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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 18, 2011, 10:18 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default Which lens option?

Most of my shooting has been real estate and I love my Sigma 10-20, however, in the process meet so many people to leverage in other areas - weddings, portraits, children etc. I will be getting rid on my kit 18-55 and 55-200 replacing with better. Initially was thinking Nikon's 16-85 and 70-300, but as nice as those lens are, dimissing that and looking at fast glass for the better depth of field, and of course low light.

Was thinking Tamrons 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) and defer the faster 70-200 2.8 tele. At this point cant justify Nikons 17-55 due to cost, and Tamrons and Sigmas VC versions are not as sharp as the non-VC. My photoclub practice portrait shoot in a park has me questioning that and wondering if shoud focus on the 70-200. Two things I noticed, how close I and others were with the short zooms and 50 primes, and my switching to the 55-200.

For those that take weddings, which do you find you use the most, the short zoom or long zoom. Technically, I have 2 bodies, a D40 and D90 so could mount both lens. Plan to sell the D40 and 2 kit lens when the D400? is released and decide D400 or D7000 at that time.

Which do you feel would be the 'ideal' setup. Keeping the Sigma 10-20 and irrespective of any option below, getting a 90 or 105 macro later, and probably a 1.4x converter.

Option 1
17-50 2.8
70-200 2.8

Option 2
30 1.8
50 1.4
70-200 2.8

Option 3 (the full frame option, doubt will move to full frame, but if I did)
24-70 2.8 (cover lower range when necessary with the upper 17-20 on the Sigma 10-20)
70-200 2.8

Variations?
- skip the 2.8 glass, purchase 16-85 plus the primes and existing 55-200. (actually, with the 50 1.4g that would cost about as much as splurging on Nikons 17-55 2.8, but be a lot lighter. And a used E+ condition 17-55 would be cheaper than the combo.)
- substitute the 70 300 variable for the 70-200 2.8 (selling the 55-200)
- skip the 70-200, retaining the 55-200 and add the 90 or 105 macro that function in both macro and tele mode with the shallower 2.8 DOF.

Finally, with my real estate transitioning to DSLR video (true video rather than the visual tour slide show) which could impact prime useage. Overall, expect that to go from 0% to 5%, so not that big an issue. Right now want to develop skill with the D90's limited video capability to see how important is with next body upgrade.

Last edited by tizeye; Mar 18, 2011 at 10:28 AM.
tizeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 18, 2011, 10:49 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

It seems that you're not dissatisfied with the range of focal lengths you've got now (18-55 & 55-200), you just want better quality and larger apertures.

Have you done any research into the actual focal lengths you shoot at now? I use ExposurePlot to see how I actually use my gear. Since you're considering a significant change to your arsenal, you might want to figure out how you use what you've got now.

For instance, how often do you use focal lengths shorter than 24mm? Would you miss 18-24 if you didn't have it any more? Or could you actually do away with anything up to 28mm, and go with the Tamron 28-75/2.8 instead? (... saving some money so you can get a fast prime as well.) And maybe you never really use the 150-200mm range, so you'd make better use of a 50-150/2.8 than you would a 70-200/2.8.
__________________
  • 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 Mar 18, 2011, 11:58 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default

That's true. What I use 75% of the time is the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6. The other 25% is more leisure and even between the 18-55 and 55-200, depending on the activity. Don't really know on the video yet as about to finish as dollyglide DIY project, and start a merlin type stedicam. Anticipate upper range of the Sigma, or the 18-55.

The issue is, I antiicipate my 25% useage to change to less leisure to more portraits, child, maternity and wedding where the UWA would essentially be useless. That is why considering a little better glass. I may want to concentrate more on the primes Nikon's 30, 50, and perhaps Tamron's 90 macro. That would support the portrait side, and with the occasional wedding, rent until I know what I want, with the primes as backup.

Last edited by tizeye; Mar 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM.
tizeye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2011, 10:22 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
tizeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 382
Default

It arrived! Holding off on the 70-200.



Won't typically use it on my D40 which is a backup body. Couldn't get the Cactus truggers to fire on the D40 so had to swap the set-up and use the D90. Will have to research that issue more, as the menu item for manual flash was the same menu label on the D40 as the D90.
tizeye 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 8:25 AM.