Wanted: $2000 worth of glass

[ohr_hirsh]

<p>Hi<br>

A lot of what I photograph would fall under the Travel banner; but I am hoping to concentrate on specific subjects such as the type of work done by <a href="http://yuvalnadel.com/">Yuval Nadel</a>:<br /><br /><br>

I live in Israel (light here is abundant) so $2k is equivalent to 7700 shekels. I am considering the following as upgrades to the 18-55 zoom that I shoot on my D300. If I go with pro Nikon glass I'm limited to a single lens:<br /><br /></p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Nikkor -- 6300 shekels (1400 left, maybe buy a spare battery...). <br /><br />Sharp, fast focus, heavy, expensive. I've taken a few shots on lenses belonging to other photographers. </li>

</ul>

<p><br />A little lower down:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor -- 5500 shekels (2200 left)<br /><br />Not cheap but a good focal range, f4 and sharp according to the test shots I took in a store the other day.</li>

</ul>

<p>And lower (this is all price related, of course): </p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S DX Nikkor -- 3900 shekels (3800 left)<br /><br />Cheaper, variable aperture, sharp. A lot wider than I have ever shot but may be useful for the work I want to do especially if I style myself along the lines of Nadel.<br /><br />Alternatives: Sigma 10-24/4-5.6 (cheaper); <br />Tokina 11-16/2.8 (sharper, faster, cheaper)<br /><br /></li>

<li>Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor -- 2840 shekels (5000 left)<br />Sharp, good range, VR for travel, street</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 -- 2000 NIS (5800 left)<br />Sharp, cheap, very good for the occasional wedding, barmitzvah, etc. I've used a friends Tamron before and I was impressed.<br /><br /></li>

<li>Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Nikkor -- 900 shekels (7000 left)<br />A low cost, sharp option with VR for the very occasional trip to photograph birds </li>

</ul>

<p>What combo, or not, would you suggest?<br /><br />Thanks<br>

<br />Orly</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What do you find missing most today? Is the 18-55 holding you back, is it too short, too long? Do you need wider apertures?</p>

<p>It's impossible to make a serious suggestion if it's not clear which problem you are looking to solve. I know what my choice would be, but my style and approach of photography might be vastly different from yours. Point is, a f/2.8 wide angle in the same list as a variable aperture 55-200 does not make a lot of sense - you should first know whether you want a wider angle, or more tele. Next, whether you need wider aperture, or whether f/8 is usually OK... Don't consider "how professional" a lens is, but consider which creative options it gives you, and whether that suits your style.</p>

<p>Just to be sure, do you have a D300 or D3000? The difference would be for the D300, there are quite a bit more (older) options, which won't be ideal on the D3000 (not being AF-S lenses). It would make a much longer list :-)</p>

<p>But first and foremost, try to define for yourself which problem this new lens should solve. That will cut down the list considerably, and make choice a lot easier.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>A lot of Nadel's photos appear to be indoors, so you'll probably want an f/2.8 midrange zoom. Many are also ultra-wides, so you'll also want something wider in addition to a midrange zoom that covers the usual 17mm-to-short-tele focal range. It looks like he gets in very close with an ultra-wide in some photos, judging from the looks of the edges of some photos.</p>

<p>Given your specified budget and DX dSLR, you should probably consider the best values you can find in two good third party zooms, an ultra-wide and a fast midrange. You might need to settle for a slower variable aperture ultra-wide.</p>

<p>For myself (I'm still using a D2H that just won't die, even tho' it's glitchy), I'd probably get:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 17-55/2.8 DX Nikkor because it's rugged and I'd use it the most. It'd be a significant improvement in speed over my old standby 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX which has turned out to be not only as sharp as everyone else claimed (yup, I was wrong, it really is a good lens), but also more rugged than I'd expected. The only hindrance has been the slowpoke variable aperture, which forces me to shoot at higher ISOs and deal with noise reduction.</li>

<li>The 12-24/4 Tamron screwdriver AF, if it's still available. Tried one in a shop several years ago side by side with the 12-24/4 Nikkor and the Tamron really was good. Not quite a match for the Nikkor, but an excellent value.</li>

</ul>

<p>Also, if you don't have a Nikon flash you might consider it. Not sure if Nadel uses flash much but I do. The SB-800 (and SC-29 cord) was one of the best bits of Nikon gear I ever bought. I'd sell the D2H before I'd part with the SB-800. And if the SB-800 ever dies I'll probably see if Nikon can repair it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>There's a lot of really wide angle stuff on that site.</p>

<p>I'm not sure if 17 or 18 is wide enough to do some of it, but you should find your own style and way of working.</p>

<p>In that budget, for DX, I'd get the Tokina 11-16 and the Tamron 17-50 and maybe add the Nikon 35mm f1.8G and 50mm f1.8 (D or G depending) and have a decent low light kit instead of buying the 17-55 f2.8 and having no money left over for anything else. I have three of those. The only difference is my mid-range zoom is the 18-70 that Lex mentioned, that I find absolutely no fault with and no need of a fast zoom in that range at this point.</p>

<p>But the best glass in the world won't make you as good a photographer as that guy is, only study and practice will.</p>

[ohr_hirsh]

<p>FTR, I do have a D300, 35 f1.8G and SB700 as well as the 18-55</p>

<p>Wouter, I find the 18-55 comes up a short in my day to day photography.<br /><br /><br>

Lex / Peter, yeah, agreed; he is shooting very wide. If I go with the tamron and Tokina it would cost me somewhere in the range of 5500 shekels. Leaving me with 2300 for a spare battery and maybe an 18-70 or something similar :)</p>

[ohr_hirsh]

<p>Peter, I hear you regarding study and practice. If I look at Nadal's work I think it is very tasteful.<br>

<br>

If I look at a lot of photographs taken today using ultra-wide lenses I see it as gimmicky. Long extended body parts; it's like I'm watching an aliens movie. I can't stand it.<br>

<br>

Again, referring to Nadal, I realise he has a vision in terms of the work he wants to produce. I don't have that yet, although I do have access to the subject matter. I am thinking of photographing the rabbis of the town I live in (many of whom are very prominent in Israel).</p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>For me, I would scratch the 24-120 off the list. Price/performance on that lens is weak.</p>

<p> </p>

[ohr_hirsh]

<p>Dan, the price/performance on the 17-55 is worth it?</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>First, as Lex has pointed out, with a lot of indoor shooting, an f/2.8 mid-range zoom is important. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S are very similar in sharpness, with only a slight advantage for the Nikon. I have owned both. Unless you shoot with the camera on a tripod, or with flash, the image quality winds up the same. The main difference is ruggedness. With your D300, which has rather good sealing, it might be better to select the Nikon if you expect to shoot in blowing dust or sand, or if you're rough with cameras and lenses. As you point out, purchasing the Tamron would would allow you to make another choice.</p>

<p>The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a lovely lens, and I enjoy mine, but its very limited focal length range means frequent lens changes. Less speed is needed in this range. The Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S was not available when I was shopping for an ultra-wide. If the quality is enough for you, it is a much better choice. BTW, although I don't know if the Nikon is better in this regard, but the Tokina has a problem if you are at all rough with your lenses. A protective filter would be almost unshaded by the necessarily wide lens hood. This means the filter picks up a lot of reflections. I don't use one with the Tokina, the hood hardly protects the front element from damage, and thus far mine has one ugly scratch on it. Doesn't seem to affect image quality, but the next scratch might, and and the likelihood of acquiring it makes the use of this lens less comfortable.</p>

<p>I agree with Peter that, if your budget allows, adding an f/1.8 lens would be helpful, for indoor shooting.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Orly, I understand the 18-55 can come up short - but in which respect? Aperture, range? I know my answer is not a direct answer to your question, but you ask a very generic question. There is no problem in advising some kit (I will below), but it's just not as useful advice as it may seem...<br>

For example, I like the photos you linked to, really good work and indeed tasteful. It's also indeed a lot wide angle work. Now, I like seeing it, I would not mind being as good a photographer for sure, and I can learn from it. But I also know I'm not enjoying shooting wide angles as much myself (frequently). It doesn't seem to fit the way I work for many subjects... I can warmly recommend the Tokina 12-24 f/4 I have - excellent lens for the money - but fact remains that for me, a good 35mm prime (as you already have) does more and sees a lot more use. And that is the question I tried to raise, and one you need to answer for yourself. Even if you like the work of Yuval Nadel, that doesn't mean your best choice now is a wide-angle lens. Because, you are you and your style requires the right tools, for you.<br>

So, keep primarily considering what exactly you want to improve in the 18-55. Because replacing it might simply not be the best use of your money, if a Tokina 12-24 and a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 (yes, should fit in the budget together) are really the tools that will carry you forward.</p>

<p>Anyway, my personal preference is the 16-85VR combined with primes. The 16-85 is a fine all-rounder, extremely useful range, and perfectly fine for outdoors. VR useful for static low light too. Combined with 35 f/1.8, 50 or 85 f/1.8, it's a very versatile set and relatively affordable. If you want to go wider, I would look at the Tokina 12-24 rather than the 11-16. Should you work a lot indoors, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 instead of the 16-85VR.<br>

And I'd add one lens for portraits, check ebay to find a manual focus 105 f/2.5, or the new AF-S 85 f/1.8G; the 50 f/1.8G if the budget won't make it, though I do find this lens a bit short for portraits.</p>

[ohr_hirsh]

<p>Wouter, it comes up short in terms of focal length on the long side. Most of my photos are either at one end of the lens or the other (mostly wide) </p>

[ohr_hirsh]

<p>I guess on some level I have all this money coming in and want to make a serious investment in my kit. </p>

<p>I have an idea where I want to go in terms of my photography (talking to friends about setting up an agency in our area) so I don't want to come up short.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>it comes up short in terms of focal length on the long side. Most of my photos are either at one end of the lens or the other (mostly wide)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's the only shortcoming, then buying the 17-50 or 17-55 won't get you anything (especially if you spend all your money on the 17-55). From what you describe, you may not need a mid-range zoom at all. But if you do want/need one, also consider the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 Macro HSM OS as a cheaper and more versatile alternative to the 16-85 Nikkor.</p>

<p>If 12mm is wide enough for you, I also suggest the Tokina 12-24/4. The 11-16 is one stop faster but also a very limited focal range - if you decide to go with that one, make sure the range really works for you. If you go with a WA zoom that end at or near 24mm, then the 24-120/4 would be a good match - even though I agree that the price is a bit steep for that lens.</p>

<p>I could go on suggesting different lens combinations - but you need to decide what range you need and whether or not you can deal with shooting some prime lenses. For example, a 11-16 or 12-24, your 35/1.8 (or replace with 28/1.8), and 85/1.8 could go a long way - and your 18-55 could do duty for street shooting and travel.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8</p>

 

[bms]

<p>It's wide angle stuff.... so I'd say 11-16 or 1 1x-24, but but what if you run out on the long range? Tokina 11-16 AND Tamron 17-50? Good lenses, good range... if you can rent the 17-55 and see if it suits your needs, I'd do that first.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Orly, what Dieter said. Getting a 17-55 f/2.8 is not going to help you much if your problem is the range of the 18-55. So, I would just get those of the list (including 16-85, 24-120 etc.) and focus on finding a good wide angle and a good tele.</p>

<p>At the long end, there are many options too; the 55-200VR is not a bad idea to get started (though too short for birds), the 70-300VR (or Tamron 70-300VC) is a very nice step up from that one. The AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 I mentioned earlier is an option, if you do not mind the weight, it's a serious step up in all ways (price, size, weight, but also optics and aperture). It's still within your budget (even with a Tokina wide angle combined).<br>

If you do not mind primes, there are a lot more recommendations again. And if you do not mind having to focus manually, you can find really great lenses for little money. Might be worth considering.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>wrong lens for DX</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I just want to agree with Peter (and disagree with John): the 14-24 is a lovely piece of glass, and I love mine, but I'm paying (in money and weight) for FX coverage. On DX, it's also not really ultrawide. The suggested DX options are far more practical.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If I go with the tamron and Tokina it would cost me somewhere in the range of 5500 shekels. Leaving me with 2300 for a spare battery and maybe an 18-70 or something similar</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's your best bet there (except for the part about the 18-70 which would triplicate a range you would already have). the 17-55 is simply not worth $2000 USD new (about 2x what they go for used here). essentially all you get over the lowly 18-55 is constant aperture, better build, and faster focus. but no stabilization and too bulky for street shooting. also the tamron is just as good, IQ-wise, with maybe a little more distortion at 17mm.</p>

<p>12-24 tokina is very good IMO and the price gives you a lot of bang for the buck. i find the 16-24 range gets used a lot. if you plan on shooting UWA indoors wide open a lot 11-16 makes sense, otherwise you may find yourself switching lenses frequently.</p>

[ohr_hirsh]

<p>Eric. A friend of mine recently shot a corporate event using a Sigma 10-20 f3/5; Nikon 17-55 and 70-200 VR.</p>

<p>He gave me samples to review, and shot for shot, the 70-200 VR was spot on. He used it for the majority of images and it was sharp every time indoors and out.</p>

<p>The Sigma was funky indoors and out but the bulk of the images were nothing to write home about (unless you are into distortion) with many of them being blurred or simply distorted. Clearly he was pushing to get the action but was let down by the lens and camera.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If you going to stay with a DX-body, you might try looking at the Nikon AF-S VR 55-300mm ED DX Nikkor lens. You'll have a bit of reach for birds, and it will cover a lot of range in your outdoor shooting.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric. A friend of mine recently shot a corporate event using a Sigma 10-20 f3/5; Nikon 17-55 and 70-200 VR.<br>

He gave me samples to review, and shot for shot, the 70-200 VR was spot on. He used it for the majority of images and it was sharp every time indoors and out.<br>

The Sigma was funky indoors and out but the bulk of the images were nothing to write home about (unless you are into distortion) with many of them being blurred or simply distorted. Clearly he was pushing to get the action but was let down by the lens and camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>o-kay...i have the 70-200 VRII. great lens, but we were discussing nikor 17-55 vs. tamron 17-50 and tokina 11-16 and 12-24. not sure how the 10-20 gets into this, but anyone unfamiliar with using an UWA probably will report that it's "funky" until they know what they're doing. blurred images are almost always the fault of the photographer.</p>

[ohr_hirsh]

<p>Sorry, Eric, I should have explained that a little better. The impression I got was that it was easy to spot the photos taken using a very good lens and as Wouter suggested I consider the Nikon 80-200, I brought this up.<br>

But you are correct, it all comes down to technique.</p>

[ohr_hirsh]

<blockquote>

<p>But first and foremost, try to define for yourself which problem this new lens should solve. That will cut down the list considerably, and make choice a lot easier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I look at it from this point of view, Wouter, then definately it's not having the extended reach of a tele.</p>

<p>I have looked at the Sigma 50-150/2,8 which has a much, much nicer price and lots of good reviews on photo.net.</p>

<p>The 17-50 Tamron is a known quantity for me, and a good deal, so chances are good its a range I will go for.</p>

<p>Re. the UWA lenses; most of them appear to fall within a similar price bracket 3300 - 3900 so I guess it comes down to whether or not I want f/2.8 or 16-24mm the most.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The impression I got was that it was easy to spot the photos taken using a very good lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think it is far easier to spot the photos taken by a bad photographer or one who doesnt know how to get the most out of his/her equipment. speaking as someone who owns both the sigma 50-150 II and the nikon 70-200 VRII, i can tell you it would be very difficult to identify which lens was used if i shot the same shot with both lenses on a DX camera at, say, f/5.6 and 100mm.</p>

<p>look at it this way: the same shot taken at f/8 and 35mm with a 18-55 plastic kit lens and a pro-spec 17-55 will be practically indistinguishable. similarly, shots taken at f/2.8 and 35mm with a tamron 17-50 and a nikon 17-55 will also be practically indistinguishable. the difference in price between the nikon and tamron is mainly paying for focus speed, build quality, and bragging rights of owning a name brand.</p>

<p>also, if you go on flickr and search for sigma 10-20, you will see literally thousands of great shots taken with that lens, like <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/fabry_78/6127977085/">this</a> one. to conclude that a lens is no good based on your friend's one bad experience with it is pretty much a snap judgment. it took me a while to learn how to use an ultrawide when i first got it. if i would have tried shooting a paid gig with it right away i probably would have had poor results. now, it's become second nature.</p>

<p>as far as ultrawides go, the idea of a wide 2.8 lens sounds pretty appealing on paper, until you consider that a) most landscape shots are taken stopped down to f/8-f/11 for more depth of field; b) 11-16mm is not a great range if you plan on taking people shots due to the inherent perspective distortion with ultrawides and the fact you need to get very close to the subject with that focal length. So while the tokina 11-16 has a pretty good reputation optically, its limited range really makes it a special purpose lens. at 2.8, you're also not going to get everything in focus.</p>

<p>OTOH, an UWA which goes to 20 or 24 can be used both for landscape and people shots, making it much more useful. and at f/8 or f/11, you're not going to see much difference between the tokina 11-16 or any other UWA for DX optically. so, again, while the tokina 11-16 sounds pretty good on paper, unless you know ahead of time that you can a) live with its limited range and b) have a specific need to shoot wide at 2.8, an ultrawide with a longer long end will probably see more use.</p>

<p>one final thing to consider is that, when using an UWA as a special-purpose or landscape lens (as opposed to photojournalism or event shooting), there's a school of thought that says the wider, the better. while i'm happy with the overall range,optics, and build quality of my trusty tokina 12-24, there are times when i've wished it went to 10mm. if i was in the market for a DX ultrawide now, i'd probably either get the sigma 10-20 or the 8-16. but then i'd probably also keep the 12-24 for event shooting.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>