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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 3, 2012, 11:22 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 11
Default D5000 Lens Suggestions

Currently I have the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S, I love it. I plan on selling my original lens, the 18-55mm, and I am looking to get two more lenses. I want a regular shooting lens, I was thinking the 35mm or 50mm, and I want a wide angle zoom lens, I was thinking 14-28mm or 10-24mm.

I was wondering if anyone has any input.

I have never tried a non-nikon lens, what are your opinions?

What about the lens choices I have listed, pros, cons, opinions, or suggestions?

I know this is a lot to ask, but there is no one in person I can really ask where we live (Small town).


Most of my photography, is landscapes, architectural, waterfalls, scenes (indoors and out), also the occasional person. I shoot a pretty wide variety of scenes so I would like to have three lenses that fully cover my bases.
JAVIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jan 4, 2012, 12:12 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

I also have a D5000. The lenses that I have are the Tokina 12-24 f/4 DXII, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, the Tamron 90 f/2.8 "portrait macro," and the Nikon 35 f/1.8. I used to have the Nikon 55-200 VR (forgot the f/range) I can tell you about these.

The Tokina and the Tamron 28-75 are absolutely wonderful. I have no complaints at all with either lens. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I would not even think of replacing these lenses. They are both incredibly sharp, even wide open. Their color fidelity and contrast is superb. Some folks find the Tokina a bit too quick to flare, but I have had no problem that way. Some other people think the focusing of the Tamron is a bit slow and noisy. I have no complaints on either score. I use them both indoors and out, in high and low light, for all manner of photos.

I am less fond of the Nikon 70-300. It is quite slow (dark) and seems to be a tad weak on the micro-contrast (but maybe I'm just doing something wrong.) It isn't a huge improvement over the much less expensive Nikon 55-200 VR that I replaced with it. There is some extra reach, but I don't think I would make this change again. Instead, I'd keep saving until I could get one of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRs. Both versions of that lens are wonderful. BTW, the one thing that really bothered me about the 55-200 was the lens coating, which made every shot look like it was taken through sunglasses. The 70-300 doesn't have that issue.

The Tamron 90 is my biggest disappointment among my lenses. It is a decent macro lens, although it trombones so much that it has less working distance than I would like. And it is wonderfully sharp as a portrait lens. But it has a couple of very serious flaws.

First, it has a very bad LoCA problem. As you may know, there are two kinds of chromatic aberration, lateral (aka "transverse") CA and longitudinal (aka "axial") CA. The lateral CA is now routinely corrected in either you camera or your pp software and can be completely eliminated to my eye. But LoCA is a real problem. There are some attempts to remove it automatically, and there are commonly sliders on your pp software to tweak it, but it always leaves a scar. The reason is because of the nature of the CA. Lateral CA has all the frequencies of light focusing on the same plane, but they are displaced laterally from each other. So the photo is in-focus, it just isn't lined up by color. But LoCA is the problem that different frequencies of color focus on dfferent focal planes. In that case, there is no good way to undo the blur. You can get rid of the purple halo, but the image still looks blurry where it was.

Second, I find that the lens has a serious tendency to miss focus when you are shooting subjects that are at mid-distance or so. I don't know whether that is a problem of just my lens or a general problem of the design, but it is quite irritating. Used at portrait distances or closer, it is fine. Used as a general-purpose lens, it is very prone to misfocus.

Finally, the 35mm f/1.8 is a very nice little prime. It was my original one and only lens when I first got the D5000, and I loved it. However, since I got the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, I almost never use the lens anymore. I have loaned it to a friend who is thinking about buying one, so he can play with it for an extended time to see if he really wants one. I don't think I'll sell it to him, because I like the lens a lot -- it just doesn't make it into the shooting rotation much anymore.

That's about all I know about lens options. FWIW

Last edited by tclune; Jan 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2012, 1:14 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Koolpc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Under The Desk (UK)
Posts: 597
Default

Isnt the Tamron 17-50 supposed to be a great lens?
Koolpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2012, 5:16 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 11
Default

Tclune: Thank you so much, it is great to hear honest opinions. I am really looking at the Tokina 12-24 f/4 DXII because it is almost half the price, and right now price plays a big role.
I had priced out what I want to finish my "dream" lens and flash set, but it was $1500, and if I could stay under 1000 that would be awesome....

So the Nikon 35 mm vs the Nikon 50 mm, any input?
I am really thinking the 35, but not sure which would benefit me better as a shoot and go lens beside my Nikon 28-300mm which I LOVE.
JAVIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2012, 5:20 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 11
Default

Since you are not fond of your Tamaron 90 macro lens, what would you suggest if I did decide to get one, for macro I am a big flower lover...
JAVIA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2012, 5:53 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koolpc View Post
Isnt the Tamron 17-50 supposed to be a great lens?
The unstabilized Tamron 17-50 is a great lens. The stabilized Tamron 17-50, not so much. Similar offerings from Sigma are better.
__________________
  • 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 Jan 4, 2012, 8:51 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAVIA View Post
Since you are not fond of your Tamaron 90 macro lens, what would you suggest if I did decide to get one, for macro I am a big flower lover...
As I mentioned, the only lenses I have owned for my D5000 are the ones I listed. If I were going to get a macro now, I would seriously explore the stabilized versions of the Nikon and Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro lenses. They both have good press. But I have no personal experience with either of them. I don't think you need VR for a macro lens in general, but that's how the new versions of these lenses come.
tclune 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 4:40 AM.