Isao
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Posts
- 42
- Likes
- 0
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.
The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)
- Thread starter dj_mocok
- Start date
milkpowder
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Posts
- 8,496
- Likes
- 21
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!
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
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 1,723
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
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
| Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Posts
- 8,496
- Likes
- 21
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 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
With the 17-55 and 70-200 setup, will I be missing much by leaving out 55-70 (effective 82.5-105)?
M0T0XGUY
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 1,723
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
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.
| Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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
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.
Towert7
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Posts
- 5,853
- Likes
- 38
Quote:
I prefer the 18-200VR for wide shots vs. the kit lens in terms of better image quality. I own both.
| Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Although I think 18-55mm produces better image quality than the overhyped 18-200mm.... Wahhh! /runs away... |
I prefer the 18-200VR for wide shots vs. the kit lens in terms of better image quality. I own both.
milkpowder
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Posts
- 8,496
- Likes
- 21
So many darn low-power zooms I'm starting to get a bit confused
IQ-wise (from a bit of reading)
18-55 < 18-70 < 18-135 ~ 18-200 < 16-85 ~ 17-55
IQ-wise (from a bit of reading)
18-55 < 18-70 < 18-135 ~ 18-200 < 16-85 ~ 17-55
Towert7
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Posts
- 5,853
- Likes
- 38
Quote:
Ok, first things first! Have you actually used the 35mm for portrait? Unless you want full body photos 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 photos. 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 photos, 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$, but I'm afraid of giving up my dreamy bokeh with my 70-300G. I use it for a lot of flower / animal photos at the moment.
If I were to take photos considerably more at the wide-normal range, I would get a good lens in this range and just the cheap 70-300G. It'll give you the range to hone your skills without lugging around some massive lens that makes you look strange.
If you were to use the mid range and tele range equally, I would look into the 70-300VR and the 18-200VR or 24-70mm, 28-70mm, or 17-55mm.
If it were me, and I was strapped for money, I'd get the 70-300G again. For the price, you just gotta have it (134$, I mean... come on!).
I've found that I can take *most* of the pictures 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.
| Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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 used the 35mm for portrait? Unless you want full body photos 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 photos. 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 photos, 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 photos at the moment.
If I were to take photos 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$, I mean... come on!).
I've found that I can take *most* of the pictures that I want with my: 35mm F/2, 50mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, and 70-300G. The 20mm F/2.8 and a micro lens are next on my agenda.
On a related note: I have a D50, and I am able to take nice pictures. The D80 and above make it 'easier' to take better pictures, if that makes sense. The lens choice should be equally as important as the body, if not more so.
Towert7
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Posts
- 5,853
- Likes
- 38
Quote:
It is not clear cut always, and depends on what you put more importance on in terms of image quality.
For example, my 18-55 was really nice in terms of CA, but my 18-200VR has more CA. Though I find the 18-200 to give an image with more clarity vs. the 18-55. You know, give and take, give and take. Be careful about classifying lenses in terms of absolutes, which is better than another. People's opinions vary.
And hey, if you just can't decide, make use of a lens rental service. Pick a nice week, rent a few of them, and compare. Within a week you should formalize your opinions. You may spend 100$ or so, but it'll give you the peace of mind that you made the right choice.
| Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif So many darn low-power zooms I'm starting to get a bit confused
IQ-wise (from a bit of reading) 18-55 < 18-70 < 18-135 ~ 18-200 < 16-85 ~ 17-55 |
It is not clear cut always, and depends on what you put more importance on in terms of image quality.
For example, my 18-55 was really nice in terms of CA, but my 18-200VR has more CA. Though I find the 18-200 to give an image with more clarity vs. the 18-55. You know, give and take, give and take. Be careful about classifying lenses in terms of absolutes, which is better than another. People's opinions vary.
And hey, if you just can't decide, make use of a lens rental service. Pick a nice week, rent a few of them, and compare. Within a week you should formalize your opinions. You may spend 100$ or so, but it'll give you the peace of mind that you made the right choice.
milkpowder
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Posts
- 8,496
- Likes
- 21
Points noted!
New D80 for $900, or well used D200 for $800-1000?
New D80 for $900, or well used D200 for $800-1000?
stuartr
Loyal member of Team Useful Post.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2001
- Posts
- 2,356
- Likes
- 12
Have you considered whether you need a zoom and whether or not you would be better served by a prime lens? The 70-200 VR and 80-200 f/2.8 zooms are really big, heavy, and intimidating to the person you are photographing (if you are photographing a person). Sure, they have great image quality, but in most cases no better than the prime lenses...usually worse when you consider things like distortion. Nikon makes some great telephotos -- the 105mm f/2 DC is superb, as are the 180/2.8 and 85/1.4 (or 1.8). All of them are substantially smaller than the zooms, have equal or better image quality, and are cheaper to boot (yes, I know that getting all three would be more). I just got into Nikon with the D3, and I picked up two zooms -- the 17-35 and the 24-70, but for the telephoto end I am sticking with the 105mm for now. I think it will be all I need for now...perhaps I will add a 300mm f/4 later. Don't get me wrong, there is a place for the 70-200 zooms, but it is less often needed in my opinion. That said, I am renting one today to shoot a fashion show, so there's that. I would have to rent it 37 times to make it worth buying it though...
Towert7
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Posts
- 5,853
- Likes
- 38
Quote:
New D80 for 730$ at bhphoto.com
| Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Points noted! New D80 for $900, or well used D200 for $800-1000?
|
New D80 for 730$ at bhphoto.com
M0T0XGUY
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 1,723
- Likes
- 13
Quote:
As noted, you can get a new D80 for much cheaper; and a mint D200 will barely run you $875 these days.
| Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Points noted! New D80 for $900, or well used D200 for $800-1000?
|
As noted, you can get a new D80 for much cheaper; and a mint D200 will barely run you $875 these days.
milkpowder
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Posts
- 8,496
- Likes
- 21
Unfortunately, us Brits are pretty screwed as far as prices go (even used prices)...
Buying from the US is actually more expensive when you take into account import duties (anywhere from 1-20%, depending on the mood of the customs officer) + VAT (17.5%) + courier brokerage fees.
I suppose I could pick up gear when I'm back in Hong Kong around August, but I don't want to wait until then! The weather is absolutely gorgeous in Edinburgh atm. Perfect for taking photos!
Buying from the US is actually more expensive when you take into account import duties (anywhere from 1-20%, depending on the mood of the customs officer) + VAT (17.5%) + courier brokerage fees.
I suppose I could pick up gear when I'm back in Hong Kong around August, but I don't want to wait until then! The weather is absolutely gorgeous in Edinburgh atm. Perfect for taking photos!
Arainach
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Posts
- 1,983
- Likes
- 16
Quote:
I'd be curious where you've been reading. I've used all those lenses except the 16-85, and from my use and the reviews I've read, I'd put it at:
18-55 = 18-135 < 18-70 = 16-85 = 18-200 <<<<< 17-55.
My first and foremost concern is sharpness, followed by distortion/aberration, followed by maximum aperture and focus speed.
The 16-85 can't even begin to touch the performance of the 17-55, so I'm not sure who in their right mind would rate it as anywhere near equal.
| Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif So many darn low-power zooms I'm starting to get a bit confused
IQ-wise (from a bit of reading) 18-55 < 18-70 < 18-135 ~ 18-200 < 16-85 ~ 17-55 |
I'd be curious where you've been reading. I've used all those lenses except the 16-85, and from my use and the reviews I've read, I'd put it at:
18-55 = 18-135 < 18-70 = 16-85 = 18-200 <<<<< 17-55.
My first and foremost concern is sharpness, followed by distortion/aberration, followed by maximum aperture and focus speed.
The 16-85 can't even begin to touch the performance of the 17-55, so I'm not sure who in their right mind would rate it as anywhere near equal.
Users who are viewing this thread
