WHICH LENS TO GET

<p>I am looking to purchase a lens for my d200, I am looking to get a wide angle, my problem is which brand to get. TAMRON, SIGMA OR TOKINA OR YOUR NIKON. </p>

<p>Dallas,</p>

<p>What is the budget? How wide does it need to go? What lenses do you already have?<br>

(just to make the answer more useful).<br>

And now the random answer: Tokina 12-24 f/4. Very good, very affordable, very useful focal length range.</p>

<p>Voigtlander or Zeiss! Well, if you want MF prime. All those brands make good and bad lenses. Rather than say which brand to get, you need to break it down to a few lenses and decide which exact lens to get.</p>

<p>ok I would like to get the nikon 17-55 but on a budget so I am looking to get something close to that, Tokina af 16-50 i was looking at as well as the sigma version and tamron. My problem is what brand to get.<br>

I have a tele lens 70 -200 2.8 and the cheaper 18-55 both are nikon looking to get some great 2.8 lens<br>

Willemse u mentio the tokin 12-24 does it matter that it is not a 2.8 len</p>

<p>Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great alternative to the Nikon 17-55/2.8 - there is now even a VC version. <br>

Whether or not f/4 as maximum aperture matters depends on what you shoot. For low-light interior shots, f/2.8 can come in handy, for landscape shots you will stop down anyway. If you need wide and f/2.8, don't look any further than the Tokina 11-16/2.8.</p>

<p>Mmm, A 17-55 2.8 alike you say,<br>

For APS-C format this is more in the range of standard zoom i think, but opinions on that differ,,<br>

If the Nikon is to expensive for you , maybe the new version of the Tamron | AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [iF]" , this one costs around 1/4 th of the price of the nikon 17-55, and seems to be very good ( seel also Photozone.de).</p>

<p>thanks Van het Kaar and D Schaefer, I have been looking at the tamron 17-50mm and it is within my budget. I also have been looking at the tokina AF 16-50, which one would be the better lens. I was told that Tokina makes better lens then tamron. For the money there is not a big differents.</p>

<p>Dallas,<br />Indeed personally, I do not find f/2.8 important on all of my lenses, but that was not the point. My mention of the Tokina 12-24 f/4 was a complete random recommendation for a real wide angle. This lens is more specialised than a 17-55 (being a lot wider).</p>

<p>So, effectively you want to replace your 18-55 with another lens. What do you dislike about the 18-55 most? Maybe a f/2.8 zoom is not solving the problem you want to solve, while something like a 18-105VR or 16-85VR could. Sure the Tamron must be a great option (lots of recommendations for this lens), but that does not say it is the lens that fills your needs.<br />So, what shortcomings of the 18-55 need fixing?</p>

<p><strong>edit</strong>; just seen your answer. Build quality of Tokina lenses is very good, of Tamrons less so. That said, optically ever test shows the Tamron 17-50 to be really good for the money; the Tokina less so. So it's a trade-off: optical quality versus build quality. But I still think you should wonder whether f/2.8 is the answer to your question.</p>

<p>well I would love to have a 2.8 i want to work in low light areas. I take nothing away from the 18-55 but I am looking to upgrade from that.</p>

That said, I would go with the Tamron. I always prefer a faster lens, generally it will be more useful over a variety of situations.

 

Rick H.

<p>Tamron 17-55mm f2.8 is your logical choice.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>"ok I would like to get the nikon 17-55 but on a budget so I am looking to get something close to that"</p>

<p>There are many stores like Cameta Camera in NY and others that sell Nikon in the store, who sell them at discounted prices oneBay. Bought from them, because Ive bought from the store and found better prices on eBay.<br>

This lens is one Ive seen many times. Why buy a different brand, if you can get the one you want for a great price. Then also if you decide to buy a different one, you can also get the best price on eBay...<br>

<br /> Bought my D200 new from Cameta with 5 year Nikon warrantee on eBay, since then two VR lenses both with Nikon warrantee and saved a bundle. What I saved on the D200 paid for the lenses and a SB800...<br>

<br /> Some are leery of eBay, but if you watch who you buy from and use eBays protection we have no problem. Two weeks ago bought a D40 for my wife also. Some say you get better service in a store, Ive never found this to be true, in 70 years of buying cameras.<br>

<br /> First do a search for what you want, do not just grab the first one. Stores have buy it now prices that are higher than the ones they put the same item up from time to time in an auction. By waiting for the deal I wanted got the D200 for $1000 less than it was in all the online or retail stores that I checked.<br>

They also sell used, warrantee the lenses they sell, rate them from Mint or Like new in about fours to five levels of condition. etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I bought my Nikon system to put Nikon lenses on it (for the most part). Why did you buy yours?</p>

<p>Dallas,<br>

The best thing to do before purchasing would be to go to your best local camera store and look at the lenses you are considering, on a d200 or other dx camera. I personally have the 18-70 and the tokina 12-24 and there is a huge difference between the two. The Tokina gives me a much more dramatic view. It is a great lens for a decent price. you should be able to find one on the auction site for $400 or so. I have used mine for a couple of years and couldn't be happier with it. I use this lens more than any other as I shoot mostly landscape and love the wide angle image. I hope you are able to do a little comparison shopping and be able to see for yourself before plopping down your hard earned money. Good luck with your choice.</p>

Michael I'll be the first one to say that Nikon's 17-55/2.8 is one of the best Nikkors I've ever used. At $1600 it ought to be. Still, the laws of economics, like physics, must be obeyed. The OP said he was on a budget. Been there, done that. Get the best glass you can afford and the Tamron is a pretty good lens at about 1/3 the price. Gives him something to work towards later on.

 

Rick H.

<p><strong>well I would love to have a 2.8 i want to work in low light areas.</strong><br>

What kind of subjects? The easiest solution if you are doing say... architectural or night landscapes... is a tripod. If the nikkor is out of your budget, then yeah I'd take a close look at the tamron. My sis uses it on her 30D and it kicks ass (the non vc version)</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>Dallas, it looks like you want a fast normal zoom.  If you don't have the budget for the Nikkor then look at the Tamron.  It gets good mention here.  I have used neither as I think they are both rather slow at f2.8.  If you want real low light you might want to look at the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Nikkor 35mm f1.8 depending on your focal length needs.  You can also use older AIS type glass with your D200.  You may want to look at Bjorn's site for more info:<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html</a><br>

Some of the third party lenses are very good or unique.  I don't worry about who makes the lense.  I only want the tool to do the job needed.</p>

<p>I am surprised nobody suggested Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6! Fabulous lens.</p>

<p>dallas, i have the tokina 12-24 and tamron 17-50. the 12-24 is a great lens (excellent IQ, solid build) and one of the best values going right now ($400 new) but the 17-50 range with constant 2.8 gets used more.</p>

<p>if the choices are ultrawide vs. fast zoom, i'd probably go with the fast zoom first. there will always be times you want to go wider, but 17mm (24mm equiv.) is wide enough for probably 80-85% of typical shooting. since the d200 is somewhat low-light challenged, you will likely see more benefit from a fast lens than a wide lens with that body.</p>

<p>if i was set on a wide-angle and budget was not a consideration, i'd probably get either the nikon 10-24 or tokina 11-16/2.8. the 11-16 would be particularly useful in your situation since it's fast and wide, but you might find the range limiting. the 10-24 is expen$$$ive but gives you 10mm and a more versatile overall range. some of this depends on shooting style. if you're mainly shooting in good lighting, 10-24 is a better choice. if you're shooting landscapes on a tripod, 2.8 wont matter since you'll be stopping down anyway. however, if you're shooting handheld, available-light interiors, you'd want the 2.8 of the 11-16.</p>

<p>the thing is, you want a lens which mirrors your shooting style. otherwise, you have to adapt your shooting style to what your lens (and body) can do. the problem, is, if you've never used a wide angle, you may not know beforehand what your shooting style would be with one. it's apples and oranges; each one has relative merits.</p>

<p>if budget was a consideration for an ultrawide, i'd go with the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 10-20. the nikon might be a little better in terms of IQ than either of these, but probably not enough to justify its price except for ultrawide junkies and pixel peepers.</p>

<p>for low-light, i'd also think about the 35/1.8. i had a chance to try my friend's, and was impressed by the IQ and sharpness wide open. it looks to be every bit as sharp as the sigma 30/1.4, which costs 2x as much.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Someone just bought a Nikon 14mm f/2.8 in excellent condition from eBay for US$750. I almost bought it but decided not to because I still prefer the Zeiss 21mm. But for US$750 that's crazy bargain price.</p>