Lens selection

I am a new to photography and own a Nikon D40 and use a kit lens 18-55mm that came with the camera.I now

want to explore the world of photography more and would like to know if I should buy the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or the

Tokina 12-24mm(cant afford the 12-24 of nikon).I want it for general phtographs of day to day events -

landscapes,some

portraits .Basically general street happenings.I am shortly going on a months vacation and would like to use my

camera then.

Or should I go for the 18-200mm VR lens that is being much talked about.Kindly advise.

Also I keep reading that the Sigma has a front focusing problem-can somebody tell me how to check for this when

you buy a new lens.I am not sure what you mean by front focusing.

Dr.John

I don't know about the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but I know pros who use the Tokina 12-24mm & love it.

 

Lil :)

I was told the 30mm sigma can be used as a wide lens also .Is it true ?

Tokina will not auto focus on D40, the USM Sigma will. Unless you buy another camera for it.

 

- Sergey

On a D40, the 30mm Sigma is even longer than the format diagonal, it means almost a "normal" focal lenght lens.

The only benefit over your 18-55 could be the wider aperture. It will help you to isolate a bit more your subject from

the background.

 

The 12-24 will give you a noticeable wider look at your images, the range is pretty usable to my taste. At 24mm it is

a moderate wide angle, good for street shooting, at 12mm is pretty wide, suitable for confined spaces and greater

depth of field.

AFAIK the Sigma 30/1.4 is specifically designed for APS-C cameras. Of course it can be mounted on FF cameras,

but without enough coverage; then, it cannot work as a true wide angle on any camera, I`m afraid.

A lens suffer front focus when the AF system consider focused a subject when it isn`t really in focus: the plane of

focus is somewhat in front of the subject towards the camera. It is really nasty shooting at wide aperture with fast

lenses; your images will be always out of focus.

 

How to check it? You must have a very good eyesight or use a focusing aid (viewfinder loupe). Focus your camera

using the AF on a near to close subject (the closer the easier). Check the point of focus at the distance scale on the

lens barrel. Now switch off the AF and use the manual focus ring to find the correct focus point. Check it on the

distance scale. Is there a difference? If so, there is something wrong. You can check it also taking some images of

each situation, at different distances, and check for their sharpness. Of course, an absolutely static camera and

subject is required (tripod+cable release/timer delay).

Keep in mind that I am a bit of a wide angle freak......

 

The tokina 12-24 will not auto-focus on your D40 but will meter correctly. I consider it an absolute gem of a lens. For the $100. difference (new) the tokina is much more useful, IMO. I shoot a D80 and use older manual fast primes (no AF or metering) if needed.

Thanks alot guys.Wow suprised at the quick response.So I shall go in for the 12-24mm Tokina lens then?

One more question-does this mean the only thing I have to do is manual focus,are all other parameters set by the camers............!!!! Can I use it for some low light photography also :).

Oh! can anyone suggest any other lens (AF), that I could consider resonably wide( not more than S$1000) but for routine general photos on vacation.Should be able to take some low light photos also.

Take a look at the SIGMA 10-20mm F4-5.6 LENS. It will give you a wider field of view over other similar lenses plus autofocus properly on your camera. I got great results with mine.

You seem to be comparing three very different creatures there!

 

The Sigma 30/1.4 is not a wide angle. Setting your kit zoom to 30mm will show you exactly what you'll get with this lens, and it is not wide. However, it does offer very interesting capabilities which nothing else you mention can match. It can isolate the subject by limiting depth of field enormously - giving a sharp target and blurred background - in fact, at f/1.4 the effect is so powerful it needs to be used very carefully. Combine that with the fixed angle of view, which is a totally different experience to framing with a zoom, and there is a bit of a learning curve to get the most out of it. When you do, you'll find it gathers in so much light that you can freeze fast action in dodgy lighting conditions, or get away with not using a tripod in all those places it's not really practical. It's handy in dark museums and churches where flashguns and pods are banned. It will even, just about, let you shoot hand-held at night under street lighting without attracting attention to yourself with flash or tripod. On the other hand, it's not all that great at small-aperture, infinity-focused outdoor landscapes on bright days - it can get by, but is not remarkable there (where most of its power is wasted anyway). It has a very solid build indeed, by the way - it's made like a tank, focuses quickly and quietly. Verdict: Good stuff for streets and portraits and travel, no real improvement for landscape.

 

The Tokina 12-24 is extremely wide indeed. Nothing else you mention can match this for width. On the other hand, it is no better at coping with poor light than the conditions you already have, and is not all that strong at isolating a subject by blurring the background. The extreme end of the width setting is very dramatic and takes quite a bit of getting used to - some people take to ultrawides immediately, some don't - and will tend to include a wide range of lighting situations in one frame (which demands careful exposure settings) so, again, a learning curve. The other posters are right in that this will not focus automatically on your d40, but AF matters less at wider angle settings (where focus is a bit less critical) and the green focus-assist dot will still work, so it might be OK for you. Sigma make a 10-20 which is even wider and WILL autofocus on your d40, but reports of its quality are rather mixed; search the forums for many comments in favour and many against. I can't speak for the build quality of either and am still weighing up Sigma vs. Nikon here myself. Verdict: Good for landscapes if you like to take your time and work carefully. Could be fun for the street and travel. No help at all for portraits (unless you hate flattery) and no improvement in your ability to work with just available light or anywhere a tripod would be a problem.

 

The 18-200 VR mostly doesn't do anything radically different to what you already have - it just zooms in quite a lot further. Of the options outlined, it's probably the easiest to just pick up and use, based on your existing experience. It's also the only one that will actually replace your 18-55mm kit lens - the others will complement it but you'd still need it. VR helps reduce camerashake, but only in a limited range of situations - not when you need to control motion blur too, and when you don't, a tripod is often a better bet - so it won't do all that much for your ability to work in low light. Optical quality is acceptable, but not going to rock your world. All in all, this is the least interesting choice - only a good idea if you always find the 55mm setting on your existing lens isn't getting you close enough. For most street, travel, landscape and portrait work you will find 200mm really rather long, so the one new thing this lens would offer you might not even be all that useful. It's well-made enough, certainly far better than your 18-55, but not spectacular. Verdict: It's OK but only adds a little capability. The 55-200 VR is cheaper and less solid but would add most of the same options and give you more money left over to go to interesting places with. It doesn't seem to me to particularly chime with your choice of subjects or stated goal of exploring more options, but you might disagree.

 

I don't know how long you've got before your vacation, but if you can find the time, have a serious think about which of the above-outlined extra capabilities you really want before splashing out any cash. This is more a matter of individual taste than absolute bests. (Personally, I'd pick up a 50, 55 or 60mm macro before any of the above - you didn't ask about that but have you considered it? Not only will you be able to focus much closer, and have access to a nice f/2.8 for a bit more light-gathering power and background isolation, but all macro lenses - even the cheap Sigma 50 - are massively sharper than anything you mention and the quality will blow you away. They're also superb for portraits and museums, though usually less impressive at infinity focus. Then again, I'm sure someone else will step in to sing the praises of the cheap, sharp, light 50/1.8...)

 

In truth, most lenses of all makers are pretty good out of the box. All manufacturers make the occasional lemon, but reliable data on the proportion of lemons is hard to come by. So, *whichever* lens you buy, try to get it a while before you really need it and give it a thorough test. This should include general use for whatever you intend it for, and some more specific technical testing (focus accuracy, corner sharpness, quality at infinity and up close, quality at different apertures). The latter should all take place on a tripod at low ISO. To check focus accuracy, include something with plenty of fine detail which smoothly recedes away from the camera (a tape-measure could do, but so could a pavement with a few chalk marks), and take care to focus on a specific and identifiable point in it. Shoot at max aperture. Later, examine your shot at 100% - if the point you targeted looks sharper than the parts of the same object that are more or less distant, it's all good. If a point more or less distant is sharper than the bit you meant, you might have a focus problem, ask on here for more detailed instructions.

 

Sorry this answer exploded into such great length... I hope some of it helps.

Grab your camera with the 18-55, look through, and zoom back and forth. If you find yourself frustrated and wanting to

go wider than 18 (or if in taking photos you've found that it's just not wide enough), then by all means buy something like

the 12-24 or 11-16 from Tokina. Better for you, since you have a D40, would probably be the Sigma 10-20 which will

autofocus on your camera.

 

if you find yourself wishing you could go LONGER, then look at the 70-300 VR.

 

I'd recommend a 50mm f1.8 because it's cheap and fun in low light, but you'll have to focus it yourself. Do NOT buy this

lens if you don't really understand manual focus. It will only frustrate you.

 

You could get a 10-20, a nikon 50mm f1.8, and a 70-300 VR all together for just a little over 1000 dollars. Eventually, I'd

replace the 18-55 with something, too, but if you bought those three lenses, you'd have one heck of a kit. If you don't

want to go longer, ditch the 70-300 and consider an SB600.

John I suggest you define what it is that your current lens will not do then research what lens fills the need and purchase it. If you want AF to work then you should limit your choices to Nikkor AF-S or Sigma HSM or any other lens that has the focus motor in the lens. If you don't care about AF then you will have many other choices. IMHO you are better off using what you have and save your money to get what you need when you need it. Your question is a bit all over the place. Each of those lense's work well for very different types of usage.

For $1000.00 you could buy a Nikon D80 which will allow flexibility in lens purchasing and 10mp over your current 6mp. They are $729.00 at BHPhoto. Then you could buy a 50mm f1.8 for about $110.00 which is a fine lens and you can use it for low light and portraits and general fixed focal range photography. You can continue using your 18-55mm lens also. After that I would consider a flash if you do not have one. The sb600 would be great.

Wow alot to digest for a starter like me but tnks alot guys ,Lester, I really appreciate the detailed explanation.Ok now I am looking into the sigma 10-20mm F 4-5.6 and the 11-16mm Tokina.

By the way Lester I have a 105mm Nikkor macro which I am using for intra-oral snaps of my dental work.Its awsome and I can detect defects in clinical work that my X2 magnification loupes dont catch often....... macro is another world and am still trying to learn it.Yes I need a good flash.I was thinking of the SB400.looks like the 600 is recommended.

Once again tnks to all the contributers ...........let me read up before some more doubts crop up,cheerio.

John

Glad it was of some use! If what you really want is wide angle - and it can be a pretty awesome tool - that makes it much easier to make meaningful comparisons. Quite a lot has been written here comparing the various superwide zooms...

 

As for macro, ah, I didn't realise that. True macro is indeed another world and a lot to learn - but if you can take it away from work, try that macro lens for portraits too. You should be able to get some really nice results. I bought my macro only for technical work but have ended up using it for all sorts of things!

Hi John,

 

Make sure that you really want to shoot at wide focal lengths before purchasing one of the wide ones that you are

considering. You can find out what you shoot at by analyzing what focal that you have been shooting at in the past. With

your 18-55mm kit lens, if many of your shots are concentrated at the wider focal lengths, then yes, give the super-wides

you are looking at a try. If on the other hand, you shoot at focal lengths distributed evenly all along that range, you may want

to consider the Nikon 16-85mm zoom. This lens is a bit slow (like the 18-200) but has been getting very good reviews. It

would make a great travel lens and would enable you to shoot from wide scenics to fairly tight portraits. The lens will AF on

a D40.

"I want it for general phtographs of day to day events - landscapes,some portraits .Basically general street happenings.I am shortly going on a months vacation and would like to use my camera then. Or should I go for the 18-200mm VR lens that is being much talked about."

 

hi john, i have the tokina 12-24 and the sigma 30/1.4. some thoughts:

 

-the tokina is a great landscape lens, not so great for portraits unless you are really really close. as others have pointed out,it wont AF on a D40, so go with the sigma 10-20, which will AF on your body. it's wider too. as a travel lens, a w/a is great for dramatic renditions of landmarks and sweeping vistas, etc. there is a big difference btween 10 or 12mm and the 18mm of a kit lens.

 

-the sigma 30 is a good choice for street/doc stuff, although it's more expensive and bigger than the inobtrusive 50/1.8. you can use it for landscapes stopped down to 5.6 or f/8, but it's really intended as a low-light lens. if you want to shoot available light, no flash and you have a d40, this is the one to get.

 

-the nikon 18-200 is probably the best all-around lens for travel. it goes from wide to long, so you miss less shots since you dont have to change lenses. it's expensive, and you're really paying for convenience more than performance. its slow and far from nikon's best lens in terms of optics, but that matters little if you're using it for travel pics and casual snapshots. ideally, you'd want to pair this with a fast prime since its better in daylight than low-light.

 

so your choices are really three different animals, each with individual strengths and weaknesses. the question is, are you a wide-angle junkie, a low-light-junkie, or do you want a general-purpose lens?

 

it's easy to recommend the 18-200 for travel, as it's the most versatile. second-most versatile is the 30, the modern equivalent of a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera, because of its low-light abilities. the wide-angle is the least versatile, and not what i'd choose if you like to shoot quick and easy. it works best when you have time to really think about your composition, ideally stopped down to f/8-f/11 on a tripod. it's a good second or third lens, but the focal range is really too short for this to be a primary lens. with wide angle, its one of those things where you don't always need it, but for those times when you do, it's nice to have.

 

if you had all three, you'd have a really good travel kit, but if you cant afford to drop $1500 on lenses right now, i'd probably start with the 18-200 if i were you, then pick either the 30 or the 10-20 for the next round.

Well did a bit of reading - I am going to settle for the Nikkor 12-24mm lens.In the long run this would be compatible with a camera upgrade as well.I am eventually going to move out from the D40 to maybe a D300 (ambition........... in a year or so) so better stick to Nikkor lenses................ well any opinions.Am I getting in over my head with this expensive lens.

The 10-20 sigma looks a little too wide.... didnt like the sample shots..maybe if I was a pure landscape buff......but 12-24mm looks like my type lens.Maybe I gotto meditate on it a bit more...........

John

10mm is indeed very, very wide. I have a very nice 15mm lens for my film system (equivalent angle of view to 10mm on your d40) and it took me months of work and hundreds of carefully-considered shots before I was at all at home with such an extreme view. That was why I originally indicated that I thought an ultrawide might involve a bit of a learning curve. 12mm is somewhat narrower but still really quite a dramatic view - perspective tends to look exaggerated on prints. I don't think you'd be "getting in over your head" with the Nikon any more or less than any other very wide lens, at least in terms of technique. (Here's a little exercise: mark out ninety degrees of your field of view, left to right, right there at your desk. That's about what you'll get in frame with the 12-24 at its widest. Then compare this with the widest you can zoom at the moment - about 66 degrees - it's a big difference! The 10-20, by the way, will get in about 100 degrees - stand in the corner of a square room and both walls are in frame - vertical compositions risk catching your feet.)

 

From the samples I've seen, the Nikon is undoubtedly an excellent piece of kit. On the other hand, it is not massively more future-proof than its competitors. No lens you asked about will work on full frame if you go that way. If you upgrade to a DX body like a d300 most third-party lenses will still work fine, though. (Apparently there was an era when some Sigmas needed an upgrade to work on newer bodies, but I've never had to.) That only leaves the issue of resolution - and while there undoubtedly are some lenses which look OK on lower-density sensors but get shown up as weak on higher-density ones, it's not a huge factor.

 

If you've got the cash, the Nikon is a bit better, but the quality difference might not be enough to justify the price gap. Only you can know whether your psychology can be satisfied by working hard at learning with a "good enough" tool or whether you'll always be wishing you had that "best on market" tool - people in the latter category seem to be rather vocal around here, but sometimes I do wonder where they find the money.

 

If you intend to resell, the Nikon will probably hold its value better. I'm not in the habit of selling on my old gear to fund new acquisitions (see "good enough" above :-) ) so I'm not the right person to ask about this.

 

Hope some of that helps, good luck and have fun.