Advice Needed - Going Wider than 50mm f/1.8, but Staying Fast

Hello All-

 

A few of you may remember me from my 50mm f/1.8 Experience thread. I really love the lens. I've been using it a lot and it is treating

me very well. But I'm back here again, seeking your advice on a new lens.

 

There are times when I want to, or need to, go wider, but still need either (1) low light capability or (2) the ability to isolate the subject - or

both. This seems particularly true when I am photographing in museums, restaurants, or in the smaller rooms of my family and friends.

The 50mm is sometimes just too cramped and I just cannot back up enough (walls or something else gets in the way) to compose the

photo how I'd like.

 

Basically, I am looking for a wider, fast lens to complement my 50mm f/1.8. I am not seeking an ultrawide lens, just a wider lens.

Therefore, the Sigma 10-20mm and the new Tokina 11-16mm, even though it is f/2.8, are not what I am looking for.

 

My 18-70mm kit lens is too slow to accomplish what I need. My budget is limited, but I can save up through $400 or so for an end of the

year purchase.

 

Below, I talk quite a bit about what I am looking for and my concerns. I did a bunch of research on my own, but ended up stuck

anyway. I am seeking your advice as to how to proceed. Comments, reactions, advice - all are welcome. Thank you for your help. If

you need any additional information, just let me know.

 

Some more details for you:

 

(1) My camera is a Nikon D70.

 

(2) In general, I bump the ISO only to 640 as needed; I go to 800 if absolutely necessary, but tend to avoid it because I don't care for the

noise produced. I do reduce noise in Lightroom.

 

(3) With the 50mm f/1.8, I find myself shooting mainly at apertures between f1/.8 and f/2.8, rarely smaller than f/4, whenever I am in low

light or want to isolate the subject. f/8 or so for when I don't want to isolate and am not in low light.

 

(4) Therefore, I am looking for a lens that is f/2.8 or faster. If the lens is f/2.8, then I would need to be able to shoot it wide open with

good results. Note: I do own a tripod, but for restaurant photos and such, I think the party I am with (and the restaurant staff) would not

approve of me setting one up in the middle of the floor. So, the faster the better for me.

 

(5) For f/2.8 lenses, I could go either the zoom or the prime route. For zooms. the Tamron 17 - 50mm f/2.8 seems to be well regarded

on this forum. The lens will autofocus and meter, and is basically in my budget range. My concern is that I wouldn't use my kit lens

again - I never reallly used the 50-70mm range of it anyway. Also, I really like my prime; zooming with my feet has been a blast. At

any rate, out of the fast zooms in my price range, this seems to be the best - though please correct me if I am wrong.

 

(6) For the prime route, there seem to be several options. I have been using my kit lens to experiment at various focal lengths. The

Nikkor 35mm f/2 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 would seem to fit the bill nicely but there just doesnt seem to be a huge amount of

difference between those focal lengths and 50mm. I could probably justify the Sigma though, but there seem to have been a lot of both

positive and negative reactions to it - so I am a bit hesitant. Wider options include the Nikkor 20mm, 24mm, and 28mm f/2.8d, all of

which are in budget. Unfortunately, none of these lenses received great - or even good - reviews at photozone, so again, I am hesitant.

 

(7) That brings me to my next point, the older versions of the aforementioned Nikkor primes. The AI and AIS versions seem to be fairly

well regarded. So far as I know, I would have to purchase them used from some source or other. Purchasing used equipment always

gives me pause.

 

(8) My understanding is that the older lenses would not autofocus or meter on my d70. To simulate this 'effect,' I put my 50mm into

manual mode and ignored the meter, making sure the lighting was low.

 

(9) With regard to manual focusing, I had some trouble with this. I was not able to clearly tell when the image was in focus. I could get

it to within a certain tolerance, and then I had to rely on the electronic rangefinder (green dot). I'm not sure if this is my eyes, since I

have lousy vision though it is fine with my glasses and I use those when I photograph, or if it is the d70 viewfinder, which seems to have

caused much difficulty for those wishing to manual focus. Another issue I had is that the focusing ring on my 50mm is rather loose,

insofar as it is really easy to turn. I dug around in the attic for an old lens and found a Takumar 105mm f/2.8. While I couldn't mount it

on my d70, the focusing ring on it seems MUCH nicer. It has a longer rotation and is better damped (I think this is the proper term?). If

the older lenses are like this, I think that achieving proper focus would be easier. I definitely want my photos to be sharp, and one of the

main problems I had was the 50mm focusing ring was so easy to turn that I couldn't get the green light to stay lit steadily. That said, I

am still a bit uncomfortable relying on a green dot and would prefer to rely on my eyes if at all possible - though this may be a silly

concern since I've never had an autofocus complaint.

 

(10) A way around this manual focusing issue would seem to be a Katz Eye focusing screen. I've seen many positive comments on

this product throughout the forum. I have never used a focusing screen like this, and I have been unable to find a good video or photo

set showing how it would work - just some tidbits here and there. For $105, plus optibright treatment for $55, plus installation for $65,

plus shipping = a huge chunk of my budget. So, I am not sure if it is worth it, though I am definitely open to considering it further.

 

(11) With regard to a lack of metering, I am not sure if this would be a good thing or a bad thing. It could be a good thing since it would

teach me how to determine a proper exposure better, without relying on a meter. Although, it could be a bad thing since I might miss

shots, even if I bracket, due to my inexperience. I rely heavily on the built in d70 meter right now, either in matrix mode or spot mode

when necessary. And when I know that photos will have to be taken quickly, I switch out of M and into A mode, letting the camera do

the bulk of the work. With an older lens, I wouldn't be able to do that so my reaction speed would have to get quicker. It could definitely

be a good learning tool.

 

(12) One final concern, while I am remembering - barrel distortion. Lightroom cannot currently correct this, and that is the only software I

have, so the less distortion the better. Unless somebody knows of a free mac program that does a good job?

 

Well, I guess that about does it. Let's hope I didn't forget anything. If you need any additional information, just let me know.

 

I tend to write a lot and it seems like I certainly have here. Hopefully I didn't ramble on too much or put so many restrictions up that I

am just plain out of luck. For those of you who take the time to wade through my wall of text, thank you. I look forward to reading your

responses and I am sure that your advice will prove invaluable.

 

I'm off to the post office now, but should be back shortly.

 

Sincerely,

 

David Elliott

I've been staying away from older lenses that have no ED elements because I get a fair amount of CA on a digital body. I think all in all, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 would be the most versatile lens for you. If you like the 50mm f1.8, the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a solid option because there actually is a big difference in speed, unlike a 35mm f2. When Nikon comes out with a replacement for the D80, you might look for a used D80. It shoots pretty clean at ISO 800.

 

 

Kent in SD

Do you find, David, that using your existing zoom at 30mm (never mind the slowness factor for the moment) tells you

that 30 is still not wide enought? I ask because, when it comes to fast primes, I went through the same dance.

Decent zooms - both kit and pro over time - and the venerable 50/1.8 (on a DX sensor, like you). I've found 30mm to

be exactly what the doctor ordered for those restaurant-type shots, and if it's NOT wide enough, it always seems like

I'm really looking for the ultra-wide anyway, closer to 10mm.

 

I went with the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM, and haven't looked back. When wide open at f/1.4, it's a hair soft at the very

margins, but still very sharp otherwise. Stopped down to f/1.8 or 2, it's every bit as sharp as my 50 and 60mm

primes. I like how quickly and quietly it focuses, since it's not using the screw-driven mechanism. In some social

settings, it's surprising how much of an audible difference that can make, especially if you're trying to catch people in

their natural mode. That lens is solid, pleasant to physically handle, and has been making beautiful images for me.

Not quite the bargain that the older primes might be, but then you also get around the troublesome manual-focus and

viewfinder issues. I don't mean to suggest you get a lens that can be a crutch (since you're obviously the deliberate,

careful, and not-afraid-of-the-equipment type). But AF is nice to have on a lens you'll be using sometimes with very

slim DoF, simple as that.

I picked up a used Nikkor AF 28mm 2.8 earlier this year, and have been really enjoying using it. It's certainly not the best rated at its focal length, but for the money, it's a wonderful walk-about lens, and capable of very sharp results on my D80. I like the "look" this lens produces. Keep in mind that with a wider lens, you can get away with a slower shutter speed and still get sharp results, so you don't have to be as fast as the 50mm1.8 to get similar low light abilities. Obviously faster is better, but you can get spendy in a hurry to get past f2.8. There are some examples of shots I've made with my 28mm here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/epw/tags/28mm28/

I've only recently shifted to using zooms with my Nikon cameras so I have a pretty good collection of fixed focal

Nikkor lenses. In my own experience, the 35mm f/2.0 AF-D Nikon lens is hard to beat on my D200. I find the

images to be incredibly crisp, color fidelity excellent, just about zero chromatic aberation and little geometric

distortion. Some other Nikon lenses from the film autofocus era do not work so well on DSLRs -- I'm thinking

particularly of the 20mm f/2.8 AFD -- far too much geometric distortion and CA and poor corner sharpness for a

fixed focal length lens. I personally found the 35 mm focal length to be noticeably different from the 50 mm.

 

If your budget is limited, you really can stretch your dollars through buying on the used market. If you use

one of the auction sites, look for a seller with a well established reputation (lots of successful transactions

and positives) and look for items with plenty of detail photos to get a very good understanding of condition.

Set a reasonable maximum price in your mind and avoid getting caught up in a bidding war! There will be more of

the same item next week. Probably 2/3 of my gear has come from the used market and I've been quite happy with

nearly everything I have purchased that way.

You sound like a prime candidate for a full frame camera.

Thank you all for the responses thus far.

 

Kent-

 

Thank you for the heads up on CA. That hadn't turned up in my searches. I definitely want to avoid that. Between the 35mm f/2

and the 30mm f/1.4, I think that I would have to go with the 30mm, if only because there is a greater difference in focal length

between it and the 50mm. I'm still not convinced I want a zoom - I really like using a prime. Plus, the difference between 1.4 and

2.8 is pretty huge. If the successor to the D80 has a significantly better viewfinder than the D70 along with the improved high

ISO capabilities of the D300 sensor, I may have to find a way to budget that in over the next year.

 

 

 

Matt-

 

I spent another quick hour taking more photos between 20mm and 30mm. The 30mm focal length seems to roughly

approximate what I see with my eyes, which I like. It provides a nice normal perspective. I believe that 30mm is wide enough,

but I am quite sure I wouldnt want to go any longer than that - just too close to the 50mm for me. At the same time, I wouldnt

want to go wider than 24mm, or 20mm at an extreme. At the same time, somewhere in the middle would be very nice but there

dont seem to be any lens options in my budget for f/1.4 or f/1.8 24mm or so lenses - oh well. A 30mm focal length just seems

more natural to me when printed (compared to 20mm), such that when I look at the photo I feel as if I am in that exact

perspective. Hope that makes sense.

 

I think that at this point, the speed means more to me than a few extra mm's. So 30mm f/1.4 would trump 28mm f/2.8 in terms of

usefulness for me. However, the question becomes trickier when I compare the 30mm f/1.4 to a 24mm f/2.8. But since the

newer versions of that lens arent rated highly, and the older versions present some speedbumps, I think I may opt for the Sigma.

 

Excellent point on the quiet focus motor. The sound of my 50mm has raised an eyebrow or two in the past. Usually though,

after a few photos, the photography noises are ignored and I get to do my thing.

 

I tried some manual focus photos again with the 50, and I am just not able to nail the focus consistently. I end up tossing a good

bunch more photos than I normally would. I think the problem is primarily the viewfinder, followed by the easily moved focus ring.

I'll likely just avoid MF-only lenses until I eventually upgrade the camera body. Though, I may pick up an older prime lens on the

cheap from the auction site if it is still in good shape - just to experiment with.

 

I looked through your photos on a hunt for Sigma 30mm f/1.4 photos - all excellent work. I noticed that some of your photos are

from Poolesville. I actually went to high school there. I'm in PG county now, so not too far away!

 

 

 

Pen-

 

Great to see some photos with that lens. I liked your Winter Landscape photo the most. Thank you.

 

 

 

Frank-

 

Would you mind sharing why you switched to zooms from primes? Good to know that the 20mm didn't make the transition to

digital as gracefully as the 35mm.

 

I definitely find the difference between 35mm and 50mm significant, just the difference between 30mm and 50mm is even more

significant and I think I am looking for that extra bit of width. None of the local camera stores have the 35mm f/2d or the 30mm

f/1.4 in stock - so I'm out of luck with regard to trying one out in person. Sigh.

 

Thank you for the used market buying tips. I'll have to look into it more for sure.

 

 

 

Elliot-

 

Haha, thanks. If the D700 were $1000, I would be all over it (as would everybody else, I'm sure).

Pick up a 24mm f2.8 or 20mm f2.8 Nikkor. The 24mm will give your thr equivalent of 35mm on a film camera and the 20mm is the same as 30mm film. The 24mm is a little more compact but I like the field of view of the 20mm. The 20mm seems sharper on my D300 than it was on my f4.

Hi David --

 

I switched to zooms largely because I'd grown tired of continual lens swapping. Concern about geometric

distortion is what had held me back. Today I'm using 17-55 f/2.8G and 80-200 f/2.8D - each on a dedicated D200 body

so you can see I really got tired of swapping. (One of the bodies and the tele zoom were purchased on the used

market). I do always carry one more lens in my bag and that is the 35mm f/2.8D (also purchased on used market) in

the event I have a need to go very light and compact with just one small lens and one body. About 95% of my work

is landscapes.

 

If you have not seen it, take a look at the lens tests at http://www.photozone.de. I have done careful tests

with many of my lenses and find my results to be very consistent with those on photozone. Another excellent site

to check out is Bjorn Rorslett's site at http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html (click on the Lenses link on

the left hand side of the screen). I really appreciate Bjorn's insights.

 

Good luck in your search!

 

Frank

David: Ah, Poolesville! Mostly, down at the McKee-Beshers preserve, or out on some of the local turf farms... scenery, dogs, and mosquitos. Life in the Potomac Swamp. But that's usually more long-lens sort of stuff.

<br><br>

On reflection, I realize that very little of what I've put up in my space here actually came wandering in through that 30/1.4. I'll have to change that.

<br><br>

I just like the <i>feel</i> of that focal length for certain things. My favorite jewelry artist was fishing around for a seasonal mood shot to decorate a little showcase web site, and the setting sun just suddenly lit things up. Off came the necklace... and she put it on a linen napkin, on a breadboard from the table, and we balanced it all on a fence-top. At f/1.6, the Sigma 30 made for a quick series of shots like the one attached here, but which, after some post production fiddling, became a piece of the quick artwork <a href="http://www.marylaurjewelry.com/default.asp"><b>here</b></a> (well, that image will be at that location for another month or so, anyway - fall approaches!). But that very same piece of work, of course, I would only usually use a 60mm macro lens when shooting its actual <a href="http://www.marylaurdesigns.com/jewelry/necklaces/carnelian_torsade/default.asp?i=1" target="_blank"><b>product shot</b></a>.

<br><br>

Though I usually have one zoom or another mounted for carrying around, that 30/1.4 is now almost always in my bag. It really grows on you.<div></div>

Like Frank, I too have dumped single focal lenses and switched to high quality zooms. The single focal lenses were just a headache for me. I found I was missing shots when the action suddenly became fast paced. I didn't like the inflexibility, and felt slowed down by them. I also began to find the limitations of the older designs and coatings of the single focal lenses. I have a hard time understanding why some people rave about these dinosaurs, LOL! I have replaced the Nikons 20mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and Sigma 28mm f1.8 with the excellent new Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR and am daily watching for a Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. When I make it to Chicago I like to photo the Loop trains at night and the subway trains. For those, I could use about one stop faster than f2.8 to get 1/60 second. My plan is to see if the "D90" will shoot as cleanly at ISO 1600 as the D80 does at ISO 800. If it does, I'm OK with the lenses I have. If it doesn't, I may buy the Sigma 30mm f1.4. A 50mm does little for me as I need wider angle for most of my subjects. To me, the whole thing about a DSLR is its speed and flexibility. Single focal lenses negate part of that. (I hate calling them "primes," because that infers they are better, which they clearly aren't.)

 

 

Kent in SD

Wayne-

 

I seem to be getting some conflicting reports about the 20mm. I think that I am having a hard time justifying purchasing a 2.8

prime when the 2.8 zooms, i.e. the Tamron, seem to have such excellent performance.

 

Frank-

 

Thanks for the followup. Seems like you really really got tired of swapping. :D I've looked through Photozone, but had not seen

Bjorn's site before. Looks great. I'll have to give it a thorough look-through later.

 

Matt-

 

Definitely swampy. But, we have some great country out here. I really like the eastern shore in particular, but we also have

forests and "mountains" (glorified hills). Not to mention the city. I really like the DC metropolitan area.

 

I'll check your photos again later and see if you have any 30mm f/1.4 photos up. I look forward to seeing them. The photo of the

jewelry is really nice - I like how you can just make out the tree in the background.

 

Kent-

 

I don't do too much photography where there is any action at all; a bbq is about as fast paced as I get. Most of my work is fairly

slow paced and casual. A fast zoom would certainly seem to suit action photography better than a single focal length lens (see,

I'm catching on here).

 

I hope you will share your photos of the Loop and subway trains once yet get back from your trip.

 

--------------

 

Gotta run off to dinner now. Thanks for all the help everybody.

 

I think that at this point I am leaning toward the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I think that it makes the most sense given my current needs.

It will let me go wider, and it is even faster than the 50mm. Also, I wont have to worry about manual focus (seems to be a bit of a

pain on my d70, no matter how I slice it) and a lack of metering, as I would if I went the old lens route. I cannot bring myself to

justify a 2.8 single focal length lens when the Tamron has excellent performance throughout a range that would be filled by

several of those primes. I appreciate being made aware of lens coating issues - something I had not previously known about.

 

All said and done, I think the sigma is the way to go for me.

 

This forum has a wealth of information, and I am thankful for all your help. You guys are great.

I've been scraping together some 30/1.4 shots. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7510329"><b>Right here</b></a> is one that was shot at f/1.4 in order to isolate the subject. Very shallow DoF, of course, but the results are interesting in this case.

Thanks for posting one of your photos. I think it looks terrific.

Sigma 20/1.8 DX? Wide and fast!!

 

And... it can be had for about $400!

 

http://www.photodo.com/product_1102.html

 

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/297-sigma-af-20mm-f18-ex-test-report--review

 

But, the 30/1.4 with HSM is tempting as well as the 20/1.8 is AF-D so it will make some noise focusing.

 

Yuri