The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by lan

Not all AF-S are made the same either. I find my 55-200VR pretty slow. I guess that's why it's a cheap lens.

The 18-55, 18-135, and 55-200 don't use a true ring motor like all the rest do. They're the only exceptions. Also, focus speed is largely the lens, not just the motor - how many turns from near to far, what the maximum aperture is (more light means faster focus), etc. You'll find that your 55-200 focuses just as fast as the old AF-D 70-300 and a lot faster than the plain old AF version, for instance.

[milkpowder]

I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time!

BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time!

BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?

I'd check this site out for some objective advice: Welcome to Photozone! The reviews are concise, understandable, and feature all the photographic tests a lens buyer could ever want or look for. From a personal standpoint, however, I'd recommend compromising on build quality and image quality by buying the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - same f stop as the high-end Nikon, equal or better sharpness in most cases, and nearly a third of the price. It's a consumer grade lens in build for sure, but it ain't no 18-55 either.

[Arainach]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

I just wanna say thanks to all who have contributed to this thread. It has been the most informative and interesting thread I've read in a very long time!

BTW, has anyone compared the 17-55 to 18-55? Is the 2.8 worth the extra price?

Without a doubt. The two are miles and miles apart in terms of quality. The larger f/stop is excellent and the faster focusing speed is nice, but the overall sharpness and contrast of the 17-55 is stunning, while the 18-55 is mediocre at best.

[dj_mocok]

Although I think 18-55mm produces better image quality than the overhyped 18-200mm.... Wahhh! /runs away...

[Isao]

Unless you are a pro.... you I don't think you'll see much difference between the tamron 17-55/2.8 vs the nikon 17-555/2.8 ....except the $800 difference.

[milkpowder]

The tamron 17-50/2.8 looks to be a great lens offering even better IQ than the pro-level nikkor. However, I've been reading around and it seems that the cheaper offerings from tamron and sigma exhibit some AF problems. Any related experiences?

I'm basically planning what my rig should be. So far it looks to be a all-nikon setup: 17-55/F2.8 as a walk-around lens (as opposed to the 24-70/2.8, which is too long on a DX camera) and 35/2 for portraits, low-light indoors and close-ups (as opposed to the 50/1.4or1.8, which is also too long when x1.5).

I still can't decide on a medium-power zoom lens. The 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR is very attractive, but tests done by Photozone suggest that it has very noticeable CA at full zoom. It also seems a bit slow. Again, is anyone experiencing poor CA at large focal lengths?

Ideally, the 70-200/2.8 would be nice, but darn is it expensive. I don't think I shoot tele enough to be able to justify spending so much on it. Its size is also an issue since I tend to shoot whilst on-the-move. Having used my friend's 70-200/2.8, I found it far too long, bulky, heavy and unsubtle. An obvious alternative is the Sigma 70-200/2.8, which Photozone commented favourably on. It's also much cheaper too!

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

The tamron 17-50/2.8 looks to be a great lens offering even better IQ than the pro-level nikkor. However, I've been reading around and it seems that the cheaper offerings from tamron and sigma exhibit some AF problems. Any related experiences?

I'm basically planning what my rig should be. So far it looks to be a all-nikon setup: 17-55/F2.8 as a walk-around lens (as opposed to the 24-70/2.8, which is too long on a DX camera) and 35/2 for portraits, low-light indoors and close-ups (as opposed to the 50/1.4or1.8, which is also too long when x1.5).

I still can't decide on a medium-power zoom lens. The 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR is very attractive, but tests done by Photozone suggest that it has very noticeable CA at full zoom. It also seems a bit slow. Again, is anyone experiencing poor CA at large focal lengths?

Ideally, the 70-200/2.8 would be nice, but darn is it expensive. I don't think I shoot tele enough to be able to justify spending so much on it. Its size is also an issue since I tend to shoot whilst on-the-move. Having used my friend's 70-200/2.8, I found it far too long, bulky, heavy and unsubtle. An obvious alternative is the Sigma 70-200/2.8, which Photozone commented favourably on. It's also much cheaper too!

While it is true that third party lenses often exhibit more QC problems than first party lenses (think focus hunting, back focusing / front focusing) I think at least Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are getting better about this in general; and to specifically mention the Tamron 17-50, I know that a new version is due out with a built in AF motor, which - in theory - should be faster and more accurate than the camera driven version.

Without going much further, it would also be helpful to know whether you plan on buying a new camera body (and what that body would be) or whether you're set on using your dad's D300 (not a bad choice if you ask me). Obviously this is meant to determine whether or not your camera will auto focus with non AF-S lenses, as I'm sure you're well aware.

Knowing the camera model will also come in handy in recommending a zoom lens - the D300, for example, having exceptional high ISO performance, will generally forgive a lens' low maximum aperture to an extent; while something like a D40 will require a faster lens to maintain a lower usable ISO.

As for your telephoto recommendation, I definitely suggest the 70-200 or 50-150 from Sigma - as they're built well, don't break the bank, and have a relatively large constant aperture. VR is nice and comes in handy, but personally I don't find it a good substitute for a good-old-fashioned large aperture. If you like taking photos of still subjects at long distances / focal lengths, however, VR will definitely improve sharpness and reduce hand held camera shake.

Overall, I definitely think you'll have an amazing setup which will cover just about all grounds of normal photography.

Good luck,
Nick

[milkpowder]

Thanks for the valuable insight.

I live away from home during term time so the my dad's camera is basically out of my reach most of the time. I'm definitely going to get a body with AF motor, either a used/new D80 or its replacement, sometime during the summer holidays. Sure, it won't shoot as quick or noise-free photos, focus as fast & precisely or meter as accurately as the D300, but I should be more concerned with refining my technique.

I really don't care much about which body it is, reason being I've seen a heck of a lot of spectacular photos shot with D40/D40x/D50/etc so the D80 can't be all that shabby Everyone I've asked or whose opinion I've read has said that glass comes before body. Having said that, I wonder if a D40 w/ a 24-70 will shoot nicer pictures than a D300 w/ a 18-55 AT LOW ISO

With the 17-55 and 70-200 setup, will I be missing much by leaving out 55-70 (effective 82.5-105)?

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

Thanks for the valuable insight.

I live away from home during term time so the my dad's camera is basically out of my reach most of the time. I'm definitely going to get a body with AF motor, either a used/new D80 or its replacement, sometime during the summer holidays. Sure, it won't shoot as quick or noise-free photos, focus as fast & precisely or meter as accurately as the D300, but I should be more concerned with refining my technique.

I really don't care much about which body it is, reason being I've seen a heck of a lot of spectacular photos shot with D40/D40x/D50/etc so the D80 can't be all that shabby Everyone I've asked or whose opinion I've read has said that glass comes before body. Having said that, I wonder if a D40 w/ a 24-70 will shoot nicer pictures than a D300 w/ a 18-55 AT LOW ISO

With the 17-55 and 70-200 setup, will I be missing much by leaving out 55-70 (effective 82.5-105)?

I really doubt it. Lenses - to an extent - are defined more by their intended purpose than their focal length; so as long as you have a lens or 2 which covers a particular area of photography (i.e. portraiture, landscape) you won't miss the 15 mm in between.