- This topic is empty.
Recommend me some Nikon AF lenses to get me going in dSLR
-
Hi folks,
Nice forum, well done!
Anyway got a Nikon D80, body only and need to get some lenses :)
So far I have decided to get a Nikon 50mm 1.8f, but will need something to cover wide and long.
To cover landscapes, general travel lens:
Didn’t go for kit 18-70mm as initially thinking of going for Nikon 4-5.6 18-200 VR to cover all the bases. Harder to find than hens teeth and kinda gone off it now anyway :roll:
I see ajpurdy sell the 18-70 kit for ~?270 if I decide to get one or maybe second hand.
Otherwise thinking of Tamron AF28-75mm f2.8 XR Di for nice constant aperature, but not very wide on digital :cry:
This lens will probably be the one which spends the most time attached to the camera, so any opinions on above or alternative suggestions?Would like to get into wildlife photography so thinking (at a later stage):
Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO DG ~?260
Or maybe waiting a bit longer and go for Nikon AF-S VR 4.5-5.6/70-300 IF-ED ~?589, twice the price , but has VR? Sigma and tripod might be a better option?Thanks!!
Dave
First off Dave, welcome to the site !
Congrats on the D80, will be interested in seeing some images from it on the site in time.
The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is a really sharp lens. Meant to be better than the 1.4 believe it or not.
The Nikon 18-70mm is a great lens going for an equally great price. You’ll not find a bad review about it anywhere.
Mine rarely leaves the camera.On the Sigma 70-300 APOII Super Macro, I have it have found it ok. Its better than the Nikon and Tamron versions.
Some of the members here are getting better results from it than I have. Do a search for NoelyF on the site. I’ve had some success
with it but would my lack of results down to technique as opposed to the lens.I’m hoping for the Nikon 70-200 VRII lens (if I can get my hands on it). Will be looking out for reviews on the new Nikon 70-300 VR which
seems like coming in at a good price. The 80-400 VR might be worth looking at also ?Unless you’re going to get into wildlife straightaway I’d hang on a while to see what the Nikon 70-300 VR can do.
Mark
dmg wrote:
Hi folks,
Nice forum, well done!
Anyway got a Nikon D80, body only and need to get some lenses :)
So far I have decided to get a Nikon 50mm 1.8f, but will need something to cover wide and long.
To cover landscapes, general travel lens:
Didn’t go for kit 18-70mm as initially thinking of going for Nikon 4-5.6 18-200 VR to cover all the bases. Harder to find than hens teeth and kinda gone off it now anyway :roll:
I see ajpurdy sell the 18-70 kit for ~?270 if I decide to get one or maybe second hand.
Otherwise thinking of Tamron AF28-75mm f2.8 XR Di for nice constant aperature, but not very wide on digital :cry:
This lens will probably be the one which spends the most time attached to the camera, so any opinions on above or alternative suggestions?Would like to get into wildlife photography so thinking (at a later stage):
Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO DG ~?260
Or maybe waiting a bit longer and go for Nikon AF-S VR 4.5-5.6/70-300 IF-ED ~?589, twice the price , but has VR? Sigma and tripod might be a better option?Thanks!!
Dave
Thanks Mark :) Lots to think about there.
To get me going considering:
1. Kit lens + 50mm 1.8f (270+150=420)
or
2. Tamron 28-75 2.8f (~?390) on its own
If I go with the Tamron can add a wide-angle at a later stage.
Anybody using the Tamron?
dmg wrote:
Anybody using the Tamron?
Yep – Me!!!
I think it’s a fine lens. Build quality and focus speed isn’t on a par with a Canon L-series lens, but the image quality is reputed to be very close to that of an equivalent L-series lens. I can’t vouch for that as I haven’t made any comparisons, but from experience I do know that it is sharper than my Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L lens. Having said that, the colour balance and contrast of the Canon lens is more appealing. But given the price I paid for my Tamron 28-75 I’d say it’s one of the best value for money lenses out there and performs more than adequately in most cases. By now I’m probably giving the impression that I really like this lens :D That’s because I do!!!
Dave,
Only thing with going with a 28mm (of any make) is that you’ll find it won’t be wide enough for landscape.
Mark
Thanks Thorsten, I take it you give this lens a positive rating so ;) Even if build quality isn’t up to L standard, the fact that you can compare the lens favourably to a L series says alot.
Tempted to go with one of these….Hope I won’t miss 18-27mm range too much for the moment.
Mark wrote:
Dave,
Only thing with going with a 28mm (of any make) is that you’ll find it won’t be wide enough for landscape.
Mark
Yeah, especially as it becomes 42mm on 1.5X ….
Will probably need to get a 10-20mm wide angle at a later stage .. not cheap either.I suppose the question is if you could only have one lens would you sacrifice 18-27mm for the extra aperature stops and IQ or go with the kit lens for do-it-all range? Not a bad lens by all accounts either.
Think I will go with the 18-70mm. Would like to shoot some landscapes sooner than later.
If anybody is selling one of these second hand give me a shout asap!
I have a Nikkor 28-200mm lens and love it, I would rarely have to switch to a wider or longer lens.
Minimal chromatic abberation even maxed at 200mm.I know you can get a 28mm to 300mm range but I think that is a bit too adventurous a range to be wholesome?
IMHO I do think the Nikkor 28-200 is a better lens than a sigma or tamron equivalent. HTH :D
Everyone with a digital Nikon or Fuji really should have an 18-70 lens in the bag, it’s a great lens at a fantastic price and its light. The 17-55 2.8 weighs a ton and I’ve heard reports that it isn’t great with far distance details, the 17-35 is a lens of mythical sharpness and overall image quality but it costs an absolute fortune for the range your getting and you could get a decent long lens as well as 18-70 instead. There’s a new 18-135 coming out but I’ve heard nowt about it. The 18-200 is nice on paper but its slow on the long end and the bokeh from it isn’t very attractive from samples I’ve seen, after using the 80-200 2.8 I couldn’t go back to having nasty backgrounds like I had with a sigma. You’ll want the best for wildlife.
Check out the Tokina 12-24 if your considering landscapes, apparently almost as sharp as the nikkor 12-24 and heavier build quality (heavy is not always better in my book :) ) or the Sigma 10-20 which has gotten great reports from people with a good sample, some are soft almost all over one side (I know a guy who’s sigma suffers from this so do test carefully) but niether are very good when shooting into the light which is why I forked out for the Nikon. I have a Tamron 11-18 wide angle for sale on the forum here too, found it a great lens for landscapes and outdoor photographer rated it very highly.
The Nikkor 12-24 I have is is extremely sharp in the 16-24 range (I could have bought a second hand 17-35 or the new 12-24) but I would have used the 17-35 almost always in that range and the 12-24 is of comparable quality there (though f4 but who care for landscapes?) so being able to go wider again and still have excellent image quality made the choice very easy when I had the two in front of me.
Also check out the new 17-50 2.8 from Tamron, getting good reviews, and Tokina have a new 16-50 2.8 coming out soon also. Not sure when you’ll see these on the street though.
For wildlife on a budget, the 300 F4 mentioned above is excellent, you can get an 80-200 2.8 second hand for a decent price but they rarely show up, couple it with the Kenko 1.7 Pro teleconvertor and you’ve got great range and quality.
Andr? wrote:
I have a Nikkor 28-200mm lens and love it, I would rarely have to switch to a wider or longer lens.
Minimal chromatic abberation even maxed at 200mm.I know you can get a 28mm to 300mm range but I think that is a bit too adventurous a range to be wholesome?
IMHO I do think the Nikkor 28-200 is a better lens than a sigma or tamron equivalent. HTH :D
Another vote for this lens.
Just say NO to off brand lenses
Thanks everyone, hadn’t checked the thread in a while and delighted with some many responses.
Went for 18-70mm in the end along with a 50mm f1.8. Very happy with both. 50mm is a gem and using wide end of kit lens alot more than I thought I would.
Will look into telephoto sometime in the new year :D
hey dmg, good decision. I have nothing but the 18-70mm and i’m doing fairly alright with it. That said, i do have to grow balls every time i go taking street shots of people ;)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
