Next Lens (and Camera) Purchase

[M0T0XGUY]

Hello gang,

After conducting a seemingly immeasurable amount of research in the area photography, especially considering my utter lack of experience in the DSLR mega-world, I have come to the conclusion that my 18-135 lens just isn't doing it for me in terms of speed, sharpness, clarity, and distortion. I've learned in the process that lenses covering more specific focal lengths generally outperform their "jack of all trades" counterparts; and since I plan to focus my photography on wide-angle landscapes and general portraits, I assume a wide-angle zoom lens would be a good place to start.

In the process of researching such lenses, however, it has become quite clear that, with the exception of third party variants, wide aperture, low cost lenses are simply not offered by most major manufacturers such as Canon and Nikon. For that reason, I began to rethink my devotion to the D40. After all, its the lens that makes the camera, right?

Under that mindset, I'm basically interested in a fast (preferably f/3.0 - f/2.0), sharp, and ideally, auto focusing lens in the <$700 price range (yes, I realize that my wishes do not necessarily fit my budget). Note that the brand of camera is not particularly important to me, so long as it can be purchased in body only form for less than $550. I'm not opposed to third party lenses, but recognize the variability in quality between models, so I am more interested in lenses from more "secure" manufacturers.

Please excuse the lengthy post,
Nick

P.S. So far, the Pentax K100d Super has caught my attention, namely because its 16-50 mm, f/2.8 lens seems untouched in the less than 700 dollar price bracket. Still, I'm looking for further suggestions.

[lan]

If it's only one lens then the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a great choice.

If you want to go prime, you could go with two of them. Either 50/85mm for portraits and 20/24mm prime for wide angle. Do you like primes?

Your budget may still allow the Tamron zoom and a single prime for portraits though. I didn't mention any more specific since I don't know if you'll choose Canon/Nikon/Pentax/etc.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by lan

If it's only one lens then the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a great choice.

If you want to go prime, you could go with two of them. Either 50/85mm for portraits and 20/24mm prime for wide angle. Do you like primes?

Your budget may still allow the Tamron zoom and a single prime for portraits though. I didn't mention any more specific since I don't know if you'll choose Canon/Nikon/Pentax/etc.

-Indeed, the Tamron 17-50 was my second choice considering its aperture and price.

-I don't generally mind primes, but have struggled to find a budget friendly wide-angle variant of reliable build quality.

-Again, the camera manufacturer isn't particularly important to me. If I ended up purchasing the Tamron, then I would probably stick with my D40; but if a manufacturer specific lens becomes more appealing, I'd be happy to switch brands without a moment of regret.

Thanks for the advice,
Nick

[lan]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

-I don't generally mind primes, but have struggled to find a budget friendly wide-angle variant of reliable build quality.

Is there a reason you're interested in build quality? If you're worried about the prime's build quality, shouldn't you be worried the same about the zooms' because in my opinion they are all the same (non-pro build quality).

[jmmtn4aj]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

-Indeed, the Tamron 17-50 was my second choice considering its aperture and price.

-I don't generally mind primes, but have struggled to find a budget friendly wide-angle variant of reliable build quality.

-Again, the camera manufacturer isn't particularly important to me. If I ended up purchasing the Tamron, then I would probably stick with my D40; but if a manufacturer specific lens becomes more appealing, I'd be happy to switch brands without a moment of regret.

Thanks for the advice,
Nick

I would switch brands for the lenses, but certainly not consumer lenses. I don't know about you but I intend for this hobby to last a long time, and so I intend to have pro glass at some point. In that regard it's illogical to switch brands since Nikon (what I'm using) and Canon are the leaders in the professional field in quality (image and build) and range of products. Jumping brands for a sub $700 lens seems pointless for me since while it might be a good idea now, I wouldn't have that awesome 70-200mm f/2.8 VR that I'm currently planning to buy in a few months, or the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor I'm planning to buy a few months after that, available.

[majid]

You won't find a pro grade wide zoom (or any f/2.8 zoom, for that matter) under $1000. Canon's 17-40mm f/4L has pro quality at a reasonable price, as does their 70-200mm f/4L, but Nikon doesn't have an equivalent "affordable pro" lens lineup.

Thus your options are:

• Nikon primes, most of which fit your budget now that the 28mm f/14 is discontinued
• Zeiss ZF manual-focus primes
• Some of the better 3rd party lenses like the Sigma 28mm f/1.8

The Zeiss Planar ZF 50mm f/1.4 is what lives on my D3 95% of the time.

That said, lower-end Nikon bodies like the D40 are deliberately crippled to not work properly with manual-focus lenses, specially in the area of metering. Also, the D40 does not have a screwdriver handle so you need an AF-S lens to get autofocus, and very few Nikkor primes have one.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj

I would switch brands for the lenses, but certainly not consumer lenses. I don't know about you but I intend for this hobby to last a long time, and so I intend to have pro glass at some point. In that regard it's illogical to switch brands since Nikon (what I'm using) and Canon are the leaders in the professional field in quality (image and build) and range of products. Jumping brands for a sub $700 lens seems pointless for me since while it might be a good idea now, I wouldn't have that awesome 70-200mm f/2.8 VR that I'm currently planning to buy in a few months, or the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor I'm planning to buy a few months after that, available.

You have a very good point, but I would counter by adding that I'm really only interested in a so called "walk-around" lens - one that suits a variety of my shooting needs and one that will hopefully remain my primary lens for a rather long time; if not forever.

I suppose that the real problem is justification - I simply cannot see myself spending more than $700 on a lens right now, regardless of the fact that my ideal requirements are only realized in products costing hundreds of dollars more.

For now, in other words, I plan to make a quality lens purchase, and possibly a DSLR purchase - and then refrain from upgrading in the near future. Famous last words, of course, but that is the plan so far.

[bloodydoorknob]

Another alternative is the tokina 50-135 2.8. I've used it for portraits and landscapes and it gets the job done. It's sharp, fast, built like a tank and can be had for around $680.00. Used together with the tamron 17-50 2.8, you'd have a versatile but serious set. My advice is to just buy whatever you can afford at the moment. The sooner you buy, the sooner you'll stop worrying about gear and the sooner you'll get to take pictures! Just my two cents.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by bloodydoorknob

Another alternative is the tokina 50-135 2.8. I've used it for portraits and landscapes and it gets the job done. It's sharp, fast, built like a tank and can be had for around $680.00. Used together with the tamron 17-50 2.8, you'd have a versatile but serious set. My advice is to just buy whatever you can afford at the moment. The sooner you buy, the sooner you'll stop worrying about gear and the sooner you'll get to take pictures! Just my two cents.

Another good point.

Right now, however, I seem to be on a Canon buzz, if you will. Assuming I purchase the XT, that is, I've narrowed down my lens choice to either the 17-40L, or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. With the former, I expect better build quality, slightly better image quality, and a tighter quality control; but the latter offers more focal-flexibility and outright faster speed - assuming the lens is even usable at such a wide aperture.

Considering my projected use of the lens as being for general purpose photography, which one do all of you think best suits my needs? Does the tank-like build of the Canon warrant its ~$200 premium over the Tamron, despite its f/4 aperture and smaller focal range? Or should I steer clear of the third-party lens, and go for the more predictable model from the major manufacturer?

Best,
Nick

[OverlordXenu]

1. It's the photographer that makes the picture. If I really want to, I can take great pictures with a decades-old P&S.
2. I think that the Nikkor 18-200 lens is around $700, and it is supposed to be an amazing lens.