Jump to content

Zoom or Prime, Nikon or Sigma


john_pereira1

Recommended Posts

I currently have a Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX (not the current DF version)

which I'm considering replacing. I also have a telephoto type zoom

and a Nikon AF 18-35mm f3.5-4.5D ED which is sharper than the Sigma

from 28-35mm. But I don't generally use a 22x loupe or get prints

larger than 8X10, although I will get larger prints in the future

when space permits.

 

I previously posted a query as to whether I should consider the Nikon

AF-S VR 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 G IF-ED or the AF-S 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G IF-

ED. I'm leaning towards the 24-120mm because of the extra zoom range

and the VR function, which would make it a great travel lens and a

great overall lens. But after reading a few responses plus other

comments on the net and elsewhere I'm more unsure than ever. My

options include:

 

1) Keep the Sigma 28-70mm and get the AF 50mm f1.8D when sharpness

and lack of distortion is an absolute must. Has anyone had any

experience with this lens in relation to similar Nikon lenses with

prices in the same ballpark?

 

2) Get either the Nikon AF-S VR 24-120mm f3.5-5.6 G IF-ED or the AF-S

24-85mm f3.5-4.5 G IF-ED. Please note that the Sigma would help

offset the cost of one of these lenses, so also getting the 50mm

prime may not be an option.

 

3) Get an AF 24mm f2.8D, an AF 50mm f1.8D and an AF 85mm f1.8D

lenses. I can get all 3 of them used for about the same amount as the

24-120mm. I know this is the best optical option, but convenience is

a major factor. I'm used to zooms and I like their flexibility

convenience. If it becomes too much of a chore then I may end up just

leaving the camera behind. I already encounter this problem in

certain circumstances when it's easier just to take my Coolpix with

me, which I regard as an advanced point and shoot. I might have just

answered my question here with regards to prime lenses.

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option 3 will give you the best quality overall. However the "inconvenience" of the primes is something to consider. I would take a look at your shooting habits and situations.

 

Do you often find yourself in situations where you need to get closer but can't easily move yourself closer? An example would be shots at the zoo.

 

Do you often find yourself in situations where you need to get more of the subject in the image but can't move yourself further away? An example is a family gathering in a small room (like my dining room).

 

Do you find yourself in situations where you need to switch from wide angle to telephoto often? If yes, then the zoom will be much better for your photography then the primes. In the end, getting a shot that is less than perfect is a lot better than not getting the shot at all. At least that is my motto.

 

With regards to the 24-120 vs the Sigma f/2.8, do you find yourself needing the f/2.8 often? If yes, then you may need to stick with the Sigma or at least a used Nikon AFS 28-70 f/2.8 or a used Nikon 35-70 f/2.8. If no, then the 24-120 should be sufficient. The added VR capability will allow you to use slower shutter speeds.

 

With respect to the 50mm lens, I use a Maxxum version all the time on my Minolta Maxxum 7. It's a great, fast, lightweight, quality lens. I love mine. I'm sure the Nikon equivalent would be excellent as well. There are no low quality 50mm lenses. That's why it's such a popular prime. I admit that I do find myself wanting a fast, wider prime (28mm or 35mm) from time to time. However, that is for the perspective and not the "wider" view. My 50mm is my 2nd favorite prime next to my 100mm macro. In fact, I shot with the 50mm for most of my vacation. With the high humidity and 80-90 degree temperature, my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 was just too heavy on the 7 with 5600hs flash.

 

Hope that all helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, unless you take architectural photos, distortion is not that big of an issue. Unless you go really wide, distortion is not that big of an issue...at least for me. You need to take a look at your photographic subjects.

 

Also, any of those zooms will be just as good as a prime when both are stopped down to about f/8 or f/11. Again, look at your photographic subjects and determine if f/8 or f/11 is acceptable. To say that zooms don't give quality photographs is just a blatantly wrong generalization. Primes, like pro level f/2.8 zooms, give you the option of quailty images wide open. If you don't need that, then there is no reason not to consider the more convenient zooms.

 

Again, the best lenses won't do anything for you if they're too inconvenient for you and just end up sitting on your bookshelf. Only you can answer that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As others have noted, the primes are going to be optically better, and faster as well.

That 24-120 VR is not even as fast as your Sigma. Research the particular lenses for

flaring and ghosting, but I imagine that they are better than the 24-120. Distortion is

something else to consider. IMO, you'll have to do some home work with respect to

the choices in order to match your particular needs. You can get used to lens

swapping.

 

One critical point for me, if I was considering the 24-120 VR, is sharpness. The only

pics that I've seen from this lens have been online examples, not a very good way to

evaluate sharpness. But, the examples I've seen do not exhibit a great deal of

sharpness when compared to pics posted from other lenses. For me, I would have to

see some original photos from this lens. While I'm not bad mouthing the 24-120 VR,

it's still slow a 5X lens, and when compared to the primes you mentioned, it won't

match up.

 

As far as Nikon or Sigma, Nikon is the clear choice, IMO. Good luck in your search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) I picked up a Nikkor 50mm AFD f/1.8 lens a few months back because my ancient Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI and Vivitar 55mm f/2.5 macro tended to be in use by my wife and daughters when I needed one. You won't find a better Nikkor AF lens for the price than the 50mm f/1.8 AFD, sharp and preserves contrast, and you won't find many better at any price except for specialty lenses. You really need some experience with a large aperture prime to appreciate their capabilities.

 

2) I'm not a big fan of variable aperture zooms that are slower than f/4 at the long end. Nothing against them for lots of uses, but they just don't fit my desire for f/2.8 or better in the 28-105mm range. Not sure how much quality improvement you'll get upgrading to either of the Nikkors. The Sigma 28-70 may not be your current quality limiting factor. Lack of tripod and technique maybe playing a bigger roll, especially if your are stopped down 2 or more stops from wide open.

 

3) This is a reasonable set of primes (I started with 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 135mm f/2.8 about 30 years ago when decent zooms didn't exist). Get yourself something like the appropriately sized LowePro SF lens cases with the velcro belt straps and enjoy. Even with zoom's I'm switching between two lenses a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Even with zoom's I'm switching between two lenses a lot!"

 

An excellent point. Without knowing someone's needs, it's near impossible to be very

specific with regard to what particlular lenses offer the best solution. That having

been said, I don't think that suggesting the fastest lenses that one can afford is going

to hurt their results. :o)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John--

 

This is an interesting question. I started taking pictures with zoom lenses, figuring that their convenience was what I needed. However, as time drags on and I want better results, I find myself buying more and more prime lenses (especially at shorter focal lengths.)

 

So, you might consider getting a 24mm, a 35mm, a 50mm, and a 70-300/f4.5-5.6 (if you want a lightweight lens) or 80-200/f2.8 (if you want a sturdy, super-sharp long zoom.) That way, you get maximum sharpness for landscapes, and maximum versatility for portraits and distant shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are probably a more experienced photographer than me, but if I bumped into this problem, I'd buy the primes for sure. You said you had a coolpix that you often took with you because the SLR would be too bulky. Well, there's the solution for those cases! But when you have the time and energy to mess around with the lenses, I think it is really worth for the better quality. Later on you could still get a zoom, but for the time being, you'd have three very great lenses for your SLR, and a coolpix when you really don't want to mess around. Now I have the 24 2.8, the 50 1.8, plus a long zoom, and I don't find it such a hassle to switch lenses from time to time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I currently own the three lens lineup in option 3 (my 50 is 1.4). I stuggled long and hard with the very question you pose. For the money, those primes are second to none. I find I stick to a certain focal length for a given subject. Portraits--85, landscape--24, existing light--50.

 

On the long end, I do use a zoom--Sigma 70-300. But I'll tell ya, I lust after the 180/2.8 Nikon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own the lenses in option 3, along with a 180(nothing to be jealous of Rick- mine's very scratched and looks bad, but optically astounding; sharpest nikon lens @ maximum aperture)- and love the setup. Yes, it is a drawback to have to change lenses, but I am reminded why I go this route every time I see my proofs. Prime vs. zoom setups both have they're successes and failures, so decide what is more important to you. If you shoot nothing but static subjects, you know which way to go- If you shoot nothing but moving subjects, you know which way to go.

 

To a point- I sidestep the changing lenses thing by not doing it- 4 lenses, 4 bodies. Not cheap or light, but very convienient, with the glorious performance of primes. But this works best using only one kind of film, or maybe 100iso in the f/1.8 cameras and 400iso in the f/2.8 cameras. Color and black and white? make that 5 bodies- do you see where this is going?- Ultimately you have to strike the comprimise for yourself and bring it home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that the 3 lenses, the 24/2.8, the 50/1.8, the 85/1.8, and the 180 as well, have a very well-matched character to them. At f/8, sharpness is "clinical", and all have very low distortion. I can't stress how well these lenses work together for me. Many other photogs cannot tell which lenses I use, although no-one has mistaken the 24 for the 180, some have mistaken the 180 for the 24.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like some of the other responses, I have the same three lenses listed in Option 3 (50

is 1.4 instead of 1.8). I got these three lenses at the same time after buying an F5 and

they have covered all of my needs thus far. Since getting the lenses I have used my

other lenses less and less (20/2.8AIS and 105/2.5AIS) since the three AF lenses cover

almost the same focal lengths. I only take the MF lenses out in special situations now.

 

The switching between lenses is not that bad and as mentioned above, you get used

to what lens to use in each case.

 

I didn't consider a zoom instead of these three primes before buying them and I am

yet to question whether or not I made the right choice, but then again it ultimately

comes down to the types of situations you find yourself in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you consider it, definitely go for option 3. I recently sold all my zooms to get the Canon (shhhhhh.... don't tell anyone.....) primes (24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8 USM, 200/2.8 USM L) and I love the results. Those Nikons should be just as good. Naturally, I have no personal experience, just a lot of admiration to the optical quality of both Canon and Nikon primes. Consumer zooms don't come near them.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to everyone for their responses and opinions.

 

I'm going to go with the 3 prime lenses. I'll be buying used, which should cost me about as much as a new AF-S 24-120mm VR lens. I've already picked up a mint AF 50mm f1.8D with a new Nikon Skylight filter for less than what a new lenses would cost. This one I will keep no matter what. If I find convenience to be too important to me I can always sell the other primes I'm thinking of getting and get the zoom.

 

One thing I noted is that the 3 primes won't take up significantly more space than the main zoom I use now. One Lowepro Off-Road lens pouch will be able to accomodate all three, considering one will be on the body at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

24-120mm VR on at 85mm f5.6 1/400 sec

<img src=http://www.martinjiang.com/Auction/24_120VR_on.jpg> <br><br>

24-120mm VR off at 85mm f5.6 1/400 sec

<img src=http://www.martinjiang.com/Auction/24_120VR_off.jpg><br><br>

85mm f1.8 lense at 85mm f5.6 1/400 sec

<img src=http://www.martinjiang.com/Auction/85_18.jpg><br>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the prime is the sharper of the 2 lenses by a fair bit, but I'm most disturbed by the difference in colour, i.e. skin tone. Was the differenc in skin tone due to the different lenses or was it due to a white balance issue? Did the lighting change between lenses? Were there any variables, other than the lenses changed between the photos, that might contribute to the shift in skin tone? If all the variables are the same, except for the lenses, then which lens is more accurate at capturing the skin tone of the subject?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I was taking the first two, the model is in direct sunlight. The third one was taken after I switch the lens and I believe the sun has been blocked by clounds. (The exposure is actually 1/250 sec, now I remember...)

 

Good catch, I should use manual WB next time. But I guess the sharpness is not a defect lens issue but rather zoom lens in nature and I have to live with it? I guess os because I need to VR feature, and it does work wonderously...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I know this is the best optical option, but convenience is a major factor."

 

You just can't have it both ways, and I suspect the you already know that, by your

above comment. Interchangeable lenses are the key to versatility, and if you don't

want to be subjected to lens changes, then you should look at a point and shoot w/

zoom lens. The zoom choices that you mention are not the best optical solutions, but

maybe that's OK with you. There are better zooms, but at a higher price, and they are

also going to fall into that lens change situation as your photo needs vary. Personally,

I have little patience with the idea that one should find one lens to do everything, that

is just plain silly. Of course it isn't silly if you're satisfied with the results that you get

from such a lens, but few here would be so satisfied.

 

It's your choice, results or convenience, you pick. Choice number three has the most

promise for results in my view, but I am not inconvenienced by lens changes. I

recently shot a few pics with my 990 and an 85mm f/1.8 on my F100 using Velvia 50.

The difference in results was staggering, with the 85 producing outstanding results in

comparison. All I really care about is the finished photo, and I try to let that be my

guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy Martin,

 

Let me first say that I'm not any sort of professional lens tester, although I do have

opinions. I think that it's important for me to qualify my remarks with that info in

order for you to be able to evaluate my response.

 

I didn't like your comparison test of the two lenses. Something about it rubbed me

the wrong way. It's not that I don't think you should do a comparison, but that I don't

think the comparison you did offered anything to hang your hat on. Without doubt

the 85 was sharper, but this isn't the kind of shot to show off an 85 f/1.8, at any

aperture. It was stopped down, and therefore had an immediate advantage for your

choice of subjects over that zoom, which was wide open. It was an apples and

oranges comparison, IMO.

 

I don't really understand the purpose of your test, but it surely didn't say a lot for that

zoom, as this isn't the kind of photo to show it off either. Your example offers no

DOF comparison, to say nothing of distortion. You pretty well eliminated that by your

use of a DSLR and the close up shot that had different lighting, no foreground,

background or anything that would allow one to get an idea of what sort of distortion

the lenses may produce. If we are to compare lenses by photo results, don't you think

it's a good idea to show the lens at it's best, and worst?

 

In conclusion, the 85 clearly outperforms the zoom at 85mm. This we already knew

before your test. There is no way that a slow 5x zoom, like the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6, is

going to go heads up against a fast prime, like the 85mm f/1.8. I can see the

difference, and I suspect that many others can also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...