Need cheap (<$500) wide angle zoom f/2.8 for nikon d50...

<p>Please help - I am looking for a decent wide angle zoom (@ 25-75mm) with a constant f/2.8 (for indoor sports) that is not alot of money. I am a mom with photography as a hobby, nowhere near an expert, and am looking for this lens to take pics of basketball and volleyball. I currently have the NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8 and love it but feel limited with the focal length. I can't afford the NIKKOR lenses in this range so am looking for suggestions. <br>

I've been looking at the SIGMA 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DG and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR. <br>

Any comparisons on these lenses or other suggestions? Also, I know the f/2.8 vs my current 1.8 will make a difference but will I still be able to get at least some good shots?<br>

Thanks for any help.</p>

 

<p>I'd consider second-hand lenses. Lots of nice stuff which doesn't cost too much.</p>

<p>they are both very good choices. just make sure that 28mm is wide enough for you. that's about 42mm. why not look into the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. but they might not be long enough.......there is also the sigma 24-70mm or the sigma 24-60mm that i can vouch for because i use it professionally.</p>

<p>check your focal preferrences and needs before you buy. all of the above are less than $500.</p>

<p>hi karen, i have the 28-75/2.8. it meets all of your criteria. i have never used the sigma but the tamron is quite sharp, though perhaps a bit soft at 2.8. for sports such as you describe, the lack of wideness might not be an issue. for walkaround and general use, 17-xx or 18-xx is a better overall length on DX, but i think you will appreciate the long end, as well as the wider range from your current 50/1.8.</p>

<p>Thank you all. I have looked for used Nikkor lenses but have not been successful. <br>

Ramon - I forgot about the 1.5 conversion. Are the tamron and sigma lenses you suggested for digital or are those true focal lengths for a digital camera...I am looking for a true 25-75 and I know the lenses I was looking at would be @ 42-112. I want something that is a little wider and longer than my current 50mm.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Actually, now that I think about it.....do I have to convert my 50mm f/1.8 lens so it is actually a 75mm? I know the conversion is 1.5x but I am just not sure if all lenses need to be converted or only select lenses. My D50 does have a small sensor.</p>

<p>Karen,</p>

<p>All lenses have their given focal length. This is a physical property of the lens. </p>

<p>When you mount a lens on your D50 you would want to calculate the field of view. This is true for every lens. Take the focal length and multiple by 1.5 to give you the field of view of that lens on your D50. 50mm x 1.5 = a field of view of 75mm</p>

<p>I do have to wonder about your desire to want a field of view of 24 or 25mm for indoor basketball and volleyball. Is your goal to capture the entire court at once?. It's rare to find people needing a wider field of view at such events. Can you simply back up a bit if you feel like you are too close?</p>

<p>Thanks Rob. I usually take my pictures under the basket during bball games and that limits my ability to move back. These are high school and jr high gyms so there is not alot of room under there, I do sometimes take pics from the side but then I always get players' backs. I feel like I'm cutting off alot of the body in some instances. I'm struggling here trying to find the right lens. I do want to be able to go wider and longer than what I have now (50mm) that's why I chose somewhere in the 25-75 range. Does that make sense? Now that I've explained why I chose those lengths do you have other suggestions?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>The Sigma 18-50 would be a nice lens. If you need something a little longer then I would go with the Tamron 28-75. Sigma EX 24-70 non HSM version is very sharp but it is a huge lens. I think the HSM version is a probably about of your price range at 899.</p>

<p>Karen,</p>

<p>That makes sense. It's not too often to have posts from people that are shooting that close. Usually they're 20 rows back wanting shots that /look/ like they're under the basket. Thanks for the reminder. :)</p>

<p>The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 seems like it would be a good choice.</p>

<p>As long as you're that close on the sidelines, I agree with Rob: a wide angle to normal zoom (18-50) will fit your needs better than a mid range zoom (28-70, etc). I would highly recommend going to a camera store and trying the lenses yourself before making a decision on which one is a better fit for you. Fast lenses have a more limited range than their slower counterparts, so you're going to have to give up some distance either on the shorter or longer end. Ultimately the decision will be best determined by the kind of photo you want to accomplish. Swing by a store and test one out, and don't be afraid to ask the sales associate to come outside the counter and stand a certain distance away!</p>

<p>Consider Tamron 17-50 f2.8 or Sigma 18-50 f2.8</p>

<p>I have the D50 and have used the 50/1.8 for 3 years. I also have the Tamron 17-50 and have used it also for the same type of shooting you discribed, but really consider it my walk around lens. It is on my camera all the time unless I pull out the 70-300 Vr for outdoor shots. My goal is to buy a Sigma 70-200/ 2.8 but keep finding other things like a used pickup spend my money on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want something that is a little wider and longer than my current 50mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>can you clarify this? a little wider or a <em>lot</em> wider? the 28-75 would indeed be a little wider. 17-50 would be a <em>lot</em> wider, but no longer than your current 50mm. therefore, if you're not taking group shots and do need more reach, 28-75 might work better for your application, but only if the extra reach is more worthwhile than the ability to go wide. another thing to consider which is in the favor of the 17-50 is that with a wider lens, there's less of a chance of a crucial element being out of the frame, and one trick for action or sports shooting with a DSLR is to shoot wide and crop tight.</p>

<p>you dont say what camera you have but a 10mp camera would allow you to do a 40% crop and still be at 6mp. if you have a d40,50, 60 or 70, you have less wiggle room in this regard, which may sway you toward the longer zoom. if it was me, though, i'd get the 17-50 as that's a more useful range overall on DX.</p>

<p>17-50 tamron would have the best IQ, though the 18-50 sigma might be a wee bit faster to focus, which is always a consideration for low-light indoor motion shots.</p>

<p>Karen, if you want to go wider and longer than I think you have chosen your range well. You know what you require. I have used neither of these lenses but see if you can find out which has the fastest focus. That will help for sports.</p>

<p>got back home late. you can get by with the sigma 24 - 70mm (or 24-60mm which, according to some reviews is faster and delivers better image quality than its big brother, for almost half the price) even under the basket (lucky you!) and still have enough length. but that will take extra skill in composing and you might miss the extra 10mm in the long end. to me, under the basket, wider is better. but i'm sure the others have pretty much answered all your other questions and concerns.</p>

<p>Karen, if you're looking for an "action zoom", consider the 35 - 70 f2.8, which crops to an equivalent of about 52 - 105. Used, their about your price range. I'v used it on DX and it's EXCELLENT!</p>

<p>Karen.... Peter just beat me to it. Look at the Nikkor 35-70mm AF 2.8, or the Nikkor 35-70mm AF 2.8D. Superb optics to last a lifetime, all in an affordable package. The non-D version will be a little cheaper due to 'latest and greatest syndrome' with the D.</p>

<p>The tamron 28-70 is suppose to be pretty good from what i hear.</p>

<p>I've been happy with the Tamron 17-55 2.8, it's a nice lens for the money.</p>

<p>I used to own the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and I was very happy with it. Its not very expensive and not very big.</p>

<p>Karen,</p>

<p>I second Joe's suggestion of the 35-70 2.8. It is a pro quality lens that would give you more flexibility that the straight 50.</p>

<p>A couple of other thoughts - consider incremental steps forward instead of a one-size fits lens. You could pick up the new 35mm 1.8 Nikon for $199, or look for a used, wide prime lens somewhere around 20 or 30mm. A wider prime would open new creative possibilities for perhaps less than a full-featured zoom.</p>

<p>Sadly, indoor sports is a prescription for expensive - there aren't a lot of shortcuts to cheap, quality speed.</p>

<p>Another thought is to rent the caliber of lens that would work best indoors, or a number of different lenses over time, to explore various possibilities. lensrentals.com rents via mail order, and many cities have good places for rentals.</p>

<p>I'm lucky enough to live near a samy's camera, which rents anything - and its opened up a whole new world of possibilites for me to use equipment I'd otherwise never be able to justify purchasing because it would live in the closet or afford to purchase in the first place.</p>

<p>Bob</p>

<p>I use the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 on my D700, great lens for the money and nearly a thousand bucks cheaper than the Nikon equivilant.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 28-75 and have used it with my DSLRs, including D50, and I have been very happy with the results I get with it, so I surely can recommend it.</p>

<p>I have not tried the Sigma 24/28-70, so it might be good to test all of them and especially their AF-speed before buying either one. If you need a bit wider and a bit longer than your 50mm lens, the lenses you mentioned are good choice for that, the best compromises between speed, range and price for what you are looking for I think. I believe you'll be happy no matter which one you'll choose.</p>

<p>the 35-70mm is a very good lens, but not from under the basket.</p>