Low light- general purpose lens for D90

I just bought a D90 and wish to purchase a low light, general purpose lens. From what I can see available the choice seems to be between the Nikon 35mm f2 and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. The standard Nikon 50mm is too long for me for indoor work.

I would be gratefull for any advice or opinions from users of these lenses. Or indeed any alternatives I might have missed.

Willim

Those are the two best known and the Sigma seems to be the one most mentioned here on the forum, why I'm not sure. But Tokina makes a 35mm f/2.8 although it is rather pricey at around $460, http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx-m35prodx-a.html
--
Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

The Sigma is mentioned a lot for a number of reasons:

1. At 30mm on a DX sensor it is approximately a "normal" lens. For some people there is just something magic about 50mm in 35mm terms. Don't know why--I always found it a pretty useless FL--too wide for portraits, to narrow for wide angle.

2. It is HSM and thus is one of the fastest primes around that will AF on the D40/D60 series. It is thus often mentioned as a pricier alternative to the 50 1.8 for the D40 user who doesn't want to wrestle with MF.
3. It is not cheap, but is cheaper than some of the Nikkor alternatives.

4. It seems a difficult lens to get used to, with many complaints of focus issues and copy variation. I have spent hours with focus charts trying to get replicable results, until I figured that viewfinder parallax (I wear glasses and am left eye dominant) and paper thin DoF had more to do with my focus problems than the lens itself! Many folks need to send theirs back to sigma for fine tuning, but thereafter are usually delighted.

I am pretty fond of mine, but due to the point number 1 I do a lot of cropping of the output, especially of people shots. Focus is bang on accurate, as it was with the D70. It was hit and miss with the D80.

Les

I would respectfully suggest that the excellent high ISO noise control of the D90 makes even any of the kit lenses good interim options for indoor work. The limiting factor here is the smaller aperture which may prove less useful--35mm on my 18-55 kit lens as F4.5 as its widest aperture. Some folks here have suggested using 18mm/F3.5 for indoor work and cropping later. This has the advantage of the widest possible aperture and the ability to use a slower shutterspeed with stationary subjects. It has the disadvantage of a somewhat distorted perspective that may not work for some subjects.

Apart from this alternative, you have already answered your own question if you have excluded the 50mm FL. The main options are the Nikkor 35mm F2 and the Sigma 30mm F1.4.

Les

Another possibility might be the Nikon 28mm f/2.8, not quite as fast as the Sigma but a whole lot cheaper ($440 vs $235).
--
Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

Hi,

Given the high ISO capabilities of the D90 mentioned by Les, if f/2 or larger aperture is not an absolute necessity then the Nikkor 35-70/2.8 might be considered as well -- it is a very fine but (now) very cheap zoom, that effectively replaces 35, 50 and 70 mm primes. The only minor drawbacks are: no AF-S, just screwdriver AF, front end rotates when focusing, push-pull design (well, this may even be a plus, according to personal tastes), and the need for a long hood.

The Sigma 30/1.4 is a matter of lottery luck, both as regards QC, and as regards focusing -- I do have it, but still haven't quite come to grips with its focusing whims. On the other hand, if and when it focuses correctly, it is a wonderful lens.

Of these two, I keep the 35-70 on my D70 as the default lens, using the Sigma 30 only for very low light scenes.

Cheers,
--
abuH
------------------------------->
http://web.t-online.hu/abuh/foto.html

For a prime, I definitely prefer my Sigma 30mm HSM 1.4 over the 50mm 1.4 or the 35mm 2.0 from nikon. The 35mm has better contrast and is sharper to me stopped down, but the 5mm is definitely longer than the Sigma, plus you give up 1 stop. The 50mm is just too long as a general purpose lens on a DX body

For zooms, the Nikon 17-55 2.8 has no equal on Nikon DX bodies. (IF you can afford it)

A good cheaper alternative is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which almost as sharp and contrasty as the nikon, BUT 17mm is pretty bad and the AF sucks.

I wasn't happy with a Sigma 18-50 2.8 as the yellow cast was bad and it's not as sharp as the Tamron.

Thank you Les and Brooks P for replies and the things to think about - the actual restrictions of a fixed lens etc. As much as I would like ro settle for the convience and framing potential of a short zoom I have found that photographing people in availale llight indors often requires at least f2 at 1600. I suppose it might be said that the D90 at 3200 with a 2.8 zoom might be equivilant quality but I have'nt enough experience of the camera as yet. I also don't know the pros and cons of the Sigma 1.4 vs the Nikon f2 which was one of the reasons I posted the question.

Again, many thanks for replies so far.

Willim

Thank you Magbarn, a very usefull and informative reply re the alternatives and yes the Nikon 17 55 2.8 is out of my price range.

Willim

1. I agree whole-heartedly, so called “normal” lenses never worked well for me, regardless of the shot I always wanted something either shorter or longer. The 28-35mm range doesn’t appeal to me for the same reason. Most of my shooting is done beyond 85mm, but when it isn’t it’s below 30mm, and sometimes I wish I could go wider than 18mm, although not often enough to spend any money at this time. In the future … who knows?

2. Well there is that, the D40/60 problem with non-AF-S lenses. To my way of thinking a $499 lens is hardly an alternative to a $110 lens. Even discounted the Sigma runs about $440; the same as the soon to be available Nikon f/1.4 AF-S.

3. Not for long. I suspect when the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S lens finally hits the store shelves the Sigma’s popularity will drop considerably. As you yourself mentioned, there not everyone has been real happy with there Sigma.

4. I suffer the same affliction, being legally blind in my right eye. The biggest negative with my D50 was the placement of the multi selector and the fact that it couldn’t be locked. With my left eye to the viewfinder, my nose continually sought out and found the multi sector, thereby changing the focus area. Concentrating on the subject it is entirely too easy not to notice that the focus point has changed. The locking multi selector on the D90 was a huge enticement.

I have Keratoconus in my right eye but this week my Eye Doctor fitted me with a new contact lens that is supposed to help. I’m still getting use to it and I don’t know yet if it will work to the extent that I can use the viewfinder with my right eye. I’m also told that it will take a couple of months to realize the full benefits from this new lens, something to do with reshaping the cornea. But my other hobby is shooting, and I checked and I CAN see the front sight on my rifles and shotgun, so maybe next year I can get some shooting in.

--
Brooks
http://bmiddleton.smugmug.com/

I have a nikon 28mm f2.8 and the sigma 30 f1.4. With my copies of these two, the Sigma is the best image producer of the two plus the added 1-2/3 stop. The dof at 1.4 is razor thin and I don't know what to make of the complaints some have concerning focus accuracy. When I first got my Sigma I was initially disappointed as focus was off more than on. But before I sent it back I decided to try different bodies. I had 4 nikon dslr bodies at the time and my brother in law had one. After experimentation, I found that the Sigma focused just fine on 4 of the 5 bodies and was really unreliable on the 5th. All other lenses in my possession are fine on all the bodies. I figured I would get into some kind of who's to blame thing if I tried to get either Nikon or Sigma to fix something so just decided I would not use the sigma on the one body that did not get along with it. It was a D40 and I have two, so no big deal. All that said, if I could have wider than 30mm I would be happier. Like others have mentioned, the 50mm is out for me on dx sensors. 50mm was too tight for me even on 35mm film.

RAL said:

I have a nikon 28mm f2.8 and the sigma 30 f1.4. With my copies of
these two, the Sigma is the best image producer of the two plus the
added 1-2/3 stop.

Click to expand...

That's 2 stops, no?

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

Hi RAL , good pf you to reply. Two questions - from your experience is the Sigma

a usefull lens for people in low light (it will be my first time using a prime but I anticipate cropping to get correct perspective rather than close-ups) and, if you know, does it work ok on the D90.

Willim

It seems to work well on my D90. But your mileage may vary as they say. And to the 2 stop comment I thought you would have to get to f1.2 for a full two stops from 2.8 - maybe I'm wrong.

RAL said:

And to the 2 stop comment I thought you would have to get to
f1.2 for a full two stops from 2.8 - maybe I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

I've had a camera for what seems like a hundred years, but I still refer to this
good chart on f/stops:
http://www.uscoles.com/thirdstops.pdf

And here is probably more than anyone wants to know about f/stops:
http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels

RAL said:

It seems to work well on my D90. But your mileage may vary as they
say. And to the 2 stop comment I thought you would have to get to
f1.2 for a full two stops from 2.8 - maybe I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are. Stops are:

f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32, f/45, f/64, f/90, f/128

The multiplicative factor between full stops when it comes to aperture is the square root of 2, which is rounded to about 1.4 for practical purposes.

F1.4 to F2 is one stop since 1.4*1.4 = 1.96 which rounds to 2
F2 to F2.8 is another stop, since 1.4*2 = 2.8
F2.8 to F4 is another stop since 1.4*2.8 = 3.92, which gets rounded to 4
F4 to F5.6 is another stop, since 4*1.4 = 5.6

etc.

If one is interested in the series of 1/3 of a stop starting from a particular point, the multiplicative factor is the cube root of the square root of 2, which is 1.12 approximately.

This means that F1.4 is 2/3EV faster than F1.8, since 1.4*1.12*1.12 = 1.75 approx, which gets rounded to F1.8.

There are of course many other examples.

If one decides to set the 1/2EV increment option on the camera (and I can't think of any good reason to do this, to be frank), the multiplicative factor between command dial clicks is the square root of the square root of 2, or approximately 1.19. For example, half a stop smaller from F4 is F4.8, since 4*1.19=approx 4.8.

I think someone referred to a table of these increments, but this is where the values come form.

Les

Along this theme I am fairly fond of my cheap but good Sigma 24-60 2.8 DG EX.

This was not terribly sharp wide open on the D80 (did much better at F5.6 and F7.1), but for some reason the D90 really seems to help it to better results. Common wisdom is that higher resolution CMOS sensors are more inclined to reveal the weaknesses of cheaper lenses, but I am finding that my budget lenses, including this one, actually seem to do better. If this Sigma looks so good to me, I bet the 35-70 Nikkor looks great. I should look into it.

Les

It's probably from the CA correction that's built-in the D90. The D90/D300/D700 bodies that I have make all my lenses better than when they were on other bodies.

But I shoot RAW and don't use NX2, so I shouldn't be seeing that correction in my images.

I am guess the higher sensor resolution, at least in part.

Les