Need help with choosing a lens

[kevin_chen3]

I was hoping someone can help me in this decision. I was looking

for a sharper lens than my current Tamron 18-200 for my Nikon D100.

I've been happy with the Tamron as a general travel lens but I have

a baby on the way and I wanted a sharper lens to take higher quality

pictures of my baby and I would like a lens with that f/2.8 for

those low light situations (don't want to use flash too much for the

baby). I wanted to take those close up baby feet shots and baby

portrait shots. I tested out the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di Macro Lens and

I liked it. I was also thinking about the Nikon 2.8 Micro.

 

Now, the problem I have is that I was just fooling around and I

played around with the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 Dx and I LOVED it. I know

it's more than double the cost but the lens just felt like heaven to

me. And it zoomed in quite close. I know it's not a macro lens but

I was thinking that it might be do the job that I want it to do and

much much more.

 

Now the question I have is that can the Nikon 17-55 do the job that

I want it to do (take little close up shots of cute little baby

parts and nice portrait shots when the baby gets older as well or

close to the Tamron 90 or Nikon 105) or am I being blinded by the

nice toy that I just played around with? For the purposes that I am

describing, which lens should I getting? (assuming I'm okay with

the drastic price increase of the Nikon 17-55) Can all of these

lens do an equal job of it?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Kevin

[eric friedemann]

On a Nikon DSLR, a 90mm lens will give you a 35mm format equiv. of 135mm, within what is thought of as the "portrait range," but on the long side of that range, particularly in indoors. A 105mm would be even longer with a 35mm format equiv. of 157.5mm- that's kinda long.

 

 

The 17-55mm is outstanding, with a reproduction ratio of .20 at 55mm, certainly close enough to photograph an infant. Also, as the child grows, the zoom will prove more versatile with a 35mm format equiv. of 25.5-85.5mm. If you've got the $$$, its a great lens.<div></div>

[wilfred_wong]

90 or 105 micro is not convinent to use esp in indoor.

how many baby feet shots you'r planning to take? if i want to take baby feet shots, i'd prefer a wider lens (i prefer to have some background to show where i took the shot.)

 

When you baby is running around in your house... a 17-55 will be more useful as it's a zoom and focus faster.

 

when your kid is running outside your house sometime later, you'll want a AFS 70-200 :D

 

btw, the Tamron 90, esp the earlier non-Di version, is cheap. if you can afford the 17-55, the tamron shouldn't be a problem!

[Rick Waller]

Just curious - why are you not planning to use a flash with the baby? I promise you that he/she will not melt and, skillfully used, a flash will GREATLY enhance your images of your child.

 

If you went to Sears for a baby photo or took one with Santa in a department store, the photographer would use flash for sure!

[chris m., central florida]

The $100 50mm f1.8 D gets my vote :-). Very sharp, crytal clear, relatively close focusing. Also doubles as a great portrait lens on a DSLR.

[aaron_ng]

Remember, if you are using flash, use a diffuser or bounce the flash as the baby's eyes are dilated and the pupils are slow to contract. If you don't have a diffuser, wrap the flash with a few layers of tissue paper and a rubber band.

[kevin_chen3]

Yeah, I do have a diffuser and it does help when I have some fill flash so I don't think I'll be timid using that flash. I was just thinking that it would be nice to use a lot of natural light and the faster lens would be great for that because my current Tamron 18-200 really hunts a bit in low light. Then I was thinking that I'm trying to rationalize buying a much more expensive lens. =)

 

Wilfred, you bring up some good points. I mean, how many baby feet shots do you really need? I just want to be sure that IF I did get the 17-55, I could get in pretty close and get the same quality and sharpness as I could from the Tamron 90mm or Nikon 105mm. By the one pic, that Eric posted, it certainly looks great but does anyone have any comments on how in compares to the two primes and can I get close enough to fill a baby's feet with it? (or some other body part - I'm beginning to sound like I have a feet fetish)

 

I'm not sure I do have the budget for the 17-55 but I just LOVED it so much when I was playing around with it. Man, is this what lens envy feels like?

[jim_gifford]

Buy the AF-D 35mm f/2 lens and the AF-D 85mm f/1.8 lens.

 

You'll start to think of the f/2.8 zooms as "nice, but slow."

 

Be well,

[eric friedemann]

"©an I get close enough to fill (the frame with the) baby's feet with (the 17-55mm)?"

 

 

I just checked, focusing on the gridded measuring area of a paper trimmer. With my 17-55mm at 55mm, at minimum focus distance, the subject area is exactly 4 inches wide by about 2 and 3/4 inches tall. I don't have any baby pix with the lens, but in this close-up of a Bloodhound puppy, the subject measured about 8 inches from the top of the head to the tip of the ear.<div></div>

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Kevin Chen, jul 20, 2005; 08:37 p.m.</B>

<br>

I was hoping someone can help me in this decision. I was looking for a sharper lens than my current Tamron 18-200 for my Nikon D100.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

That wouldn't take much.  <~>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

I've been happy with the Tamron as a general travel lens but I have a baby on the way and I wanted a sharper lens to take higher quality pictures of my baby and I would like a lens with that f/2.8 for those low light situations (don't want to use flash too much for the baby). I wanted to take those close up baby feet shots and baby portrait shots. I tested out the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Di Macro Lens and I liked it. I was also thinking about the Nikon 2.8 Micro.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I have the 90mm Tamron you mention; and while I've not yet used it a whole lot, I *DO* like it for what it is.  See <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CBHB">THIS THREAD</A> for more specific comments and some mediocre (due to the photographer, not the lens!) sample shots.  As for why it's not (yet) gotten all that much use, I find that it's not really enough longer than the (18-70mm) D70 kit lens to bother switching to it for most routine or "casual" shooting.  But when I'm specifically going after close-up shots (such as those samples in the above-cited thread), it's nearly ideal.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Now, the problem I have is that I was just fooling around and I played around with the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 Dx and I LOVED it. I know it's more than double the cost but the lens just felt like heaven to me. And it zoomed in quite close. I know it's not a macro lens but I was thinking that it might be do the job that I want it to do and much much more.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Well, there's no question but that is a very nice lens; but more to the point, it is a very *different* lens, which would be mostly useful in different situations, than the 90mm Macro.  And vice versa.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Now the question I have is that can the Nikon 17-55 do the job that I want it to do (take little close up shots of cute little baby parts and nice portrait shots when the baby gets older as well or close to the Tamron 90 or Nikon 105) or am I being blinded by the nice toy that I just played around with? For the purposes that I am describing, which lens should I getting? (assuming I'm okay with the drastic price increase of the Nikon 17-55) Can all of these lens do an equal job of it?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I would not consider these to be "either/or" choices; i.e., neither can really replace the other, but each could (and would) nicely complement the other -- IOW, you'd need both.

<br>

<br>

Now, if the thought of buying both the 17-55mm zoom and the 90mm Macro is too much for your budget (or your conscience), then I would strongly second "Chris M."'s suggestion to consider the 50mm f1.8D as a quite workable (at least temporarily) replacement for the 17-55mm zoom.  This presumes that it would be purchased in combination with the 90mm Macro; but given the fact that it costs under US$100, that's OK.  If you also want to cover the still-wider range, something like the Nikon 20mm f/2.8D or the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG (or perhaps the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM) could be added to the mix, and the total cost for all three lenses would *still* be less than what the high-zoot zoom would sink you -- *and* (at least with teh Sigmas) you would have significantly faster-yet maximum apertures throughout the focal-length range covered by the zoom.  You just have to make up your mind whether the lower cost and potentially better performance of the multiple primes is worth the "inconvenience" of having to swap lenses more often.

<br>

<br>

[kevin_chen3]

Thanks, Eric, for the size descriptions. That's exactly what I was looking for.

 

The multiple prime lenses is a thought but I have a feeling I wouldn't like it because I'm lazy at heart. Terrible, I know, but I can't help it. And I completely understand that the two lenses that I'm comparing are different beasts for different purposes, but I went into the shop with one agenda and got "distracted" by another. I'll have to go back and try just the primes. And this time, JUST THE PRIMES.

 

"would not consider these to be "either/or" choices; i.e., neither can really replace the other, but each could (and would) nicely complement the other -- IOW, you'd need both"

 

My wife would scalp me if I even considered that. Thanks for everyone's input! I'm going to go back and take a second look.

[greglyon]

Kevin, for what it's worth, Natural light indoors makes lovely baby photos, but you'll quickly find that f2.8 is almost too slow! For the cheapness I really second the 50mm f1.8. I know it's not a good lazy lens, but the extra light really makes a difference when your little one is moving around (aka awake). I have a 10 month old and do a lot of natural light. It's so inexpensive that it's practically a no-brainer, and you won't believe the difference in image quality over your super-zoom!

 

Then if you still can't live without it, the 17-55 will be there.

[greglyon]

I don't have access to the exif data right now but I'm pretty sure this was taken with 50mm f1.4D, 'pretty wide' open...<div></div>

[kevin_chen3]

Okay, I tried some more lenses and I have to say the 50mm 1.8 is a really nice lens at a great price. Man, this decision has gotten harder for me. A few questions:

 

1. Is there a difference between the 5omm f/1.8D and f/1.8 and if so, should I care?

2. Is there a zoom lens that can give me that quality of sharpness and auto focus speed?

 

Thanks for everyone's help!

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Kevin Chen, jul 21, 2005; 02:50 p.m.</B>

<br>

Okay, I tried some more lenses and I have to say the 50mm 1.8 is a really nice lens at a great price. Man, this decision has gotten harder for me. A few questions:

 

1. Is there a difference between the 5omm f/1.8D and f/1.8 and if so, should I care? </I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

The "D" version communicates the current focus distance electronically to the body (and thereby, to the flash unit), which helps normal metering (a little) and flash metering (more than a little).  Opinions differ regarding the importance of the "D" feature; but I prefer having it, as opposed to not having it -- especially in the focal lengths likely to be used with flash (i.e., it's less of an issue on long teles).  But AFAIK, only the "D" version is current, so this is almost a moot point unless you're *really* scraping the bottom of the bargain barrel.  (Also, some of the older non-"D" versions were somewhat less "plasticy" in terms of their mechanical construction; but this is more of a cosmetics issue than anything else.)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

2. Is there a zoom lens that can give me that quality of sharpness and auto focus speed?

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

No Way On This Planet, and Yes, respectively.

<br>

<br>

Taking the latter issue first...

<br>

<br>

Any of the "true" AF-S zooms (the new 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 doesn't count, and IMCO should never have gotten the "AF-S" designation -- Nikon is stupidly diluting the value of their own trademark with that crap) should be at least as good, and probably significantly better, on the focus-speed front, provided you're shooting in good light.  The 50mm f/1.8D is not AF-S; but it's also definitely one of the very fastest-focusing non AF-S lenses, due to both the small size and simple construction (not as much "stuff" to move around) and the wide maximum aperture (which makes life easier on the AF sensor).  However, under very marginal lighting, the AF-S won't help all that much, because the mechanics are no longer the limiting factor, the focus-sensor is.

<br>

<br>

As for sharpness...  Fuggetaboudit.  First, there's the whole "prime vs. zoom" thing.  I won't claim that it is *impossible* to build a zoom lens as sharp as a good prime; but it is *so* much more difficult that for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible.  On top of that, and notwithstanding the bargain-basement price, you're talking about what is probably *the* sharpest prime lens Nikon currently builds, and at least one of the sharpest they've *ever* built.  Any zoom that could even compete with that, let alone equal it, would have to be near-magical.

<br>

<br>