$500 to spend on a lens, what to get?

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Uh oh. My first post, and I've already posted one of those questions. :-)<br /><br />Here's the deal: I just realized two things 1.) I can use my Amex rewards points to buy things from Amazon at a slightly better rate than if I were to redeem them for cash 2.) Amazon sells lenses directly (I guess B&H and Adorama do too, but I typically just buy directly from them). Oh... Adorama stocks the Cosina/Voigtlander lenses? Argh. I've got $493 to spend, now what?<br /><br />Photography is a hobby for me, and it's very unlikely to turn into a profession. As such I've tried to be as much of a cheapskate as possible. So far my collection contains a D200, an SB-25, and a slowly multiplying family of manual focus primes (currently: Nikon 28/2.8 AIS, 50/1.8E, Mir24N, Voigtlander 58/1.4). Hands down the Voigtlander is my favorite of the bunch. Not because it's the most expensive, but because when I review my photos the ones that I invariably stop to take a longer look at turn out to be photos taken with this lens. But... I crave something wider and with less fiddly metering (even though this is the "fixed" version I still have to dial in about -2/3EV to get proper exposure). 58mm is a bit long for a walk around lens IMO, and I find myself often not having enough room to get a shot. The Soviet lens is nice, and I like the focal length and build quality... but it's certainly not that sharp.<br /><br />Occasionally I'll take advantage of a local camera shop's great weekend promotion (~40% off the one day rate gets you the lens for the whole weekend if it's not already reserved by Friday afternoon). I've had some fun, but generally I end up with lenses that are well beyond what I'm interested in spending on a lens. While I did enjoy using the Nikon 12-24 for a weekend, $493 is a pretty hard limit.<br /><br />I take a lot of opportunistic shots, often inside or at dusk. But... I also enjoy hiking quite a bit, and sometimes the siren song of a zoom beckons. As much as I like my manual focus lenses (the D200's autofocus infuriates me nearly 7 of 10 times), I've been toying with picking up a autofocus lens of some sort. My friend's 18-135 found its way into my bag for a while. Liked it overall, didn't like the vignetting... but really couldn't stand how slow it is. I used another friend's 18-70 to shoot her birthday party indoors, and aside from operator error, I rather liked it. I've been looking at a few on eBay, and I'm unsure if I like it enough to spend $100 on one, let alone $500 on a new one at Amazon.<br /><br />Alternatives I've been thinking about that I could purchase from Amazon:<br /><br />Sigma 30/1.4 - This is the one that's really tempting me quite a bit. I'm unsure if I'd be happy with this focal length. I like the 35mm lens I have, but I never could get the hang of the 28mm lens. That the 28 isn't too sharp at infinity doesn't help matters. In favor of the Sigma I like the prospect of something else with nice bokeh.<br /><br />Nikon 50/1.4G or Sigma 50/1.4 - I don't really want another 50mm, but autofocus could be nice. Plus the Nikon takes 58mm filters so it works with the filters and caps that I already have.<br /><br />Voigtlander 40/2 or 20/3.5 - Unsure if I want another manual lens. It would be nice to have something wider (altho the 20mm is out of my price range), and I know I like (well, love) the handling of the Voigtlander lens I already have. But I don't know that I want to walk around with yet another heavy lens (the 58 is a beast).<br /><br />An example of one of my recent shots that I liked. D200 @ ISO 1000, Voigtlander 58/1.4 @ f/2.0. Pretty sure I couldn't make that work with a kit zoom lens like the 18-70.<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1054/5130717718_20fcd68249_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="428" /></p>

[alan_huett]

<p>I will give you an opinion from my own experience using my D90. I bought the Sigma 30 f1.4 (used) since at the time Nikon didn't make a 30/35mm f1.8/1.4 (I didn't want the 35mm F2). Shortly after I got the Nikon 50mm f1.8 (used). I have rarely used the Sigma at all since. I then gave the 50 1.8 to my sister and bought the Nikon 50mm 1.4 D (non-AFS, used). To be honest, I wish I had saved the extra cash an got another 50 1.8 - I don't think the difference in image is worth that much to me.<br>

I find the 50mm easier to use than the 30mm (it isn't helped by the erratic focus of the Sigma), and mostly I am trying to get closer to fill the frame rather than backing up.<br>

I am currently holding out for a used 85mm f1.8 for even more length whilst keeping the lens fast and compact. But if you want width the Sigma can be a great lens if you get a good copy (mine is a bit dodgy I think).</p>

[kobye]

<p>If you like the wide nikkor, a used or new 12-24 F/4 Tokina is a nice choice, which I enjoy. 12 is nicely wide and 24 slots into a more general shooting range (a moderate wide like 35 on fx).<br>

You are also lacking in telephoto options. 85 1.8 or 70-300 VR is in the price range mentioned.<br>

But this is a really broad question - think more about photos you wish you could take but can't because of what you currently have. If you are drawn to macro photography (you have no options now), there are lenses from tokina/sigma/tamron/older nikons that fit the budget etc. and could double as mid range teles.<br>

depends on what you wish to do!</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>The Voigtlander 40/2 is a perfect walk-around lens, perhaps slightly long on DX for my taste. It is pretty much the opposite of heavy or big (or bad). It is in fact a pancake lens, so you will not find many smaller lenses (Nikon has a 45mm which is even smaller, but it's a dog from what I hear). I would say that or the Sigma 30mm. The 30mm is probably even closer to a walk-around focal length on the D200. The Nikon AF-S 50mm is probably good, but it's way bigger than it should be, and you already have the exact same focal length.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>nice work with the voigtlander. maybe you should stay with manual focus. j/k...</p>

<p>i have the tokina 12-24 and the sigma 30/1.4. they're entirely different lenses, requiring opposite approaches--one fast, one slow. the sigma would give you the creamy bokeh and fast aperture you're used to from your primes. you could definitely use that as a walkaround lens --which i sometimes do on a d300 or d90. it would be interesting to pair that with the voigtlander, though it wouldn't address your w/a gap. the tokina 11-16 would be the one to get for anything indoors, but the 12-24 is a good outdoors lens and very good at f/8. you're not going to get great available-light shots with that wide open on a d200. since that is the body you have, i would stick with fast lenses until you can upgrade.</p>

 

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Alan: Indeed the Sigma quality control worries me a bit, but that's why I'd not buy a used Sigma. I hadn't really considered the 50/1.4 AF/AF-D because indeed it doesn't seem to be much improved over the 1.8... or quite near the 58/1.4. I feel like I'm not really wanting for longer primes... but I guess there's only one thing to do there. Rent an 85/1.8... altho the lack of HSM/AF-S might be bothersome.<br /><br />Keith: I'm leaning towards a wide-normal zoom, or a normal prime. I liked the 12-24, but felt it might be a bit too wide at the long end for regular use. Then again, I have more normal lengths (28, 35) represented already. Something like a 14-35/2.8 would be just about perfect (and gigantic) I s'pose.<br /><br />Oliver: Yeah, if the 58 is indicative of Voigtlander quality, I've got high expectations for the 40. I guess it comes down to manual vs auto focus and weight. Looking at the specs, the Sigma would be my heaviest lens by a good margin.<br /><br />Eric: Yeah... that's the problem I guess: focusing manually on a D200 is *tough*. I can get a good shot with the manual lenses, tho usually not without a lot of wasted shots. Even with a split prism I still rely on the green AF dot. 'Course the situations where I'm inclined to give in and use an AF lens are difficult enough that I tend to miss shots anyhow. When the unicyclists hit town... I managed a couple of MF shots, but GEEZ they're like hummingbirds on wheels (well...). If I had a full frame body, no question I'd have another Voigtlander in my hands right now.<br /><br />If I had the stamina, I'd be all over a wide-normal 2.8 zoom. But at well over a pound... no thanks. I know fast wide primes were never really the domain of Nikon, so I guess it really is down to Sigma and Voigtlander, eh? I might have to bite the bullet and buy the Sigma. :D</p>

[Matt Laur]

Alex: I've been using the Sigma 30/1.4 on a D200 and D300 with vey happy results for quite some time now. Have

never looked back. I also use a fast wide/normal zoom (Nikon's 17-55/2.8), but it's not always the right tool for the job.

[woolly1]

<p>Hi Alex, if you can use your points with Amazon for a third party seller take a look at the Nikkor 35-70/2.8 ... Zoom for hiking, moderately fast and afd focus. Mine is sharp enough to use for product or still life shots and it's built from good old metal. Even has a macro setting although it is more accurately a 'very close focus mode'.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35-70mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOD/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291381221&sr=8-1">http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35-70mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOD/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1291381221&sr=8-1</a></p>

[kobye]

<p>I would recommend the sigma 30 1.4 as well. I own it as well as the nikon 35 1.8 which I gave to my wife when we got her a camera. I find it great, and very much appreciate the 1.4 and higher quality of the out of focus rendition of the lens. compared to the nikkor. It is nicer looking at wide apertures 1.4-3ish than the nikkor which can have a busier look to the out of focus areas. Also 30 vs. 35 is noticeably wider which I appreciate. I like the nikkor too - it is a decent lens, not knocking it.<br>

As far as sigma QC, I have 3 lenses from sigma all of which have been great performers - the 30 1.4, 150 macro and 50-150 2.8 .</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>IMHO, a wide angle, manual focus lens is not a good idea on a D200, specially if you "still rely on the green AF dot" and "take a lot of opportunistic shots, often inside or at dusk". To have sharp pics in this way is either 1. matter of DoF, 2. luck, or 3. a boring meticulous technique.<br /> My choice would be a 35/1.8AFS. Zoom lens? A used (like new condition) 16-85AFS.</p>

[phil_burt]

<p>Alex,<br>

I have the Sigma 30mm,f1.4 and I love this lens. Seems to be the perfect fit for my D90. I use it as a good walk around for street photos and for flowers as well. This lens produces beautiful Bokeh. I have not had any problems at all with front/rear focus. I think that some of that bad rap was from years back.<br>

If you do select this one you will not be sorry.<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Alex,<br>

I see your lenses are in the 24-58 range and I do not see the point of picking another one in the same area.<br>

I'd suggest to extend your range with Nikon 105/2.5 AIS which is small, inexpensive and great IQ lens.<br>

Otherwise, if you want AF, I think you can pick a Tamron 28-75/2.8 which is a steal for the money. It is not big, nor heavy, nor expensive but compared directly with Nikon 24-70 I don't see almost any difference in IQ. <br>

Last but not least... if size matter you can get Nikon 35/2 AF-D that fits in your budget and receives lots of praises. It is a very interesting option and better IMHO than 35/1.8 DX.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Answer the siren call of a zoom by purchasing the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 HSM OS...<a name="NEW_90/3.5_SLII_"></a></p>

[woolly1]

<p>Hi Jose,<br>

I have that 16-85 zoom and would recommend it in an instant .... if it wasn't for the OP saying he uses camera inside or dusk. The D200 is a bit noisy at higher ISO and the 16-85 is sharp with good focus but is slow aperture at best and worse when zoomed to tele. For the kind of low light shooting I would recomend the 18-70 in favour of the 16-85 for it's real value and faster aperture when zoomed. The 16-85 is way better but not for the extra money. Neither really would do the job.<br>

In his example shot he used ISO1000 at f2, he doesn't quote the shutter speed but the best he could get at medium zoom would be f4, a full two stops slower or ISO 4000 (the D200 only goes to ISO1600)<br>

If it was me I would just buy the Nikon 85mm f1.8 and shart shooting. It flares a bit but it's a nightclub, it's part of the atmosphere.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Thanks guys!<br /><br />I think that filling in the wide-normal end feels like a safer bet because while my collection already represents that pretty well.. an AF or a faster lens in that range would offer some benefit. I've only felt an occasional need for something much longer than 70mm. Of course, while I kept the 18-135 (and 18-105) for a few months they were nearly useless at those lengths unless you're in direct light. Then again the reason I really don't like the 28/2.8 AIS is that it's only at its best up close and seems to soften up when stopped down beyond f/5.6. Might have to pick up an ugly 105/2.5 on principle alone ($50 for an AI'd one? Geeezzzzzz.).<br /><br />The thing that deters me from the faster zooms is the weight (and to some extent size). I loved the Nikon 20-35, but that's *way* too heavy for me to leave on the camera for much time. The Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 18-50 were the slightly smaller zooms that caught my eyes. Time to camp out at a camera store I don't like and play with the toys for a bit I guess.<br /><br />The EXIF info for the photo I posted can be found here: />It was shot at 1/125, not a lot of leeway. At the bigger sizes you can see my biggest problem with MF lenses: backfocus. But, hey, the pineapple is kinda in focus.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Why not use the 28 2.8 ais? It's one of Nikon's best ever and works out to be a very usable 42mm on your d200.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Agreed on the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I honestly think that's one of the best lenses anyone makes for the money. If your points are going to expire, I'd get that. If they're not going to expire, I wouldn't buy anything. I've always mantained that if you need help spending your money, then there obviously isn't anything you need.<br>

IF your points don't expire, I'd wait and get the Nikon 85 1.4D. The D seems to take as good an image as the G (minus the sealing), and would fit into your method of working much better than the other lenses mentioned.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>Michael: It just doesn't quite pop the way that the 58 does even when stopped down to 7.1. In looking through my pictures I've often tried to use it as wide lens on a DX camera. I typically wanted it a little wider or a little longer, but never right at 28. In retrospect the images aren't terrible, but I've barely touched the lens this year. Are my eyes getting worse? Standards lower? Am I getting less critical of myself? Dunno.<br /><br />Zack: The points won't expire unless I take some action (such as moving to a non-rewards card). As this is still a hobby, I don't really *need* any of my kit — but it's fun. Shooting manual focus primes is an interesting lesson in patience and composition. Saving up for an 85/1.4 is certainly an option, paying for one with points is almost certainly not. The conversion rate is such we'd be talking about waiting for me to charge another quarter million dollars.</p>