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!
Ok, first things first! Have you actually SHOT with the 35mm for portrait? Unless you want full body shots with a lot of the background/forgound in the picture, you'll need a longer lens (either that, or you'll be 2 feet away from the subject all the time).
To be honest with you, it can help to space yourself from the subject. When you are closer to them, they are more likely to focus on the camera and be less fluid. I would be at least 5 feet away from the subject. And so a 50mm, or even a 85mm on my DX can give me nice 3/4 portraits and head shots. Some people actually prefer the 105mm or 135mm range for portrait.
Bottom line: for the 35mm, you'll either need to be real close, or be taking pictures with a lot of the environment in it.
For 3/4 and head shots, I would spring for the 85mm F/1.8 again in a heart beat. For full body, 50mm to 35mm would do good (though 35 is a little on the wide side for my tastes).
Now, for the tele. The 70-200VR is pricey. Too bad Nikon doesn't have a 70-200 F/4 for 560$us like canon does. I would jump on that one.
I have the 70-300G, not the 70-300VR. The VR has improved a lot of things, though I have a hunch that the G version has better bokeh (the bokeh on this lens is simply amazing!!!!!). If you wanted to put most of your money into a a walk around lens, and then get the 70-300G for 134$us, that would sound like a good setup. It won't give you the level of quality of the 70-200, but on the other hand it is much smaller, much MUCH lighter, and much cheaper (134$us vs. 1600$), and you get the full 200-300mm range not offered in the 70-200VR. If you wanted to zoom in past 200mm on the 70-200mm, you'll need a teleconverter (~400$). 1600+400 = 2000... yikes!
Though, the 70-300VR has VR, has sharper pictures, less CA, and IF. I would really like the 70-300VR for 480$, but I'm afraid of giving up my dreamy bokeh with my 70-300G. I use it for a lot of flower / animal shots at the moment.
If I were to shoot considerably more at the wide-normal range, I would get a good lens in this range and just the cheap 70-300G. It'll give you the range to hone your skills without lugging around some massive lens that makes you look strange.
If you were to use the mid range and tele range equally, I would look into the 70-300VR and the 18-200VR or 24-70mm, 28-70mm, or 17-55mm.
If it were me, and I was strapped for money, I'd get the 70-300G again. For the price, you just gotta have it (134$, I mean... come on!).
I've found that I can take *most* of the shots that I want with my: 35mm F/2, 50mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, and 70-300G. The 20mm F/2.8 and a micro lens are next on my agenda.
On a related note: I have a D50, and I am able to take nice pictures. The D80 and above make it 'easier' to take better pictures, if that makes sense. The lens choice should be equally as important as the body, if not more so.
