Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 17, 2010, 11:07 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
kezs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 139
Default best all around lens out there?

hello everyone.

after just under 2 years using olympus, I'm coming back to nikon. I'm not happy that they're dropping (though not openly) the consumer DSLR line, and I'm jumping ship before my stuff is too cheap.

I just sold my 12-60mm, which is a jewel and the reason why I bought olympus.

so I'm probably buying a D7000 soon (own a D50), and I'm pretty much a one-lens-man (85% of the time). so I'm wondering which would be the best option out there for an all-around lens. I'd like the wider angle to be 17mm or less, and the longer end isn't really important. sharpness is really important (with a 16mp sensor you kinda need it).

I've been looking at samples for a while, but they never really tell the whole story, do they?

so I'd like some advice on the options out there. so far, on order, I'm considering:

1. sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0
2. nikkor 16-85
3. tamron 17-50

I'm just spoiled by the 12-60. so I'm looking for whatever gives the sharpest images. I'm impressed by the canon 15-85, but their cameras are more about specs than about performance.

any advice is greatly appreciated.
kezs is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 17, 2010, 12:42 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The stabilized versions of the Sigma and Tamron lenses you mentioned (as well as the Sigma 18-50/2.8, which you didn't list) aren't as good as the non-stabilized versions of those same lenses.

Except for the vignetting at 16mm wide open, the Nikon 16-85 is excellent, and if you don't need the constant large aperture, and need the stabilization, I think that would be the best choice.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2010, 9:39 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
kezs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 139
Default

hey TCav. thanks.

I guess the main advantage of the competition would be the 2.8 aperture - mostly for DOF purposes.

I saw the tests for the Sigma 17-50 on DxOmark.com, as well as on lenstip.com, and I'm really impressed. it sells for about the same as the nikkor 16-85, which is 3.5-5.6. I'm shaken
kezs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 26, 2010, 6:03 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 114
Default

You said you were a one lens person (and I think I am too, although I'm not experienced but just starting out in dslr's with nikon) I'm curious if you would consider using a Tokina 11-16mm and a 18-105mm d7000 kit lens?

What do you think? I am just mentioning it because I too am looking for a wide angle lens solution.
Lilacfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2010, 10:13 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
kezs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilacfire View Post
You said you were a one lens person (and I think I am too, although I'm not experienced but just starting out in dslr's with nikon) I'm curious if you would consider using a Tokina 11-16mm and a 18-105mm d7000 kit lens?

What do you think? I am just mentioning it because I too am looking for a wide angle lens solution.
what a coincidence!

I just came in here because I decided that's what I'm doing and I wanted to ask around about wide angle lens. I'll invest in a wide angle now and I'll replace my all-around lens eventually... but being an architect, what you just said makes much more sense.

I've been looking at the wide angle options out there, and it seems pretty complex to me. there's the tokina 11-16 which has been very well recommended; there's the nikkors 10-24 and 12-24. there's the sigma 8-16, 10-20, 12-24, 15-30. then there's the tamrons 10-24 and 11-18.

I'm thinking a focal length of around 24 on the longer end would be a nice wide of avoid too much lens swapping. and I don't think I need to go much wider than around 11 or 10. so for now I'm thinking a 10-20, 10-24 or 12-24 would do the trick. the tamron 10-24 tested very badly on slrgear.com. the nikkors are expensive, but you can find some interesting deals on used ones out there.

what are your thoughts?
kezs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2010, 10:52 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

If you're an architect, rectilinear distortion should be a major convcern for you. Barrel or pincushion distortion will make buildings look funny.

Two of the best in that regard are:

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor (Tested) ($1,784.95)
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM (Tested) ($859.00)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2010, 2:05 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
kezs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
If you're an architect, rectilinear distortion should be a major convcern for you. Barrel or pincushion distortion will make buildings look funny.

Two of the best in that regard are:

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor (Tested) ($1,784.95)
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG Aspherical HSM (Tested) ($859.00)
TCav,

thanks.

that's true. distortion can ruin any architecture photograph. but, since DxO 'invented' lens profiling and adobe perfected it with customized profiles, that's relative. of course distortion correction degrades somewhat image quality, but a sharp lens with more pronounced distortion often beats a rectiliniar lens with lower IQ. my 12-60 had some "moustache-shaped" distortion, but profile correction made the pictures look great and still sharp.

there's another recurrent issue I'm not quite sure about: using FF lenses on DX bodies. feels like you're either paying more than you should or carrying more than you should when you're doing that...
kezs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2010, 2:19 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 114
Default

Nikon 16-85 just not in the same class?

Last edited by Lilacfire; Oct 27, 2010 at 3:38 PM.
Lilacfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2010, 2:32 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Distortion correction averages the pixels to straighten things. To counter the loss of sharpness they throw in some "sharpening" which just ups the contrast on the high contrast areas, which often often oversharpening artifacts. There's no substitute for a good lens.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2010, 4:14 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
kezs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 139
Default

what about the tokina 12-24 II? excellent reviews for the price, but I haven't found any tests yet.
kezs is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:39 AM.