Would you buy any other lens?

[cguaimare]

Hi friends: I am studying, taking pictures and trying to learn as much as I

can. I do not have a subjet in particular and I am taking pictures of Macro,

portraits, landscapes and everything that I see around. I am planning to go to

Holand and I was wondering if I would need a new lens. My lens so far are:

1) Tamron 90mm Macro 2,8 1:1

2) Nikor 24-85mm 3,5

3) Sigma 70-200mm 2,8.

Please I would like to see your comments.

Thanks in advanced

[juanjo_viagran]

IMO you need a 12-24mm

 

you can get the Nikon for around 1G or the Tokina for half the price.

[mark_amos]

Carlos, I don't think we ever need a new lens to find a way to meaningfully record enough of what we experience to keep it memorable while still creating fine photographs if you (we) have the skill, and unless you have some specific requirements put upon you by your work to get something in particular: action shots from super far away or super wide images, I think you have all you need. You have not said whether you will use a film camera or a digital with a crop factor, but I don't think that is a big deal since you have either a 24-85 or an equivalent 36-135. I have only been to Holland once, and I only took a Rollei 35 40mm f3.5 tessar, and I have no regrets, although I would take different equipment today, now that I have a bigger selection.

 

I, personally, prefer small fast lenses for less conspicuous low light effectiveness, and if I positively felt I had to add something to my kit of what you have, if I were you I would just get a 50 1.8, regardless of whether you are using a film or digital SLR. I think it's only about $100.

[cguaimare]

Sorry I did not say. My camera is a Nikon D80. Digital

[mark_amos]

Carlos, for me personally, there are some trips or visits that my wife schedules for me that are primarily made interesting for me by what I might accomplish photographically. Because I have to overcome a small amount of intimate-social-aversion at most events, I enjoy photography as a concrete objective I can plan for in most everything we do. But for a trip to Holland, I think I could recognize that a balance is needed between my photographic objectives and the task of allowing myself to enjoy it for whatever the experience becomes. Only you can decide between the advantages of having a very small low light lens versus a large 12-24 Nikon fantastic wide angle lens or how relevant the question really is at all.

 

My best advice is to enjoy what you can and record what you can. That is all.

[tony bell]

Tokina 12-24, go wide young man, go wide. The Tokina matches the Nikon in every way for half the price.

[albertdarmali]

Well, my usual line of thought is, if you have to ask, you probably don't really need it.

 

Plus considering you have almost every angle covered (you got macro, you got tele, you got wide), I think it's better to spend the money on something else.

 

But - if you ask me, just based from your current pictures, what you will benefit the most is from lens like 17-50mm 2.8. Looks like you don't need much use of tele zoom or semi tele. That Tamron macro lens, you gotta keep it no matter what. Even if you don't do macro (which is excellent with this lens by the way), it's a superb portrait lens.

[albertdarmali]

Sorry, I meant 17-55mm

[juanjo_viagran]

unless you are a professional or really abuse the lenses the 17-55mm 2.8 is a waste of money. ($1200)

Is built like a tank, weight like one and I'm sure that take great pictures, so is the 18-70mm which cost around $200.

[albertdarmali]

Juanjo, you don't need to be a professional to enjoy the quality of 17-55mm. I mean, if you can afford it, why not? The aperture alone is already well worth the extra to some people.

 

700 grams is not heavy, not with a camera like D80, it will balance pretty nicely. Unless it's something like D40 size, then it is a bit uneven.

 

Saying 17-55mm is a waste of money is pretty ignorant IMO.

[juanjo_viagran]

Hey Albert,

 

I say "UNLESS YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL OR REALLY ABUSE THE LENSES THE 17-55mm 2.8 IS A WASTE OF MONEY"

and I stand in what I say.

 

you can agree or disagree, but keep your ignorant remarks apart please.

[albertdarmali]

So do you think when you own something like 17-55mm, it can withstand abuse? I don't think there is a single lens out there that can stand "abuse". Heavy duty work, yes, not abuse.

 

There are so many reasons to get 17-55mm apart from it being tougher than 18-70mm (I personally think the build is just one of many aspects of the lens).

 

And as I mentioned, the aperture itself is already well worth the money (at least for me and a few other 17-55mm owners out there).

 

What bothers me is, just because you don't find that owning 17-55mm can benefit you, it doesn't mean it's a waste of money for someone else. Maybe if you ask people who own the lens, why they like it so much, then you will understand a bit more. I am by no means a gear head, but sometimes a better equipment really helps in creating better picture.

[albertdarmali]

Let me put it clearer, I don't know about you, but I find that it is quite practical to have fast lenses.

 

First, you have more leeway for your shutter speed before you need to resort to flash (which I prefer not to use if possible, mainly because of extra weight and imbalancing the camera when being handheld), and I personally like the use of natural lighting.

 

Even when you use something like 2.8 for say, late afternoon photography, you still need to resort to higher ISO, and at times when I am with my 2.8, I wish I'd bring my 1.4 with me. Now, with slower lens like 3.5, there is no way you can make a flashless afternoon photography without cranking your ISO way up there, which result in more grain and less details.

 

If you ask for an example when the 2.8 really pay for itself is when even with your 2.8, your shutter speed is still down to 1/50-ish, that time you will be glad that you have 2.8 instead of having a 3.5 with a missed shot opportunity (blurry pictures).

 

I'm not a pro, but I do honestly can appreciate what the difference is, and I don't know about you, but I find it that holding a camera for 1/20 or 1/30 shot is rather difficult and incosistent. And don't get me started on background blur...

[nickwhite]

Carlos,

 

Your current lens line up covers a pretty good range, except for the wide angle end, your widest lens at 24mm is barely wider than 'standard' on the D80; so my vote would have to go for a Sigma 10-20mm.

 

 

On a trip to Holland, particularly Amsterdam etc, you will find the wide angle absolutely indispensable in the narrow streets and around the waterways etc.

 

 

In the longer term, unless you are particularly attached to it, you might consider changing the 24-85 for an 18-70, which would give a bit more useful 'range' IMO.

 

Enjoy your trip.

[elliot1]

I agree with Juanjo. Unless you need to take pictures in low light or need a very narrow depth-of-field, the 17-55 is a waste of money - my $100 18-55 produces images on par (in many ways superior) with my 17-55. The 17-55 is also not a very good landscape lens (IMO).

[albert_krusvar]

I love my 12-24 Nikkor and find it to be my most used lens, however, with that said, I'd seriously look at getting the 18-200VR in your case and leave all your other lenses at home. You've already got lots to carry about, so why not lighten the load. Then you've got one of the most versatile lenses on at all times, ready for whatever shot it is that presents itself.

 

Have an enjoyable trip!

[andrew_cale]

I find some of the *highly* opinionated posts in this thread amusing.

 

For the record, I am neither a pro or an abuser of my gear. I started out with the 18-70 and it was a great lens for the price. After a year of using it I realized I wanted more. The 17-55 filled that need and more.

 

As I have said before, this lens truly makes photography fun and I would recommend it over any of my other lenses, and any other lenses that I have ever used, if the funds are available (its not outrageously expensive, but its not cheap either). Don't be hoodwinked by those that try to equate it with slow zooms. "Well unless you need low light...etc etc etc."

 

Anyhow Carlos, I don't think you have a wide enough lens in your arsenal. For your trip to Holland, add the 17-55 and take it along with your 70-200.

[kens]

On a recent trip to Eastern Europe I took the 12-24 Nikkor and 24-120 VR. Worked out wonderfully. I took about 70% with the 12-24. Didn't often need the long end of the 24-120.

 

I didn't need the 2.8 speed for this trip. Though speed and performance are good to have, and there's a place for it, you need to ask yourself first what kind of photography you'll be doing and what you'll eventually do with the images. 2.8 over a couple of weeks can be heavy for some people.

 

You might consider taking a 12-24 and 24-85 and leave the longer stuff at home.

[ian_tindale]

Don't get a wide angle lens. They're useless. Everything in the picture becomes tiny and microscopic and distant because it has to cram so much scenery into the frame.

[j_dc]

I, too, find the bantering amusing but hardly cerebral.

 

I am most happy with my 12-24 Nikkor and am seriously considering the 17-55f2.8 for the viewfinder brightness and optical quality. With zoom lenses being so dominate these days I've always felt buy the very best you can afford as individually they get used more often than the fixed length lens of old. If you've got the money simply buy both and be done with it - they're both in the 'gold ring' class of Nikkors and should stand the test of time of every front.

[astral]

I visit Holland and north Belgium regularly: the landscapes and townscapes are very different in their photographic 'requirements'. Holland is of course a bit flat and the countryside is therefore - for me - not particularly suited to lots of super-wide angle photography. I feel it is better to be able to pick out details, in order to give them some perspective and dimensionality with a short-medium telephoto, rather than to concentrate on wide vistas ... though that's a matter of style and preference. <br><br>

 

In contrast, the historic towns have quite narrow streets, and many interesting pieces of architecture are very tall in proportion to surrounding buildings. For these a 12mm~ lens is quite a desirable tool: an 18mm wide is the absolute minimum requirement on a D80, etc.<br><br>

 

Conversely, if you are going to be doing most of your photography out in the countryside (and excluding historic buildings) you will probably get by with a 'standard' 18-xxxmm lens on the D80. You may also find that the 70-200mm is pretty useful in such locations.<br><br>

 

I am away to Flanders this week for a fortnight: I will take my 12-24mm without fail, and I know it will be almost permanently attached to my D200. AC

[astral]

I would add: rather than carrying a long lens take a decent tripod. Dutch & Flemish towns can be superb at night:

[astral]

... Or with a caption !<div></div>

[albertdarmali]

That's what I was trying to say, 17-55mm is a superb lens (or 17-35mm if you don't need the extra reach), and if you can afford it, why not? For the money, 18-70mm is a great buy too, but that doesn't mean that the 17-55mm is a "waste" of money for someone non-pro.

 

Many people after using their 18-70mm for awhile, they started thinking about 17-55mm. And this kind of lens they last a long time.

 

Over the years if you looked back and broke down the price and consider how much enjoyment it has given you (the build, the speed, and most importantly - image quality), you know that it's totally worth it.

[cguaimare]

I find your point of view very interesting. I wonder what lens would suit me better. 17-55mm or 12-24mm. I am not talking about price but which one I would use more. It seems to me that the 17-55mm gives me more room to shoot.