$1000 to spend

ok so here is the deal

i want 2 buy 2 lenses with this $1000...now i need a macro lens and i want

either a wide angle lens or a 2.8 zoom lens. i have a d40 at the moment and i

will upgrade my body to D300 or D80 replacent by the end of the year.

 

here are my choices...

Macro- 60mm nikon 2.8(old version) $350 60mm nikon AF-S $500

ive never owned a macro lens. i know both are great lenses but i can save $150

if i get the old version. i will use the macro for bugs, and flowers and

anything else that comes along...also will use for portraits. so what is the

best choice?

also, the 90mm tamron looks great and i heard performs just as good as these 2

nikons. the 90mm is $430...such a hard choice.

 

for the zooms i have

tamron 17-50mm at $370- my hang up on this one is that i will have to manual

focus this lens until i get a new body which is not really gonna do it if i am

doing low light photos...i saw on amazon.com there is a version of this lens

with a built in motor is that right????

sigma 18-50mm at $376- this lens has HSM so i can AF on the D40- if its

optically as good as the tamron why not get this one right?- i also heard sigma

has a lot of "bad" copies, that worries me

 

 

and finally

the sigma 10-20mm HSM lens seems an awesome choice for a wide angle lens. i want

a wide angle as i have nothing lower than 18mm. but i will not be selling any

landscapes which i do a lot for fun. lens cost$ 429

altho the Tokina 12-24mm is also a good contender for a wide angle..same price

but better build. however i lose 2mm which is huge...

another tough choice

 

any help would be great! thanks

and sorry for another this or that lens post :)

The Tamron 17-50 is pretty decent I'd keep is and use MF. The Sigma 10-20 is excelent for the money; take 77mm filters and distortion is not excessive.

The standard response to your question would be "what lenses do you have now and what are you looking for in the lenses you want to buy?"

 

If you dont have a ready answer, it's a good indication that you should save the money for now and shoot more with what you have.

Jonathan, it sounds to me like you really want three lenses but can afford only two. If you want a macro and wide angle, fine. That means you wait on the faster short zoom.

 

Your choices have been discussed here many times. The macro focal length is really personal preference. Some like 60mm, others like 90mm, still others prefer 105mm.

 

I got the 90mm because it was the best length for me. Little critters are a bit harder to photograph with only a 60mm lens. As for portrait, I find 60mm a bit short. Others feel different, of course. BTW, when I use it as a macro, it is almost always manual focus so I wouldn't worry if it doesn't have AF for your D40.

 

The wide angle Sigma sounds pretty neat. The extra 2mm on the wide end is helpful. If I didn't already have the Tokina, this is something I would consider. However, I also use the 20-24mm range on the Tokina a lot so that would mean changing lenses more frequently.

 

That brings us to your third option. The reviews have certainly been kinder to the Tamron 17-50 than the Sigma 18-50. I use the Tamron and have found the reviews to be pretty accurate.

 

IMO, you select the two you would use the most, then get the third when the bank account is a bit more beefy. It takes years for most people to get all the lenses they want.

Hey Jonathan!

 

If I was in your shoes I would forget about all that, I would just buy 1 lens, Nikon 17-55 f2.8

 

That will work great with your D40 and by the time you upgrade to a D300 or D90 you will have already mastered it and it will be even better. The 10-20 is not a lens for everyone, you have to learn how and when to use it. If you get the Tamron 17-50 you will always wonder how much better the Nikon lens is and maybe some day you will end up replacing it and that will be more money. The Micro lens is not an everyday lens, its use is more limited.

 

the Nikon 17-55 is great, wide enough, good for portraits, street photography, etc. Multi uses and fast enough! if you are not sure what you really need that lens would work. Later on you can start building up your equipment as you need it to.

 

As I said before, that is what I would do!

 

Good luck! Rene'

Sigma4less currently has an imported Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 in stock with an internal focus motor for your D40. I would get that lens over the Sigma since it gets better reviews.

60mm AF-S micro and 10-20 HSM sigma will both focus with your camera and give you

GREAT joy. If you have the kit lens, and are doing this only for "fun" then I'm not sure I'd get

a 2.8 zoom first. Wait on that.

 

And a friend of mine gave me some good advice once. Whenever you're spending money,

wait one day for each hundred dollars you are going to spend to make the purchase. So, for

you, that's 10 days. Great way to avoid buyers' remorse... unless you have a trip coming up.

From what I have read macro focus is best done manually and distance will be a concern if shooting bugs. You don't want to be to close camera wise. I think it will be much easier to manual focus with an upgraded body. It might be wise to get a wide zoom and wait until your body upgrade for macro. If you want a low light or isolating DoF lens than maybe a 35, 50 or 85 prime would be better than a 2.8 zoom if you already have the kit lens. I use primes and the 18-70mm zoom depending. I will wait until the Tokina 11-16 zoom is reviewed before I purchase a wide zoom.

lots of conflicting advice here, which the OP doesn't help by saying he wants either a wide-angle or a 2.8 zoom and a macro.

 

anyway, my .02 would be to prioritize first, since it's probably not possible to get all three lenses you lust for with your budget. those three lenses all do different things, so ask yourself which of those things you want to do the most, and what do they do that you can't do now with your current lenses.

 

also think about necessary equipment, like tripod/ballhead, external flash(es), other lighting kits, etc., which are great to have especially if you foray into macro. for $1k you could get a good macro lens, tripod/ballhead, and two sb-600s (or an sb-600 and a small box lighting kit), for instance. a tripod is also key for low-light/night landscape shots with a slow wide-angle lens.

 

since it takes time to become accustomed to a new lens, however, you may find it better to not bite off more than you can chew at one sitting, and just get one new piece of glass (and accessories) right now. there's no law that says you have to blow your whole wad in one shot, right? don't forget about filters either -- you'll need a slim UV filter if you get a wide angle, and they aren't cheap.

 

some additional things to consider:

-the 60mm AF-S has gotten great reviews and would be a good choice if you also want to use it for non-macro subjects, i.e. as a short portrait lens. it's also f/2.8. if you don't mind shooting manual focus, the biggest difference between the 60mm nikkor and the 90mm tamron will probably be working distance. if you're shooting bugs you want more length. you might also want to consider the 150mm sigma (which has HSM) for insect shots. that might be the best macro lens around, but it's pricier than the nikkor or the tamron.

 

-while AF speed isn't super important in a w/a lens, i'd at least want one that autofocuses, which limits your choices effectively to the sigma 10-20 and the nikkor 12-24. the nikon would eat up almost your entire budget, so the sigma would be a better choice for you. it goes wider too.

 

-the newest version of the tamron 17-50 does have an internal motor, so it'll work on a d40/d40x/d60. i have the old version (which focuses very fast) and can tell you it has great IQ. it's one of my most-used lenses, and sees much more work than my tokina 12-24 (which is admittedly my first pick for landscapes and nature shots). can't comment on the sigma 18-50, but i have the sigma 50-150 which is an awesome lens.

@rene: "If you get the Tamron 17-50 you will always wonder how much better the Nikon lens is and maybe some day you will end up replacing it and that will be more money."

 

have to say my experience with the tamron 17-50 has been so rewarding, quality-wise, that my thought process has been the opposite. it's made me realize that the 17-55 is grossly overpriced and probably overrated. if i was in the market for a 2.8 nikkor zoom now, i'd look first to the 24-70 and the 70-200, no sense in essentially getting a heavier, bulkier and more expensive version of what i already have. as always, YMMV.

hey guys thanks for all the advice. you had a lot of good things to say. i have a tripod and flashes etc. i dont really need anything...i just want everything so i am gonna buy as many lenses as possible right now.

i went ahead and bought the Tamton 17-50mm 2.8

so far it seems real nice. the few pictures i have taken i like a lot. i like the build of the lens..tho of course it could be better. i do like the ease of the focus ring and the big rubber grip on the lens. lens looks great....

 

i looked at the sigma and i didnt like it too much. so i think i am going to get the 60mm AF-s tomorrow...

Eric... Everything from Nikon is overpriced! Even my D300! What I mean is for a camera made in Thailand where people work for 100 USD per month that is too much money!