which lens is the next logical step?


Status
Not open for further replies.

foxxkat

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
252
0
0
36
#1
hi, i have these:

kit 18-135mm (not really fond of this coz of aperture)
50mm f/1.4 for portraits/general
and will be getting sigma 10-20m or tokina 12-24mm soon for landscape/sceneries
nikkor 70-200mm VR too expensive..

i read that Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 not bad review, and there's a Sigma equivalent of it. but i cant find the sigma equivalent on their website..anyone knows which is the sigma equivalent?

any other fast/constant aperture lens (not macro) to recommend? in the vicinity of $900..

tia
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#2
Bro, think you have been infected with BBB virus liao ;p Spend more time playing with your current lenses before getting more lah.
 

foxxkat

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
252
0
0
36
#4
confirmed getting a UWA (sigma or tokina), now juz need to make up my mind which one i like better :sweatsm:

virus antidote (read: wife) will kick in sooner or later so i thot better to get now rather than wait till my atm/credit cards got confiscated.
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#5
confirmed getting a UWA (sigma or tokina), now juz need to make up my mind which one i like better :sweatsm:

virus antidote (read: wife) will kick in sooner or later so i thot better to get now rather than wait till my atm/credit cards got confiscated.
Then what are you waiting for? Go grab that UWA and more camera bags and...
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#6
Get the wide angle lor... and save up slowly for the longer range...
 

foxxkat

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
252
0
0
36
#7
Then what are you waiting for? Go grab that UWA and more camera bags and...
as soon as can make up mind which UWA..
and yup getting a lowepro bag this wkend.

other than these.. i thot a 17-50mm constant aperture would be nice.
 

Fotophilic

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2006
2,388
0
36
big tree town
#8
i read that Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 not bad review, and there's a Sigma equivalent of it. but i cant find the sigma equivalent on their website..anyone knows which is the sigma equivalent?

any other fast/constant aperture lens (not macro) to recommend? in the vicinity of $900..

tia
I believe you are talking about the Sigma 18-50 2.8, correct me if i am wrong.
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/1850vs1770
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=232&sort=7&cat=37&page=2
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28/index.htm

But why you want a lense of this range since you planning to get a UWA? Why not a UWA and a mid-zoom like the Tamron 28-75 2.8? Save you a good slot for a great telephoto lense, when you have the $$$. :bsmilie:
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#9
i read that Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 not bad review, and there's a Sigma equivalent of it. but i cant find the sigma equivalent on their website..anyone knows which is the sigma equivalent?

any other fast/constant aperture lens (not macro) to recommend? in the vicinity of $900..
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3320&navigator=6

This is a good all rounder..
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3281&navigator=4

Both of these lenses have macro option though.. Don't know the reason why you would not want macro, you can still use them normally.
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#10
Sorry, foxxkat, for hijacking your thread. Wanna ask the bros, currently I own the 18-200 but is continually tempted by the 50/1.4 because of its IQ, DOF and bokeh. However, I do intend to upgrade to 28-70 and since 50mm is included in the FL, that may keep the 50/1.4 in the cabinet. I know that the zoom will provide some convenience when space for moving about is limited but may not match the quality of the prime. Furthermore, there is the size issue...

Can any bro share their experiences when facing such a choice?
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#11
Sorry, foxxkat, for hijacking your thread. Wanna ask the bros, currently I own the 18-200 but is continually tempted by the 50/1.4 because of its IQ, DOF and bokeh. However, I do intend to upgrade to 28-70 and since 50mm is included in the FL, that may keep the 50/1.4 in the cabinet. I know that the zoom will provide some convenience when space for moving about is limited but may not match the quality of the prime. Furthermore, there is the size issue...

Can any bro share their experiences when facing such a choice?
When you come to a situation when having 2 extra stops is a must, you'll find the 28-70 sitting in your dry cabinet instead. Buy primes for their aperture/bokeh or their capability, eg Micro/PC etc. For everything else, you can use zooms. ;p

Another example. 18/2.8 prime. If you have the 17-35/2.8, why would yoyu need the 18/2.8 prime? This is harder to answer than your original question. To be honest, I don't know, but I believe the 18/2.8 supposedly have less distortion? Otherwise, there is really no reason to buy the 18/2.8, except maybe for it's compactness compared to the zoom.
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#12
When you come to a situation when having 2 extra stops is a must, you'll find the 28-70 sitting in your dry cabinet instead. Buy primes for their aperture/bokeh or their capability, eg Micro/PC etc. For everything else, you can use zooms. ;p
Thanks for the suggestion, bro :)

I think I can get the 17-35/2.8 for the wide angle since most of the AF-D primes of 35mm or less have max aperture of f2.8 and it is only slower than 35/2 by 1 stop. But for mid-range, I was thinking whether the 50/1.4 can be a substitute for the 28-70 with some moving about. I am going to find out how many steps I take to shift from 50->35->28 / 50->70. For telephoto, I cannot think of any suitable primes yet...

Foxxkat, I believe you have both the 18-135 and 50/1.4, what do you think of you latest purchase?
 

kyo86sg

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2006
771
0
16
#13
Go for the student combo:

Nikon18-135mm (general shoot) 67mm
Nikon70-300mm VR(telephotos) 67mm
Tamron17-50mm F2.8 (low light shoot) 67mm

if u notice all is 67mm thread.......so filter all can buy is one size~ :cool:
 

foxxkat

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
252
0
0
36
#14
I believe you are talking about the Sigma 18-50 2.8, correct me if i am wrong.
http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/1850vs1770
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=232&sort=7&cat=37&page=2
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28/index.htm

But why you want a lense of this range since you planning to get a UWA? Why not a UWA and a mid-zoom like the Tamron 28-75 2.8? Save you a good slot for a great telephoto lense, when you have the $$$. :bsmilie:
magazine says 17-50mm equivalent so all the time i was looking for 17-50mm :sweat:
maybe this is it, thx!

mid-zoom? can consider..
i'm definitely getting uwa yup.
 

foxxkat

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
252
0
0
36
#15
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3320&navigator=6

This is a good all rounder..
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3281&navigator=4

Both of these lenses have macro option though.. Don't know the reason why you would not want macro, you can still use them normally.
wow.. now i know wat i've been missing!! i've seen this links before but neber clicked on them coz it says MACRO and i thought it's a specialised lens for macro only..i was thinking of going the alternative route for macro.

macro can use for normal shoots? then these 2 looks good! within budget too!:lovegrin:
 

foxxkat

New Member
Jun 5, 2007
252
0
0
36
#16
Thanks for the suggestion, bro :)

I think I can get the 17-35/2.8 for the wide angle since most of the AF-D primes of 35mm or less have max aperture of f2.8 and it is only slower than 35/2 by 1 stop. But for mid-range, I was thinking whether the 50/1.4 can be a substitute for the 28-70 with some moving about. I am going to find out how many steps I take to shift from 50->35->28 / 50->70. For telephoto, I cannot think of any suitable primes yet...

Foxxkat, I believe you have both the 18-135 and 50/1.4, what do you think of you latest purchase?
bro, most welcomed to share your dilemma :D.. i'm learning too.

yes i got the 50/1.4 and i'm loving it. i've read a lot in CS that says 50/1.8 is best value for $$, which i agree. but bcoz i use 50 a lot at night in the house with low lighting, i'm willing to fork out the extra $$ for 2 more stops, perceived better build quality, nicer bokeh and the feel-good factor :embrass: (MIJ)

if i were to get the 28-70.. i will definitely keep my 50/1.4 :lovegrin:
 

Randius

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2006
3,303
1
0
Singapore
#17
Now troubled over whether to sell the 18-200 and just get a 50/1.4 for the time being :dunno: The 18-200 is great for its convenience but I think I have cut too many corners after getting the lens. Maybe going back to basic and master the 50/1.4 first.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#18
wow.. now i know wat i've been missing!! i've seen this links before but neber clicked on them coz it says MACRO and i thought it's a specialised lens for macro only..i was thinking of going the alternative route for macro.

macro can use for normal shoots? then these 2 looks good! within budget too!:lovegrin:
They are just lenses which just allows you to focus up closer all of them are able to focus all the way down to infinity also.
 

Scaglietti

New Member
Jan 14, 2005
1,541
0
0
#19
bro, most welcomed to share your dilemma :D.. i'm learning too.

yes i got the 50/1.4 and i'm loving it. i've read a lot in CS that says 50/1.8 is best value for $$, which i agree. but bcoz i use 50 a lot at night in the house with low lighting, i'm willing to fork out the extra $$ for 2 more stops, perceived better build quality, nicer bokeh and the feel-good factor :embrass: (MIJ)

if i were to get the 28-70.. i will definitely keep my 50/1.4 :lovegrin:
2 stops? f/1.4 and f/1.8 is only 2/3 stop difference. But 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens.

BC
 

#20
2 stops? f/1.4 and f/1.8 is only 2/3 stop difference. But 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens.
BC
Yeah agree with bro Scaglietti. Regarding the 18-200mm VR dilemma, i would say it really depends on what you shoot. If you wanna shoot "flashless" in low light conditions and shutter speed ain't a problem, the VR should be able to aid you to some extent. Seriously, if you shoot in dark conditions with f/2.8 lens, you'll wish it was a f/1.4 for faster focusing. Just my opinion.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom