for my landscape
You may want to rent the lens to see if its (16mm) wide enough, I'm loving my UWA.....if 16mm is enough for you, then go for it.. OTOH, I really doubt you need the f1.4 for indoor shooting. Like what voxies09 said, you need flash rather than big aperture...(esp at razor thin aperture, you may not have DOF, but that's depending on the effect you want).
indoor?? you need flash rather than f1.4 lens
I would think so also....but also noting that TS already have a Nissin 622..
2mm wider is not as significant as a 6-8mm wider (depending on which UWA you get). In fact, I think a Tokina 12-24 is about the same price, or even cheaper than the Nikon 16-85
yes i understand that 16-85 dun replace UWA... but 2mm wider isn't it better than 18-105... i may b getting UWA in the future... coz all my bigest filter is 67mm which 16-85 has... i need to buy 77mm if i change to UWA
Not sure about your shooting likes, some feels that 18 is very wide already, personally, 10-14mm is my favt focal length.
What is it that you hope that 16-85 is able to achieve? Take landscape photo? If so, I really recommend you to rent 2 lens, UWA Sigma 10-20 AND the 16-85... Also IMO, 18mm to 16mm is not really that much difference in Wideness, but it's a good composition of Wide angle to short Telephoto. (just like Canon's 15-85).
If you get 15-85 purely for the Wide End, I rather you get a proper UWA (e.g. Sig10-20, Tok11-16/12-24, Nik14-24). For a walkabout, it's a decent lens if you don't require >86mm.
Personally, if I have this 18-105, I won't be even looking at Canon's 15-85 (despite the excellent optics etc)... I'm looking at this lens because I have to change lens from 18-55 to 55-250 if i need anything >55mm just for the 55-100mm range.
Similar threads
