Lense recommendation

[david_rothenberg1]

I am a serious amateur user of a NIKON D50 for which I have two lenses - an 18-

55 f3.5 (the kit lense) and a 70-300. I want to upgrade from the 18-55. I was

considering the 18-70, but perhaps I should overlap, say - an 18-135 f3.5 to

reduce the frequency of changing lenses, or the 18-200, or the 24-85 f2.8...

looking for suggestions in the NIKON system, but I would consider an equivalent

Sigma or Tamron that gives comperable results. Budget is under $600.

[juanjo_viagran]

I'll keep the 18-55mm (if you are happy with it) and get a nice medium range zoom like the TOKINA ATX Pro 28-80mm 2.8, awesome lens.

[bruce_margolis]

David, I am not sure I understand what you mean by "upgrade" from the kit lens. Is there something wrong with it? Are you looking for something faster or a different focal range? It just helps if someone knows what you are trying to accomplish in the end.

 

IMO, the 24-85 is a nice lens but you lose a lot at the wide end. It's a good choice if you don't mind that. The Nikon 18-200 is not within your budget.

[david_rothenberg1]

Thanks for asking... yes - a bit faster and perhaps a little more focal range... maybe overlapping the mid-range between the 18 - 70 70 - 300. Most of what I do seems to fall in-between and I was hoping to get more speed and minimize - somewhat - the lense switching.

[bruce_margolis]

David, if you are looking to overlap those lenses, the 24-85 may not be the range for you. Another possibility, the Sigma 50-150.

 

I have never used the lens and know nothing about it but it is an HSM lens with f/2.8 throughout. I am sure there are reviews out there. At $680, it is a little above your budget but it seems to fit in the range you are looking for. Check it out yourself....

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/450436-REG/Sigma_690306_50_150mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html

[eric_arnold]

do we love lens suggestions? yes we do!

ok, let's take a look-see... budget is $600, you say? that cuts out the 18-200 vr, which can't be had for under $750. however, you don't really need that unless you don't want to change lenses. and despite all the hype, it's not any faster than the lenses you already have.

 

other alternatives? let's start with the nikkors. with your budget, the pro nikkor zooms, like the 17-55 and the 70-200 vr, are out. most of the the remaining consumer lenses (18-135, 24-120, 28-105, 18-70) won't really give you much better optical quality than the 18-55, and they're just as slow.

 

so let's look for something faster. it's kind of a no-brainer to pick up the 50/1.8 for under $120. it's small, lightweight, super-sharp, with excellent low-light performance.

 

that leaves you about $480. you've got some choices here. take a long look at the 85/1.8, which is about $400. this will give you a fast, high-performance portrait lens and low-light champion. you could also expand into the macro world with the 60/2.8, also about $400. i'd also take a look at the wide primes -- the 35/2 ($320) and the 28/2.8 ($235). all of these will complement the lenses you already have. the 24-85 you mention is only a 2.8 at the widest focal length and f/4 at the long end, so it's only somewhat faster than what you have now. one fast nikkor solution that covers an acceptable zoom range is the 35-70/2.8 ($480). you'll lose the wide end, but then that'll give you a reason to still keep your 18-55.

 

luckily for you, there are some fast mid-zoom non-nikon alternatives which won't break the bank for "serious amateurs." namely the sigma 18-50/2.8, the tamron 17-55/2.8 and the tamron 28-75/2.8. i have the 28-75 and it's great, but the others are supposed to be really good too -- close to or equivalent optical quality as the more expensive nikkors, but lesser build quality (which you should be able to live with). the 28-75 can be had for under $350, which makes it a serious bargain considering the results it produces. the others are around $400. also, tokina has just announced a 16-50/2.8 which is a bit pricier, but gives you a spacious 2mm extra at the wide end.

 

i'd probably get a fast wide-mid zoom before i got a longer fast zoom or fast tele prime, since you'll most likely use that range more. but think about your future expansion when choosing. if you go with the 16-50 tokina, 17-55 tamron, or 18-50 sigma, down the line it makes sense to get the sigma 50-150 or tokina 50-135. if you get the tamron 28-75, you can then save your pennies for a 70-200/2.8. see where i'm going with this? eventually, you can have a complete focal range, say, 16-135/18-150, or 28-200, at f/2.8, with no overlaps = more efficient.

 

of course, if low-light performance and fast glass isn't that important to you, also take a look at the tokina 12-24 (about $500 and worth every penny), which is great for landscape shots.

[mtan]

"Thanks for asking... yes - a bit faster and perhaps a little more focal range... maybe overlapping the mid-range between the 18 - 70 70 - 300. Most of what I do seems to fall in-between and I was hoping to get more speed and minimize - somewhat - the lense switching."

 

You're not going to be able to get 1) More focal range, 2) faster, 3) Nikon, and 4) Minimize lense switching all for under $600.

 

I would prioritize which things you want or find the most limiting, and go from there. To me, it sounds like you're going to have to choose between lense switching and max aperture, since you have a decent focal length covered.

[ken_schroeder]

David,

I suggest at look at your images and think about the field conditions at the time. Are you struggling at the maximum aperture and wishing you had a faster lens? Are you crowded and wanting a wider lens or do you wish you had a longer lens? You may have a combination of these three, or perhaps none. Be honest and thorough in your analysis.

 

In my case, I know for film work I do not need a lens longer than 85mm. That is my most used lens. (For digital my second purchase was a 50mm 1.8 D, which is my most used lens.) The gentle telephoto matches the way I see. I dislike flash, so the f1.8 is very nice. The 50 is fast, light, compact, sharp and inexpensive. I think it's a great lens and would recommend it. On the wider side, I use a 35mm for film. My next lens was a 24mm f2.8D. The two do almost all of my work. I did add a 35mm f2.0 because I like the 50mm for film work. It's a nice lens for images of two people, or when the 85 is a bit tight.

 

The fourth lens I carry for film is a 24mm. I have not purchased anything comparable in digital yet.The 24 was my most recent lens for film. I use it more for scenics or architecture, I find it too wide for group shots.

 

The above lenses work very well for me. Learn your own real life needs, not just what you "might shoot" or what others recommend. That said, I would recommend you seriously consider the 50mm f1.8 AF D. It's a sweet lens, for a very small investment. You might, like me, find it's the lens which stays mounted on your camera.

 

Ken