Looking for a mid-range constant aperture zoom for a D90

<p>Hello everyone.</p>

<p>As the title suggests, I'm in the market for a mid-range, constant aperture zoom. I currently have a 1-year old D90--my first DSLR--along with its kit lens, the 18-105 VR, a 50 1.8D and a rarely used 70-300 non-VR.</p>

<p>Ever since I bought the 50 1.8, I fell in love with the pictures I get with it. Compared to it, the kit lens is basically crap, especially indoors--where I usually find myself shooting. I mostly shoot events at our church, family gatherings or occasions mainly held indoors, most of the time with poor lighting. So my 50 1.8 + SB600 combo is what is always on my camera.</p>

<p>However, working with such a focal length on a crop camera, as you all know, is very limiting. That is why I am seriously considering buying another lens. I've done some research and I am currently eyeing the Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG Macro. Yes, I know it's not wide enough for my D90 but I'd prefer a longer reach than a wide angle when shooting events.</p>

<p>What are your thoughts about this lens? Since I've used the 50mm, I told myself I wouldn't buy anything that isn't <em>at par or better</em> than my nifty fifty in terms of color reproduction and/or contrast/sharpness. So does the Sigma hold up? What are the good and bad points of this lens? Noisy? AF speed? Creep? Bokeh?</p>

<p>My budget is around $400. Are there any other lenses you guys can suggest that I look into? I would prefer a 24-70mm focal length or a similar range because I think that would better suit my needs.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I was going to mention the 24-70 f/2.8.<br /> I haven't use it myself, but have heard some good reviews.<br>

Now- I am myself waiting for responses to your post to learn, what are users of this lens thinking about it.</p>

 

<p>Consider the Nikon 35-70mm f2.8, not that wide but a great lens, within your budget and not a third party either. IMO if you like the 50mm f1.8 you will like this one too. Also ff as that might matter in the future.</p>

<p>I was interested in this lens too and recently went to look at it. A friend of mine has one and is able to capture beautiful images with it, particularly indoors. What's the difference between this particular lens and the same one by Sigma that is HSM (with no macro), other than being more expensive?</p>

<p>Well, I've had the Sigma 24-70 and I can tell you that the image quality will not hold up to your 50 1.8. Wide open the Sigma is VERY soft, and my copy searched quite a bit on my D90. I eventually bought a Nikon 17-55 2.8 to replace it. Personally, I wouldn't recommend the Sigma, even tough it's an affordable 2.8 zoom. It's kind of hard to find a sharp, fast zoom lens in that price range, unless you get a great bargain. I've heard good things about the new Tamron 17-50 2.8 with Vibration Compensation, although it's going for about $600 right now. Even the older version of the Tamron 17-50 might not be a bad idea since the inherent problem with Tamron's (as far as I know) is their chromatic aberration, and the D90 can correct that in camera. Good luck with your decision. Let us know what you get!</p>

<p>The Tamron is definitely one to consider. I've got the first version without the AF-S or VR equivalents, and it is excellent on my D200. CA is never an issue on my copy, and it is sharp in the center from f/2.8 on. The corners aren't great wide open, but stopped down they improve. Away from the corners it is nearly the equal of the superb 35mm f/1.4 AI-S, and I have no qualms using it for critical work.</p>

<p>A friend did an interesting comparison between the 50mm f/1.8D Nikkor and the Tamron:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/groups/norestrictions/discuss/72157623294388207/</p>

<p>It's quite cheap on the used market as well, often going for less than $300. It's the best normal zoom for the money if you ask me, beating out the Sigma equivalent because the finish is better and it's a little wider. It's a lot smaller than the various 24-70mm lenses as well.</p>

<p>You are probably better off looking for a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or the above Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8 or a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 which I am happy with using with a D700. You could get a shorter prime also like a Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Nikkor 35mm.</p>

<p>Since you use a dx-sensor, choosing a dx-lens would be better. You´ll get better range that way, at least on the wide side. Avoid fx-lenses starting up from 24-. You´ll pay for more than you get. I chose the Nikkor 17-55/2,8 for my D300, no regrets.</p>

<p>i have both the tamron 28-75 and 17-50 (older, screw-drive models) as well as the 50/1.8. both compare very favorably to it. perhaps not quite as contrasty but very comparable at 2.8. bokeh is better with the 28-75. AF speed is extremely adequate, though that will depend on what body you use--i use a d300. no lens creep as both have locks. the 28-75 is nice to have for events but overall i use the 17-50 more.</p>

<p>i saw a so-so review of the sigma on photozone which indicated it wasnt quite as sharp as the tamrons, but i have other sigmas i'm happy with (30/1.4 and 50-150).</p>

 

<p>I suggest the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 with or with VC (their version of VR). The difference between 50mm and 70mm is not that great. The lens is sharp enough to let you crop to make up the difference. You can always crop out. You can't "crop in" what the lens can't cover.</p>

<p>Benson,<br>

In most case people will recommend to you what they have or have had. I'm the same. In putting together my "kit" I needed to take into consideration that I just couldn't afford to go Nikon all the way. I also have a Nikon D90, Sigma 12-24 f2.8, Sigma30 f28, Nikon 50 f1.8, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. <br>

I do love the Nikon 50 but I have to say I love all of my other lenses also. I am sure in the proper hands the equivalent Nikon lens would be better, but I have to deal with my hands, mind and most of all pocket book. I see nothing wrong or am sorry for any of the lenses I have. By the way I also use a SB-600 and will look for a couple more.</p>

<p>phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the responses.</p>

<p>Mark: You make a great point regarding cropping. However, for people/portraiture, the 70/75mm focal length is more ideal as opposed to shooting at 50mm (which is too short) and then cropping.</p>

<p>Aside from not having enough reach, working with the 17-50/55mm range makes sloppy in terms of composition as everything 'just fits'. When I used my prime lens, I find that I think more about how I compose my subjects because of the limited FOV.</p>

<p>I have considered the Tamron 28-75mm but my worry is that it might be too much of a compromise on the wide end. But having been used to walking all the way back when using my 50mm for group shots, 28mm might not be so bad, right?</p>

<p>So what can you say about the Sigma 24-70 vs the Tamron 28-75? I know there are different versions for each; I don't know which is best. Is there also a macro version for the Tammy?</p>