Which lens should I spend my $1000 on?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Frostmana

New Member
Apr 13, 2009
4
0
0
#1
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 :cool:
 

Shin Howard

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2008
1,063
0
36
North Eastern Region
#3
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.
 

Frostmana

New Member
Apr 13, 2009
4
0
0
#4
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
 

Frostmana

New Member
Apr 13, 2009
4
0
0
#5
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 :D

regards,
Frost :cool:
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
38
A village in a forest
#6
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.
 

kelccm

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,515
2
38
A village in a forest
#7
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 :D

regards,
Frost :cool:
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.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#8
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?
 

Shin Howard

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2008
1,063
0
36
North Eastern Region
#10
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. :think:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#11
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 :cool:
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.
 

Frostmana

New Member
Apr 13, 2009
4
0
0
#12
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 ;p


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

Thanks again!

Frost ;)
 

jnet6

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2004
8,184
0
36
not here often anymore
#13
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 ;p


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!
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#14
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
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom