Which 2.8 lens

thanks for the link ... I'll look into this lens.

Take care,
Brent

Thanks for the feedback. I'm just learning about this stuff, but even I thought it was kind of wierd for the sales guy to question my interest in the 35-70 ... oh well. I' think I'll wait and go in to see the guy I've been dealing with the most & see what he says ...

The 28-70 is also a contender ... I'm going to have to locate a store that has one in stock & maybe a bunch of the lenses I'm considering and try them out. The 10-20, 30 1.4, 35mm were not on the shelf the other day when I was in the store, which is too bad as I'd really like to get a feel for each lens.

Again, thanks for your help.

Take care.
Brent

fjgindy said:

If you could only find a $500/tack sharp at all lengths/10-400mm
constant 1.4.....your worries would be over

Seriously, your all over the place driving yourself nuts. You'll
be too old to push the shutter button down if you keep tormenting
your brain like this! You're not going to meet all of your
criteria with just one lens...no one on this board or in the
history of SLR's has. You absolutely need a shove!! Decide whats
the most important to you and pull the trigger!!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the friendly shove! I'm lying awake at night just trying to figure out which lens is going to be the best one ...

fjgindy said:

fjgindy said:

"My main requirement is that I do not want to keep missing the candid shots of my kids because my current camera just can't perform in low light situations, even when using the built in flash"

Click to expand...

How low light you working in if a even using flash misses the
shot?? An 18-55/18-70/18-135 and a SB600/SB800 will give you great
pictures indoors in almost all situations. Not sure what your
really saying here. If your not open to flash in low
light...you'll need a prime 1.4/1.8/f2.

Click to expand...

I currently have a Kodak DX7590 and I have a tough time getting decent candid shots of my kids ... turn the ISO up to 400 and things are pretty grainy. The flash is very harsh so I don't like using it. I could get to use a flash if I were able to get more of a natural look to the pictures, so the SB600 is one that I'm seriously considering. I don't shoot in dark environments, just natural lighting, which to a camera sensor is pretty dark I suppose. I guess the questions is do I get a mid range zoom if you will such as the 35-70, 28-70, 28-105 or 18-135 and also use a flash for inside stuff or go the route of using a prime lens - that's problably my biggest decision. I'm going to leave the 70-200/80-200 for sports, but the prime or mid-zoom will be for everyday purposes. Of the primes, I kind of like the 35 2.0 or Sigma's 30 1.4 over the 50 1.8 and as discussed earlier, the prime I originally wanted (85 1.8) just may be too long for indoor stuff, but great for sports.

fjgindy said:

fjgindy said:

"I borrowed a friend's D50 & kit lens a while ago & found that for the shots around the house of my kids, I was shooting around the 30-55mm range and hardly even used lens wide open. So, that's why the Sigma 24-70 2.8 caught my eye ... then there's the Nikon 18-135 that seems to be the most versitile lens in terms of focal range .... argh.

Click to expand...

It sounds like the D50 and kit lens worked out for you then?? I'm
assuming since its a kit lens it was an 18-55 or 18-70? By wide
open do you mean aperture or that you weren't using the "wide"
18-30 segment of the lens? If you meant aperture and the kit lens
was fast enough for you without shooting "wide open"..why do you
feel you need a 2.8?

Click to expand...

Yup, the D50 is the body I'm looking at. I was using the 18-55 and by "wide open" I meant 18-30 ... sorry for the lack of clarity. Shooting indoors at 3.5 aperture & ISO 800 yielded some good shots - MUCH better than my p & s, but I think that a constant 2.8 or prime would really look great.

fjgindy said:

You started the thread by saying you were getting an Nikon 80-200
2.8 or Sigman 70-200 for length. If you your pics indoors were
mostly 30-55mm length, and you are buying a long zoom to
start...why the need for the 55-135 end of the 18-135?? Again, it
sounds like your looking for a one lens does all for $500. It
doesnt exist. Even the respectable Nikon 18-200VR used is $750 or
more. Think multiple lens and/or flash...and the best lenses you
can afford within your budget.

Click to expand...

Yes, I want the longer lens for sports, but I don't want to be limited to a short focal length for all my other situations, hence the interest in the 18-135 etc. I guess it seems that I was looking for an all in one solution, but I just want to get the most practical lense for my type of shooting ... seems I'm back to the prime vs zoom + flash decision. I just don't know what focal length I'll use the most as I've only used the 18-55 lens and I liked using the 30-55 end of it ... I think that the 18-135 lens would offer me more range for a variety of shooting conditions - except low light, but then if I get the flash to go with it I should be ok. (head is starting to spin again ...)

fjgindy said:

$500 budget will get you a great choice of several lenses already
suggested to you in this thread and or a great lens and a flash. To
me it sounds like you are looking for a decent zoom, an affordable
fast prime for low light/no flash moments and a SB600/800 for when
you need a flash. That's do'able for $500 bucks. If you're
hedging towards a 2.8 zoom, your choiced are going to be limited
within this budget. Again, several great 2.8 lenses have been
suggested...

Click to expand...

That's the problem ... several great lenses HAVE been suggested. I like the 2.8 constant aperture, but I like the focal length of others and I like the idea of having a prime as it will help me be more creative with my composition. Plus, I REALLY like the Sigma 10-20 ...

fjgindy said:

You just need to pull the purchase trigger and start taking photos!
You'll be selling/trading/buying up in gear for years to
come...don't take it so serious...you're already missing shots

Just a friendly shove

Thanks again for the friendly shove ... not sure if I'm any closer to making up my mind. What I will have to do though is to check my local store and try out some of these lenses in order to get a feel for them. I guess once I start down thsi road I will be selling/buying/trading up on a regular basis ... just want to make sure that I'm going to be spending my money wisely as this is a big investment for a new hobby. Oh, I know I'm missing shots ...

Click to expand...

Again, thanks for taking the time to get my finger closer to the trigger.

Time to go lie down as my head hurts ...

Take care.
Brent

for the helpful feedback. I think I will get a flash as it will likely make things so much easier - especially if I can bounce it and create a more natural lighting effect.

One member recommended the 35-70, and it's one I had not even come across, but I really love the pictures it yields. I don't think I'd shoot exclusively at 2.8, but it's a nice option to have if I don't want to use flash. It's still on my short list.

Thanks for taking the time to help me out.

Take care,
Brent

It only costs around $100. and will give you the speed you need for indoor natural light shots and indoor sports. It, or the 1.4 variant (almost triple the price), is a staple in most kits.

Hey again. I hadn't counted out the 50mm based solely on its price and the fact that I seemed to like shooting in the 35-55 range using my friend's 18-55 kit lens. The 50 1.8 is the least expensive of the bunch so given that the body & long lens will eat up my budget, the 50mm is a viable option.

I think that I'd eventually like to get a prime, a medium telephoto lens and the Sigma 70-200 or Nikon 80-200 for sports. Given all the lenses that have been recommended to me in this thread, which lens (aside from the two long ones mentioned above) would you suggest I start with? There are some very capable and affordable lenses that people have recommended and I've got to find the right match for my shooting style. However, I have a feeling that I'm going to have to "wow" my wife with some keepers of our kids to justify the purchase. She won't appreciate the ability to shoot in low light without flash. I'd be interested in knowing that a shot was achieved hand held in low light & all the technical stuff ... my wife, not so much. Is there one lens that stands out from the rest that people have recommended (35-70, 24-70, 30 1.4, 35 f2, 50 1.8 ....) that can win her over? (and then convince her to let me go get some more lenses = )

Again, thanks for your time.

Take care,
Brent

Then go for the 50 1.8......it should give you some great indoor low light shots. A decent flash like the SB600 would really help to. But more important get something and start taking some pictures....read and practice.

Not sure if this one was thought of yet as I haven't gone through all of the posts but have you looked at the Tamron 28-75 f2.8?

It runs about $350 or so. As for the 70-200 vs the 80-200 go for the Nikon 80-200, i've heard too many problems withe the Sigma 70-200 and I had one and the AF never worked.
--
Photography and Graphic Design
Portfolio - http://www.atlanticexpressinc.com
Prints - http://www.atlanticexpressions.com

Thanks again for chiming in. I'm starting to think that a flash is going to be on my list of things to buy. I'm going to see if I can try out some of these lenses at my local store to see how they feel ... the 30 1.4 and the 50 1.8 ($150 Cdn) are the ones I'm most interested in right now.

I just bought Bryan Peterson's book Understanding Exposure and I'm really learning a lot. Some great tips & photos to learn from.

Thanks for your help.

Take care.

Hi and thanks for your input. The Tamron lens was not initially mentioned, but I'll take a look at it.

As for the Sigma/Nikon issue, I'm leaning towards the Sigma as I found a Canadian retailer that's selling it for $400 under what it normally goes for. Brand new, 10 yr warranty. A friend of mine just picked up this lens and used it at a rugby tournament we hosted last week and it yielded some great shots. I'm concerned about the sample issue, but I think I'd have an easier time returning something here vs. shipping it back to the U.S. The Nikon is the one that I'd prefer, based only on what posters on this forum have stated but it's price is too restrictive for me. I've looked at Keh & Adorama in the states for a used 80-200 but once I add the exchange rate and the 14% duty at the border, I won't be saving much ... I'm going to keep crunching the numbers though.

Again, thanks for your time.

Take care,
Brent

Hockey Nut said:

which would you suggest I start with?

Click to expand...

of those mentioned (35-70, 24-70, 30 1.4, 35 f2, 50 1.8 ....) and given you desire for a zoom and a $500 budget, I'd have to say the 35-70/2.8

I'd also say you should get a 50/1.8 at the same time. that way you can see how much extra low light capability you get by going from f/2.8 to f/1.8... it's significant. This is exactly what I did about two weeks ago. We pretty much in the same boat.

personally, I'd rather get the 50/1.4 but it wasn't in stock when/where I bought the 35-70. A nice setup of f/1.4 primes is my goal for the ultimate low light kit (50/1.4, 30/1.4, 85/1.4 - purchased in that order).

you can probably add any f/2.8 zoom in your price range and be happy, but I can say I'm happy with the 35-70/2.8... the only thing I would change about it would be the AF speed. It's not horrible, but it's not as fast as the 28-70/2.8 for sure. Besides you won't even notice if you're simply changing focus points on the same subject. but you can notice the differnce if you focus on, say, your foot and then the moutains on the horizon. but if you anticipate your subjects you won't miss due to focus speed (please don't quote me here, i'm just noob relaying my experiences)

Hockey Nut said:

However, I have a feeling that I'm going to have to "wow" my wife
with some keepers of our kids to justify the purchase.

Click to expand...

I can relate to this one

--
pardon my typos

--

I have the 70-200VR and the Tamron 28-75 for hockey shots. Both are very nice lenses and compliment eachother in FOV. The 85mm 1.8 would be worth looking at teamed up with a Sigma 30mm 1.4.

If I could get and or try the Tamron, then I might be able to say something about it, but I can't.

I have the 50mm/1.8 (and am at present borrowing the f1.4) and I can say, don't pay full price for one. These lenses don't seem to have a big sample variation and almost nothing can go wrong with them, so if you somehow can get one for free (check all of your relatives, this lens has been around for ages) or cheap (ebay or anything like Craig's list) do it.

It reallly is an awkward focal length to be locked in to. In-doors you will be running out of room behind you to get enough of 2 people in the frame, but then it isn't telephoto enough to zoom in there when you are sitting on the front row of a performance, the 85mm is much better for that.

When I go to shoot low light performances, i always start with my 85/1.8, then after I've gotten enough pictures to be happy even if they threw me out, I switch to my 80-200/2.8 and immediately get only half of the pictures in focus because I'll be shooting at 1/80th second which is right on the border for success with that zoom. But even so, it can give some nice isolation shots which everyone likes. Next, I will go to my 35-70 to get more atmosphere shots while being ready to zoom to 70mm "closeups" if the need suddenly arises. But actually once this lens comes on, it's the most useful for framing shots. It allows me to freely make shots that go from portrait orientation single musician shots to landscape orientation of several musicans together to keep the photo in context.

Once I've played around with that lens for all of the possible combinations, I then switch to my 18-55DX kit lens to get a wide whole stage shot or two. You really don't need too many of those so 1/15th sec at f3.5 zoomed to18mm is enough. Just take 10 and choose the one's with least motion blur of the subjects.

After I've taken all of those shots, I FINALLY put my 50mm on the camera to see if I can get some better ISO shots, but before long, I've taken it off and switched to the 85mm to get more "in their face". Then I continue the rotation of lenses using more and more daring settings
The 50mm gets the least amount of time on the camera.

I like the lens because it is the one that gave me immediately what I couldn't do on my old panasonic FZ20. I could suddenly (and cheaply) get low light jazz club pictures where I only got 1 or 2 out of ten non blurry shots with the FZ20.

I bought my 50mm used for about 50 US dollars. I got my 85mm used for 270 dollars and I had to wait a while before I even saw one for sale. (I used my 50mm in the mean time). I then got the 80-200 for 450 dollars (slightly damaged filter ring) I eventually read a lot of good stuff about the 35-70 and my friend who replaced his stolen 17-55 with a used 35-70 showed me what I was missing.

The 35-70 doesn't hit you over the head because it's not f1.8 nor is it a very long zoom to jump into the scene. It has a subtle special value that comes from being both sharp and has pleasant bokeh while being a useful focal range for photographing people.

I've heard some say that you should point the expensive 85/1.4 at people to see what it can do and to see it's magic. I would almost say the same thing about the 35-70, too, especially the ability to go from head shots at 70mm to full length portraits at 35mm. The 85mm (both f1.8 and f1.4) will only let you get a headshot unless you are in a very large room.

To summarize I think that while it's definitely worth having the 50mm, you shouldn't invest too much money into it (even the f1.4) since it eventually could wind up being one of your least used lenses. Heck I'm sure you can find a family member or friend that isn't using their old film Nikon camera so you could even borrow one indefinitely- they probably use their point and shoot instead- so call around.

Hope I didn't bore you too much with my long-windedness.

Guy Moscoso

thanks for taking the time to respond (again) to my inquiry. Don't worry, I wasn't bored ... not longwinded at all. Thanks for the honest feedback. The more I hear about the 35-70 lens, the more I'm inclined to put it at the top of my list. I've seen some amazing photos taken with this lens, in particluar from Lionel (qcpro) and it has captured my interest. The 50 1.8 is selling for $160-180 here in Canada, but one place has it for $150. Keh has one for considerably less, even with the exchange rate. The 85 1.8 would make more sense for my hockey & volleyball stuff, and again, I've seen some beautiful pictures from this lens - some of Edward Neale's shots in particular come to mind. But, I'm thinking it'll be too long for candids of my kids as they do crafts etc. If I go with the 50 1.8 (even though I'm kind of thinking the 30 1.4 or 35 f2 would be better for indoor shooting, but both are more expensive), the 35-70 will cover most of my regular needs, plus it has the constant 2.8 ... and if I need more reach, I'll have the Sigma 70-200 or Nikon 80-200.

Whew, that was quite the ordeal ... my head is still spinning. Plus, I'm going to check out the Tamron lens.

Again, thanks for your insight & your time - much appreciated.

Take care,
Brent

thanks for your suggestion. I'll look into the Tamron lens. I saw your hockey pictures a while back - nice shots. I noticed that your first pic was at 70mm. This has provided me with a good reference of the focal length I'll be starting with when I shoot from the corner/face off circle. As for the 30 1.4, I'm very interested in the lens, but I don't think I can afford it at this point given that I'm hoping to drop a good chunk of change on the body & two lenses.

Thanks for sharing your photos & for your input.

Take care,
Brent

thanks for adding your thoughts. It seems as though the 35-70 & the 50 1.8 are the most popular with everyone ... works for me. The AF speed you referred to on the 35-70, does it hunt/struggle in low light or does it seem a bit slower simply because it's not AFS technology? If I was to use it for sports, would I really be at a disadvantage in terms of focusing?

Thanks again

Take care,
Brent