fabian_anthonioz

<p>This is a shot of my tamron 28-75 wide open at f2.8, with no editing at all -->

i think it's a great performance, colors, out of focus, sharpness of the subject... god if the tamron just had 8mm more of angular!<br>

I think that the most logical choice here is the 16-85 but i would like to keep the magic of f2.8 shots... how do you think this shot would be with the 16-85 at 28mm wide open?, if someone could give me an example it would be great<br>

If the 17-55 is such a strong performer most times i'd be happy by carrying just the lens and maybe the 50mm prime and leave the sigma at home, and if i'm going for a UWA journey then just leave the 17-55 out of the bag... this way weight won't be such an issue and everything fits in my small domke bag</p>

<p>Thank you all for your advice, i find all the opinions very useful!<br>

<br />I've been asked about how i use my gear... well i mostly do urban and landscape photography, when i travel i come back with 40% of the photos with the 10mm focal length and around 70% in the 10-20mm range. Sometimes i think that i'm abusing the ultra-wide style and i should take photos with less distortion, that's why i've decided to invest in a good quality mid-range zoom to challenge my sigma and push myself to diversify my photos. I barely feel the need to have something longer than 70mm or so, 5% of the time as much and that isn't enougth for me to justify carrying a specific lens<br>

About the aperture topic, for me f2.8 is not only a question of low light situations but about the quality, the colors and the light that these lenses obtain, i mean bokeh and out of focus pictures that brings me a lot of creative options. <br>

Another aspect that i take into account specially in the last years is carrying the minimum weight with me, having a full photo-filled backpack with me all the time is a pain in the ass sometimes and i'd like to stick to the minimum... that's why i'm not interested in full frame (at least in the short term)<br>

here is my flickr if you want to see what i usually do: https://www.flickr.com/photos/29324944@N00/</p>

<p>My actual kit is a D90 + sigma10-20 f4-5.6 + tamron 28-75 f2.8 + nikkor 50mm f1.4 D<br>

<br />The tamron is a fine lens but i don't use it much because i find the 28mm too long for my taste and for a portrait i prefer my 50mm prime that is a kick-ass lens<br>

so i've decided to sell the tamron and invest around 600$ in two posible ways:<br>

1.- spend it all in a second hand nikkor 17-55 f2.8, it's a good range, sharp and f2.8 all the way, the cons are it's weight and that it's bulky<br>

2.- buy a second hand tokina 11-16 f2.8 + nikkor 16-85 vr f3.5-5.6 and, this way i'd improve my main lens (the sigma) with the sharper and f2.8 tokina and have the 16-85 as complement which is a perfect match for the 11-16 and it's under 500 grams and has VR stabilization</p>

<p>what combination would you recommend?, is it worth it to replace the sigma with the tokina?, i'm very happy with the sigma but i find that it has a lot of vigneting and limited aperture for indoor photography specially</p>

<p> </p>

<p>thank you all for your opinions!<br>

i'm interested in f2.8 zooms because they give me something different to my sigma 10-20 not only in the focal range but in the use: they're sharper, useful with low light and have decent bokeh so better suited for portraits for example. </p>

<p>Hi everyone!<br>

My actual kit is a D90 + sigma 10-20 and i also carry a nikkor 50 f1.4D prime and Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I find myself using the sigma 80% of the time, and the 50mm is lightweight and takes no place to carry. I don't use the tamron that much and i'm looking for a nikkor 20-35 f2.8 as complementary lens as the 20-35 matches the 10-20 range and is said to be a razor sharp zoom lens, also is not that heavy/bulky for a f2.8 zoom lens<br>

<br />is it a good idea? or maybe i should save the money and stick to my tamron?</p>

<p>I have the nikkor 60mm af-d micro and i hardly use it for portraits, i prefer the nikkor 50mm 1.4 and the tamron 28-75 2.8 zoom for this. The reason is that, as many said here, macro lens are too sharp for this use and results seem "harsh", colour is quite neutral too and this may look "cold" in portraits.<br>

My opinion is: buy the nikkor macro, it's a clever lens for the job, and save a little more money for a dedicated portrait lens like the cheaper (but clever as well) 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8 lens. You can also consider save a little money buying the older af-d nikkor macro or the tamron 60 f2 and spend the rest in the portrait lens.</p>

<p>Looking at your current lens, if you need wider i would go for the tamron 17-50 2.8, if you are used to the IQ of the 50 1.4G and 60mm micro you will be disappointed with a 18-200 zoom. I also have the same 60mm micro and the older 50 1.4D and i find the 17-50 to be a very decent wide angle zoom lens. The tokina 16-50 is a little worse in IQ and more bulky than the tamron in my experience.<br>

If you need wider, any of the previous lens mentioned above will work for you, but think that you will find a lot of difference in contrast and definition at 10mm with what you are used to. I oftenly use the sigma 10-20 and you will have to trade IQ for creativity and wide views.<br>

I Hope to be helpful</p>

<p>Hi Lomesh,<br>

i have the D90 with the 28-75 (latest version) and i've experienced the same problem, specially if you use it at f2.8 and focus with the point-selection mode, the solution was to switch to the af-s focusing mode. Seems like the sigma and tamron lenses with the built-in focus don't work correctly with the af-c or af-a focusing modes.<br>

The slow focusing is something that has to do with the lens, it's the downside of this lens (the only downside i can find, i love it). In any case i don't think buying a D3 is the solution here, at worst i would sell the tamron and go for the nikkor afs 24-70 which is a sure buy.<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>My shortlist would be the sigma 30 1.4 and the nikkor 50 1.4, decide which focal length is more useful to you and that's it. If you can afford it, i always recomend a f1.4 lens rather than a f1.8 one, people tend to think that f1.8 is near the same as f1.4 but the true is that you obtain about 60% more light with f1.4.<br>

I have the sigma 30 1.4 and as Eric says above, each time you use it you feel you need to use it more. I know the Kent Rockwell review about this lens, i usually agree with K.R. opinions but as you know, he doesn't like sigma, he is always complaining about it's "poopy" built quality... i guess everything looks poopy when your prime is the discontinued 2000$ nikkor 28 f1.4. All in all, it's true that i've had some focusing issues with the sigma (and also my tamron) when using af-c or af-a focusing modes with the point-selection AF. The solution to this is always use the af-s servo mode, it's no big deal.<br>

cheers </p>

<p>Hi!<br>

Seems like you have posted almost the same question as mine some months ago. Well as someone posted, it's important that you think about what is the focal range do you use the most, do you tend to have the 10-20 more often in your camera than you used to have the 24-120 or the 70-200?. Also consider the equipment you want to carry with you, maybe a 10-20 + 24-70 + 70-200 is too much weight, if you are leaving the 70-200 at home and need absolutely the long reach, then i'll strongly consider the 18-200 and add your prime for low light. If carrying the 70-200 is a must, then i'd look for something different.<br>

I also have the 10-20 and a f1.4 prime, i'm mainly an ultra-wide and wide photographer and what i have as second zoom lens is the tamron 28-75 f2.8. I also tried the 17-50 but i find 28-75 to be a better complement to the 10-20, it is a matter of tastes but personally i prefer having a 2.8 constant lens for indoor and street photography rather than a standart 18-200 zoom.<br>

About the nikkor 24-70, it's obvious that it's a superb lens but i'm not sure about using high end fx lenses on dx bodies, the 14-24 or 24-70 were designed to cover the larger fx sensors of the D700 and D3, their weight and size balance perfectly with these bodies but not so well with lighter bodies as the D90 or D300... i mean, even if you can afford it, you are paying a lot for a lens designed to do it's best with a fx body. All in all, if you want the best and money isn't an issue i guess the 24-70 is the best. <br>

cheers</p>

<p>The answer to your question is yes, the 17-55 2.8 is the finest lens you can have for your D200 as a stand-alone lens (if money isn't an issue of course). The thing here is, 17mm is wide enough for you?, because if you need wider then you`ll have to add a 12-24 or 10-24 zoom to the nikkor. The result is a total bill of about 2000$ for a long end of just 55mm and the fastest aperture of f2.8... more important, you'll have a focal range (17-24mm) where the two lenses overlap, this is a bad thing because you will lose time wondering wich one to use. I'm not saying the 17-55 or 12-24 are bad lenses, they are superb performers, i'm saying that for about 2000$ this is not the better combination.<br>

Another solution could be adding the 10.5 fisheye to the 17-55 but make sure you try the 10.5 in the store before buying it, it gives a more extreme fisheye vision than the other ultra-wide zooms (even if the focal length is the same)... this can be a good thing or not depending on your needs. Personally i would prefer a (for example) tokina 11-16 + sigma 24-70 combo bringing you more flexibility, full f2.8 constant range coverage for at least 500$ less in your bill. For that money you could even have a nikkor 10-24 f3.5 + sigma 50-150 f2.8 and a 35 f1.8 prime.</p>

<p>If you feel that you need to go wider, 17 or 16mm is not enough, you'll have to look at the 12-xx or 10-xx range, i have the sigma 10-20 with a D90 and use it 80% of the time. However, 20 or 24mm is not enough in the long end so maybe you should also look for a second zoom or a 50mm prime. I personally prefer 2.8 constant lens because of the sharpness, IMQ and possibilities so i have a tamron 28-75 2.8, i find 75mm to be long enough for me but i guess this is a personal choice. Think that a f2.8 zoom or a f1.8-1.4 prime will solve you the low-light situations as well, this way you won't be switching glasses all the time.<br>

In any case, my personal advice is go spend the big part in a good wide zoom (nikon 10-24, sigma 10-20 f3.5 or tokina 11-16 f2.8) and don´t waste a lot on the second zoom/prime because you'll be using a lot more the wide end during travels (architectural, monuments, landscapes...).<br>

cheers!</p>

<p>I haven't any experience with the sigma but i know the tokina 16-50 and the tamron 17-50, i have tested them with my D90 before buying the tamron 28-75. The 17-50 is really good, is the one i liked the most from the group but the 28-75 is a better range for my needs. Comparing the shots i made, the 17-50 is better than the tokina in colours, contrast and also sharpness in the 50mm focal length. The good thing with the tokina is the 16mm start which makes a difference with a 17 or 18mm, it is also very well built and looked gorgeous on my D90... but the shame is that it costs way more than the tamron and you get no better IQ for the money.<br>

I can't say about the IQ of the sigma, but a strong point of the sigma is it's hsm built-in focusing motor, it is quiet and very fast. As some said before, the focusing system of the tamron is a bit slow and noisy and sometimes it hunts depending on the light conditions.<br>

I think it isn't an obvious decision, you should try both in the store and decide<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>Hi everyone!<br>

I'm a macro lover and my team is a D90 with the nikkor 60mm 2.8 af-D (not the af-s new model), they work pretty well and i guess it would be the same for a D300 (same sensor size and resolution than my D90). My only other experience with a macro lens is the macro mode of mi ex nikkor 24-85 2.8-4 af-D, and the 60mm outperforms it in every way. It is razor sharp, sharper than the primes i've got and the colours and contrast are just superb, i've got it for a year now and it still impresses me when i see the photos in full size at home.<br>

All the macros mentioned here are all very well considered, i guess it is more about what do you want to make with it, 90mm or 100mm is great for insects but i find 50mm or 60mm more useful for my compositions and flowers (also more useful in a dx for portraits in my opinion). Also take in acount the new Tamron 60mm f2, it is the first "consumer" macro lens with such a great aperture... imagine the bokeh and colours this thing must do!<br>

some of my works with the 60mm 2.8: <br>

<p><img src=" " alt="" /><br>

<img src=" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I purchased a second hand nikkor 24-85 2.8-4D a couple months ago and i was pretty happy with it, nice aperture and outstanding bokeh for a zoom lens... the shame is that it showed some colour trouble at great apertures and i had to return it to the shop. Now i have the option to replace it with other similar lens and i would like some advice here. I have tried the tokina 16-50 2.8 and i liked the construction and the results, it's sharp and contrasty and focuses very well. I have the tamron option too, the 17-50 2.8 or 28-75 2.8, they also cost about 200$ less than the tokina. Finally, i can replace my 24-85 with a second hand nikkor 35-70 2.8D in the shop with no additional cost, i've tried it and looks good but seemed less sharper than the tokina to me, it also looks oldy and is not as nice to operate and focus than the tokina/tamron.<br>

My setup is a D90 with a sigma 10-20 and two primes (30 and 60mm), what i'm looking for is a second walk around zoom lens with a longer end reach than my sigma, 2.8 aperture is a must to me.<br>

Any help would be much appreciated</p>

<p>It seems that you have a similar configuration to mine... and the same doubts. I'm mainly interested in macro and landscape photography, my equipment is a D90 with a ultra wide zoom (10-20), a micro (nikkor 60 2.8D) and a prime (sigma 30 1.4). In comparison, your primes are way longer than mines, so you don't have anything covering the wide/normal/short telephoto range. The question here is not if you have to go for the 35mm or 50mm primes, but if you should go for a second zoom lens or just purchase another prime(s).<br>

In my experience, if you want another prime go for a 30mm (the nikkor or sigma, don't mind), 30mm is a comfortable focal length for most situations, and would give you great depth of field and bokeh in portraiture. But if this isn't your main goal, a good quality 2nd zoom lens is more useful and you won't miss shots switching from one prime to another.<br>

The natural choice here, as some said before, is the 16-85 because it fills nicely the range missing between your 11-16 and 85 1.8. I personally prefer a 2.8 zoom lens as the tamron/sigma's 17-50, 28-75, 24-70... because they offer better dof control and with the great iso results of your D300 you could even pass on having a second prime for low light shots (think that two zoom lenses and a couple of primes in your bag is a lot for your shoulder).</p>

<p>Thank you all for your advice. I would like to ask Bruce which one of the two nikkors do you use more often. I also would like to know if the better optics of the 24-85 comes close to a 2.8 nikkor prime or not.<br>

Someone also said something about two 105 and 180 nikkor primes, i just saw the nikkor 180 2.8 D for 400$ in very good state, maybe this would be a good option, but i'm not sure if a 180mm prime on a dx body is a useful focal length, it's not so much about the money but about the convenience what i'm concerned of, i don't want to carry a 600 or 800g lens all the time in addition to the 10-20mm and the 30mm to make a couple of shots every two months<br>

i've considered the sigma 50-150 2.8, it's a very good quality thing, i also like the bokeh and fast focusing and i find it not so expensive, but the focal range is a bit short on both ends... however i'm going to try it on the d90 next time i'll pass by the store<br>

definitively i'm going to pass on the 70-300 vr, it's surely good but i find it way too big. I understand that people here find it not so big in comparison to the 2.8-aperture telephoto giants from nikon, bur it's way too big to carry as third or fourth lens of choice<br>

the 18-200 vr surely stays on my short list, the 10-20 + 18-200 zoom lens combo seems the better choice to me right now.</p>

<p>thank you again and any other input will be much appreciated</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

i like to carry two zoom lens to cover from ultra-wide to telephoto and i also take with me a sigma 30 f1.4 for low light and portrait shoots. The ultra wide zoom is covered by a sigma 10-20 that i like and use a lot and i would like to replace my older nikkor 18-135 as wide to telephoto zoom. I've seen a second-hand nikkor 24-85 2.8-4 for 290$ and also a nikkor 18-200 vr for about 550$, the 24-85 seems well built and good quality lens, but the 85mm is not a very long focal length... the 18-200 offers a great range but i find it expensive for what it is (costs more than my sigma 10-20 which is my main lens). I'm not considering having a two lens combo as for example 24-85 + 80-200 or so because i don't want to carry more than three lenses with me all the time.<br>

maybe someone here can tell me about those lens or even propose me a better choice. thank you<br>

Fabian</p>