Please help choose a lens!

<p>So here I am, a proud new owner of the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ED lens. I am shooting the new D7000.<br>

I ran comparison tests on all my lenses and found out that this lens blows everything out of here in terms of sharpness..<br>

My other lenses are two highly rated ones:</p>

<p>Tamron 17-50 f/2.8<br>

and Tokina 28-70 f/2.6-2.8</p>

<p>I ran comparison test of both of these lenses and found out that neither is a winner.<br>

They both have strengths and weaknesses.<br>

I LOVE having 17mm on Tamron, and it is also shaper at 28mm compared to Tokina.<br>

Yet, Tokina is much sharper at both 35mm and 50mm.<br>

You see what I mean? Neither is perfect.<br>

I am ready to take a plunge and buy ONE lens that would replace both Tokina and Tamron. Something that is MUCH better than both of my lenses. A lens that would last for a long time withoout me being unsatisfied and wishing for something better.<br>

Some ideas that come to my mind are Nikkor 16-85 and 24-70. Any other alternatives? I am looking for a significant increase in quality over what I already have.<br>

Of course the 24-70 is SO expensive! Maybe I should look at buying it used? I would also be loosing the wide angle with it on DX.<br>

WHICH LENS SHOULD I GET?<br>

I do a lot of shooting of my 4 year old boy who is constantly on the move, so for that reason having a fast lens is important.<br>

ANY IDEAS WILL BE MUCH APPRECIATED.</p>

<p>I would look at the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8, speed, range and over all quality.</p>

<p>Sometimes the difference between a sharp image and a not-so-sharp one is a bit of additional sharpening to the not-so-sharp one. I have not used either of the lenses you list but many here report them to be very good. I also suggest you check to insure they your lenses are not front or back focusing, which, if they are, could give the illusion of them not being sharp.</p>

<p>In order to make a lens recommendation, tt would probably be helpful to know what type of images are you taking and what size prints are you making?</p>

<p>how do I check whether my lens front or back focuses?<br>

I mostly take candid shots of my family and print them to up to 8x10<br>

I wonder if the 16mp sensor of D7000 making my lenses look worse?</p>

<p>Check also the Nikkor 16-85, if you don't mind losing one stop, a good lens.</p>

<p>A 16-85 would not offer an image quality improvement over a Tamron 17-50. Actually, nothing will give you a <em>significant </em>improvement in image quality over that - heck, it's a lens that pros use when avoiding the weight or expense of the Nikkor version, and probably the best choice for shooting family candids on DX - so to be practical, I would recommend not buying a new lens unless it's a 35mm f/1.8 (which anybody shooting people indoors on DX should own) and instead looking into a flash (SB-600 for example) and practice, practice, practice.</p>

<p>The only lens I can think of that may be sharper than the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8. It's a lot of money for a marginal improvement, but it's your money.</p>

<p>As Elliot suggested, my copy might be front or back focusing.<br>

Is there a test I can run to check if this is the issue?<br>

If it is, than it is what might be causing the average performance.</p>

<p>a few thoughts:<br>

1. the 16-85 is not a fast lens.<br>

2. the tamron has pro-quality optics. it's sharper than the 17-55 @2.8, for one thing. you seem to be trying to convince yourself there's something wrong with it. you're not going to get a significant increase in image quality from any lens in that class, just better build and maybe faster AF speed.<br>

3. the 24-70 is a great lens, but you will miss 17-24 on DX.<br>

4. i'd keep the tamron, maybe sell the tokina, and get a 35/1.8 or a sigma 30/1.4 if you want a fast(er) lens for kid shots.<br>

5. in my experience, the tamron is pretty good at all focal lengths and spectacular at 24mm-35mm. this is typical behavior for this type of zoom. if it was front or back-focusing, it would do so at all focal lengths. it's biggest downside, besides build quality, is distortion@17mm.</p>

 

<p>One way to test for front- or back-focusing is to use a LensAlign (www.whibalhost.com/lensalign/). I have the Pro version and have found it effective.</p>

<p>Please note that a zoom lens may front-focus at one extreme and back-focus at another. Not a good thing, but at least it's possible to diagnose this.</p>

<p>Another problem one may encounter is that the front- or back-focusing of a specific lens may be more than the camera body can compensate for.</p>

<p>I understand the problem. I had the Tamron 17-50mm, but found it too short for candid shots or tight head shots from a decent distance away. I now use the 16-85mm - great range but slow at the long end. Apparent sharpness is also an acutance issue. So really, it's a range versus speed decision you need to make.</p>

<p>As a former tamron 17-50 owner, i can say that for 400$ you can't get anything better that it. That is, unless you have a bad copy of that lens.<br />I learned that instead of worying about sharpness and chromatic aberations i should get out there and shoot, go to photo seminaries, buy a polariser. A replacement lens isn't going to solve anything unless you make a living out of it.<br />My advice to you is to sell both tokina and tamron, buy a nikon 10-24 (which i tested and it was better than the 12-24 tokina) and a nikon 35 1.8G.<br />This will open alot of creative options, you will have sharp glass and you won't sped anymore time trying to determine what to take and that to leave home.<br />I know this because i did exactly that when i had to sell my tamon.</p>

<p>Just curious, in what situations do you use the 35 f/1.8?<br>

There is used Nikon 12-24 that is selling for $500 . Is this a good deal?</p>

<p>I discovered my 17-55mm was back focusing when I took a closeup portrait and focused on the subjects eye, yet the ear was in focus.</p>

<p>Igor, you can use a chart, or just set up a bunch of contrasty objects in a row in front of you (perpendicular to you), like cans, coins, candies - just about anything. Have the camera auto focus on one of them and then take the shot. Examine the image to see exactly where the camera focused on. If the actual focus point is behind the spot you focused on, your camera is back focusing. If the camera focuses in front of the spot you tried to focus on, the camera is front focusing.</p>

<p>If you have a focus issue, you can use your camera's micro adjustment to correct it.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>It's a good price but it's not a good lens for shooting your family with. 12-24 is an ultrawide, when you shoot people with it you have to get all up in their face and you end up with a distorted image that's not pleasing. While it's a good lens, I don't think it addresses the needs you mentioned. It's also not a fast lens.</p>

<p>Also, I think from rereading your original post that there's been some confusion over the meaning of "fast". I think you mean fast AF, while the others are talking about fast as in having a large maximum aperture. (This is what "fast lens" means in the photographer vernacular - it's "fast" if it has a large maximum aperture, which counterintuitively means a small f/number, so that you can use fast shutter speeds.) I'm going to refer to lenses that AF quickly as "quick" to avoid confusion.</p>

<p>Both versions of the 17-50 have built in motors that are pretty quick but not spectacular. I haven't done real comparisons but the Nikon 35mm/1.8 may be a bit quicker. The Nikon 17-55 is quicker than that, but the problem is that (in addition to being expensive) it's heavy, and harder to use in situations where you're trying to follow a fast moving kid, and if you're carrying the camera for a day it's a lot to deal with. So my go-to lens for indoors and shooting people is actually the 35mm, being the best combination of quick, fast and light.</p>

<p>BTW, to check for front-back focus just shoot anything where you can focus on something that has nearer and farther things right next to it, using the center AF point to avoid confusion, and see what's in focus. You can even use a textured surface like a wood floor shot at an angle if you're confident you're not confusing the AF sensor. (Edit: Elliot's idea is better.) Also, for the people shots, make sure you're in the right AF mode and you have enough light for the AF to work correctly - with a new camera, there's always the risk that you just haven't got it figured out yet.</p>

<p>The 16-85 is a fantastically sharp lens, but only at f/8-f/16. It's my ideal 'vacation' lens for walking around during the day, but I wouldn't put it in the same category as any of the better 2.8s. Still, I've never shot anything else with that much versatility that still provided an excellent picture, at least under $1000.</p>

<p>I would pay close attention to your zoom settings for a couple weeks before you buy anything. If you tend to be in the 35mm range most of the time, stick with the Tamron 17-50, or if you move fast you can get a great deal on the 17-50 VC before the rebate expires on the 31st. If you're usually in the 50mm range, switch to the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Lens design is (almost) identical; the elements are just moved around to accomodate the DX sensor. If you don't use the wide angle that much, I refer to the difference between the two as being a matter of 'where you like to stand.' My favourite length is 85mm and other short telephotos, so I use the 28-75 because I rarely use the wide angle, and on a DX lens it's a short telephoto, more often than not.</p>

<p>Had a Nikon 16-85 lens. It is a nice lens, but when compared to my Nikon 28-70/2.8 which replaced the 16-85, there is no comparison. Much more expensive even used, but the image quality is stunning with very fine detail rendered that was just so-so with the 16-85. The 16-85 I had WAS a good copy, but theres a reason, other than just being a faster lens, that pro's use them & that being image quality. They simply ARE better. I gave up focal length at both ends, but I already had other lenses to cover what I lost by going with the 28-70. Now I be a happy camper....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think from rereading your original post that there's been some confusion over the meaning of "fast". I think you mean fast AF, while the others are talking about fast as in having a large maximum aperture.<br>

Both versions of the 17-50 have built in motors that are pretty quick but not spectacular. I haven't done real comparisons but the Nikon 35mm/1.8 may be a bit quicker.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>there are actually three versions of the 17-50--the original, screw-drive, the BiM and the BiM VC. the fastest-focusing is the screw-drive. the tamron screw-drive 2.8 zooms (17-50 and 28-75) are not as fast-focusing as pro AF-s lenses like the 17-55, 28-70, and 24-70, but about as fast focusing as consumer AF-S lenses like the 18-55 and 55-200. you have to decide for yourself whether a smidgen of AF speed is worth a $900 cost differential, or whether its a question of improving technique and acquiring more technical know-how.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just curious, in what situations do you use the 35 f/1.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>low light, indoors, candids, walkarounds.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is used Nikon 12-24 that is selling for $500 . Is this a good deal?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's a good deal price-wise, but i wouldn't trade a 2.8 wide-to-mid zoom for an ultrawide, for the reasons andrew mentions. ultrawides are generally not people lenses, they are better for landscapes and such. also, you'd be taking a step backwards in terms of a fast aperture.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the screw-drive verion of Tamron lens.<br>

I am happy with it, don't get me wrong.<br>

It is just when I ran tests against Tokina, that's what put doubts in my mind. Tokina is a lot sharper at 35 and 50mm.<br>

I cannot say that I have a bad copy of Tamron. I ran backfocus test this morning and it seems to focus right on the target.<br>

I guess, Tokina is just that much better of a lens at 35 and 55 mm.</p>

<p>igor, there is a simple answer here: physics. most lenses are best stopped 2-3 clicks down and in the middle of their ranges. thus, 24-35 is that tamron's sweet spot, while 35-55 appears to be the tokina's sweet spot. so both appear to be performing as should be expected. that's why getting a new lens in the same focal length may not give you any better overall optical results. if you want better sharpness at a specific focal length, i suggest getting a prime or macro lens in that length, but even then you might find that the 2.8 zoom is just as sharp as the prime @2.8, and that the prime is a bit soft wide open. i've compared the nikon 50/1.8 to the tamron 17-50 and 28-75, and at 2.8 they're all pretty comparable in terms of sharpness, with the 17-50 being perhaps the sharpest.</p>