Reading mode: Light Dark

Finding the right lens - why so difficult???

Go to last post
every one has there own needs/style so different mm work better for some than others.

that said people just want to find stuff wrong with there equipment so they can go buy new stuff. (or something like that) every time something new comes out you will hear nothing but i love it look how nice the IQ is.. then 1-4 years later. well I cant use it for my most important stuff.

that being said. I would say get 2 good off brand used lens.

I would say if you have the $ get the 12-24 tokina and 50-134 from keh. cost about 900 and with the pair of lens you can do just about everything with good IQ.

other wise get what ever you want and be happy with it (16-85 my pick on your lens, but i always buy used lens. best IQ for the price.), and stop reading too much on dpreview...
--
http://www.LightPaintPhotography.com
LightPaint.Carbonmade.com
 
I have 18-105vr and I never regretted this decision. Stop down a little and there will be no zoom lens that is noticeably sharper at same aperture on DX.

You will need flash for wedding pictures indoors. Invest the money saved on skipping 16-85vr into SB600 flash. Learn how to bounce it indoors. Only alternative is fast prime lens but that lacks convenience of zoom (just when the situation is ideal for capture, you have wrong focal length). Fast prime lens is also useful for blurring background that distracts. But the flash will work with many lenses you will buy over years. Ideally get both flash and fast prime lens.

For wide angle, 16mm is not really wide on DX and 16-85 has quite a big distortion at 16mm, you will need wide angle zoom like Sigma 10-20, Nikon or Tamron 10-24.
 
A. A lens with insufficient image quality will haunt you on every single exposure you make. It's low purchase cost will have no consolation value.

B. The price of an excellent but expensive lens hurts when you buy it, but never again.

Somewhere along that axis from A to B will be the point where you have found the one that's good enough.

Other factors are potential deal breakers but you have to decide if handling convenience is more important than final results. In my case I place thatat a close second, but second nonetheless, to image quality.

An observation for whatever it may be worth: the 16-85 and the 70-300 make for a natural combination if the overlap point falls at a good place for you. Both are AF-S and VR, use the same filter size, and are similarly well regarded.
 
Stoker98 said:
There are also some disadvantages: ... with the 16-85mm its price and the loss of wider apertures,
Click to expand...
The 18-55, the 18-105, and the 18-200 all have variable apertures that go from 3.5 to 5.6. The 18-70 is the exception at 3.5 to 4.5 (2/3 of a stop better).

The 16-85 falls right into the pack with a 3.5 to 5.6 aperture. This "loss of wider apertures" issue you refer to doesn't seem to be completely unique to that lens.
 
the "right" lens that you need/want/use depends on what the subject matter you're shooting at that moment, and of course can very well change with the very next shot.

no one lens is perfect. given variation in quality control even the most expensive "Pro" glass can have "bad" copies. but on average you get what you pay for.

and while getting opinions/feedback from members of this or any other forum can give you valuable insite, keep in mind that often the opinions are just that, "personal opinions" and what one person wants from their lens may not be what you need/want.

read/listen to the advise/opinions offered, but in the end make your decisions based on what you need/want and which len(s) you feel will meet those needs.

good luck with your decisions and enjoy your photography
 
I would take the Sigma 30/1.4 and if that is not an option, then the Nikkor 35/1.8 to go with D90. Having control over Depth Of Field is just so important that I really recommend a fast prime. Zoom lenses often make people lazy. And I find that most of my best photos have very shallow DOF. For landscape and travel shots you don't need that kind of control over DOF though.
--
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.
 
tarnish said:
The 16-85 falls right into the pack with a 3.5 to 5.6 aperture. This "loss of wider apertures" issue you refer to doesn't seem to be completely unique to that lens.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course you are correct. Though again, to compare these lenses properly, you would need to establish the widest aperture for each and every focal length. A lens that goes to f5.6 at 200mm might be considered more desirable than one that hits f5.6 at 85mm.

I moved to the 16-85mm from the 18-70mm lens, so immediately missed the wider apertures. In fact, I now hardly ever use my 16-85mm lens, as I like to shoot at wider apertures for control over DOF. My preferred travel lens is now the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC macro in combination with the Sigma 50-150mm.

S.
--
Wait, watch, listen, then pounce !
 
Because you dont know your needs, that makes it difficult.

You say that you couldn't buy those 1000 dollar zooms, but do you really need them? Do you need robust build, fast aperture, fast focusing and such? Determine what you need first.

Honestly, for someone who just entered the dslr world, any of the lenses you mention would do just fine, all have trade off in their own way. The limiting factor will be your technique (for sharpness) and imagination.

If it were me, I chose the 16-85 VR as general purpose, or 18-105 VR if you want to save some cash. The difference between these lenses and pro zoom at f/4 and beyond will be very minimal. Couple that with a 35 1.8 / 50 1.4 for low light & in occasions where you need subject isolation.

--
Cheers, Reza
 
How do you rate the 18-135 against the 18-105?
ozarktroutfisher said:
Every, yes every, lens has "negatives". You have to be careful reading input > Having said that........I'd buy the 18-105mm in a heartbeat in your position. It's a really good (not great) lens and I seriously doubt that 90 percent of dSLR owners could tell the difference between it and the pro stuff for "normal" use. Of course you'll not find a pro 18-105 lens because there are too many tradeoffs in the design, whether it be issues with IQ or simply that no one could afford it.
Keith
Click to expand...
 
Speedracer, I just looked at your posting history. You have been vacillating over camera and lens choices since July.

You will always get differing opinions on an internet forum. And just because opinions differ does not mean that any one opinion is necessarily wrong. The broad consensus among the early posters (before the thread started to drift off topic) was that the 18-105 is well regarded for its price and suitable for your indicated needs. You stated that price is an issue, so there you are.

Surely now you have enough opinions to make a choice if you are ever going to. Put another way, it's time to cr@p or get off the pot.
--
Ken AD
 
OK you are waffling on which lens, tells me you have a lot to learn about photography, former photo teacher here.

I think you should buy 2 lenses, a normal/wide and a small telephoto maybe macro. So your choices, assuming autofocus:

24mm f2.8
35mm f1.8
35mm f2
85mm f 1.8
105 micro AFD (go with the latest VR model if you want to spend the $)
150mm Sigma f2.8

All of these are very good to excellent lenses, probably better than any of the zooms you are looking at. Learn to frame with a single focal length, the light weight is nice too. Spend a year with these and at the end you will either like them or want a zoom so bad you could cry.

Tom
 
RBFresno said:
RBFresno said:
I am looking for the 'right' lens to start out with on a D90. I posted some time back and received many comments and still read this forum everyday. Unfortunately, I still have NOT figured out which lens to buy. To recap I am looking for my first lens to do family/reunion pictures, wedding pictures as well as a walk around for when/if I ever go on vacation. I can't afford all those nice thousand dollar + lenses which helps to limit my choices. I realize wide angle and prime lenses will come in time. My dilemma is the extremes and apparent contradictions provided by fellow posters. For example:
Click to expand...
RBFresno said:
18~200 = great lens use it as my primary walk around - only one I use
this lens has pincushion, barrel distortion and is soft everywhere but in
the middle - o.k. but if you want better quality pics go elsewhere..
Click to expand...
RBFresno said:
18~105 = great kit lens. sharp focuses quickly really good
cheaply built, not all that fast, not bad but others much, much better
Click to expand...
RBFresno said:
16~85 = great lens, quality built, fast, sharp really nice oughta have
overpriced for what you think you are getting - performance better
than kit but that's about all - better off with other choices for far
less cost.
Click to expand...
RBFresno said:
18~280 = talk about a great walk around - picks up everything I need, nice
focus, sharp.
good as long as you're in the daylight or have plenty of light cause
once you lose it the focus takes f o r e v e r. turned mine back in.
Click to expand...
RBFresno said:
As you see, no matter what I would choose there appears to be something "wrong" with it. It's enough to make you just say "to hell with it." How nice it would be if there was some consensus on lenses in each 'category' that we could look at as 'safe bet', 'worth every penny', 'you won't be let down' - lenses. Don't get me wrong I value everyone's opinion as you all are far more knowledgeable than I and they are based on your actual experiences and that is what makes it very, very difficult to purchase that first lens. It wouldn't be so bad if lenses weren't so expensive however, given the cost and all the other expenses in our lives one hopes to make the first choice the right choice. Thanks for the read and I still could use some input as to which lens(s) or combination I should get. Thanks again....
Click to expand...
Hi!

Well, there's also something "wrong" with all my lenses. To name a few:

200VR- Doesn't focus close enough
200-400VR- Not as sharp at distance @f/4 as I'd like
Zeiss 100/2 no Vr. No auto focus. Doesn't go to 1:2
28 1.4 Vignettes some at f/1.4
85 1.4 green and purple fringing in OOF, high contrast areas
14-24 doesn't take filters and can exhibit flare.

Seriously, a few points:

-There are plenty of great pictures that have been taken with all of the lenses you've mentioned.

-All lenses have relative weaknesses. You'll find some people complaining about just about every lens

-Hard to buy lobster at hamburger prices.

If you are a nut about IQ, but on a limited budget, in general, stick with primes.
180 f/2.8
85 1.8
50 1.8
35 1.8

If you want great zooms, in general, be prepared to spend a lot more money.

Start shooting with whatever.

Chances are, that for any relatively new photographer, the lens will not be the limiting factor for the quality of work produced.

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
Click to expand...
.

Excellent post.

.
 
fbx said:
ozarktroutfisher said:
Every, yes every, lens has "negatives". You have to be careful reading input > Having said that........I'd buy the 18-105mm in a heartbeat in your position. It's a really good (not great) lens and I seriously doubt that 90 percent of dSLR owners could tell the difference between it and the pro stuff for "normal" use. Of course you'll not find a pro 18-105 lens because there are too many tradeoffs in the design, whether it be issues with IQ or simply that no one could afford it.
Keith
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sorry but I have no direct experience with it. Seems like most feel that the 18-105 is a little better lens but maybe someone with experience with both can give a better answer. As many have said though, don't get caught up too much in which is "better". Do a reasonable amount of research, buy one, and enjoy it.

I typically read everything that I can find for all products that I buy. I throw out the extreme highs and lows and pay attention to the middle. There are always those that own a product who act as if it's the best ever made, no matter what. You'll also get the guys who nit pick everything to death and are never happy with anything. Try to filter all that stuff out. Read enough and a pattern will develop.

Keith
 
Thanks, Keith. Believe it or not, I tempered my answer. I was going to be MORE direct, but having taken a year to buy my first digital camera, I could relate to the OPs analysis paralysis.

Alan
--
http://arclark.smugmug.com/
 
Get the 18-105 or 18-55/55-200 combo. Take plenty of photos and then analyze the photos to see what your next step should be.

With the D60 and the two kit lenses, I took most of my shot with the 18-55 at 25-40 and most shots with the 55-200 right around 100-150. I also found myself wanting shallow DOF and the ability to pull off shots with out a flash. I bought the D90 with a far better understanding of the exposure triangle than any book will teach you because of the simplified operation of the D60 and I started looking at lenses that fit my stylistic needs. I found a clean used copy of the Sigma 30 1.4 and then bought a new 105VR, though the local shop price matched an online store.

You'll be hanging on to the first lens. Always nice to have a zoom in the bag when not walking out the door with out having a destination in mind or not knowing the conditions you'll be shooting in...

Say you get the 18-105 and you find you need the body flash to try and get the shots you want, buy an SB600 next. Your always hitting the 105 limit, get a 55-200 or 70-300. Want faster glass, love the effect of DOF, get a 35 1.8 or 85 1.8.

There is no perfect lens, just like there is no perfect wrench. The more tools in your toolbag, the better prepared you'll be, but unless you know what it is you want, you may not get the most from the tool.
--
D90, D60
Nikon 18-55, 55-200, SB-600, 10.5/2.8 Fish, 105/2.8VR; Sigma 30/1.4
 
Having owned all three Nikons mentioned I feel I can contribute - the fourth I have no experience with so I'll leave that out.

18~200 = Flexible with it's long reach, but marred by distortion (fixable in PP) and soft spots. I've got lot's of great pictures with this when I used it with my D300, the perfect "travel lens" if you can stomach the price.

18~105 = Also a brilliant all round lens, and it too is marred by serious distortion. Though it this case it's not so easy to fix in PP. You might not care. For what it costs it's worth every penny, being sharp, and reasonably contrasty. By far the best price/performance ratio of these three. May not be long enough for your needs/taste, but I found it very suitable for travel and all round use.

16~85 = Very sharp, at least at the wider end, where it's also has a noticeably wider field of view than the other two. By far the easiest distortion to fix - in most cases the in-board distortion control in the D5000 cured it sufficiently. I felt that it didn't quite owned up to it's price with regards to color and contrast - but to be fair, neither of theses three do when compared to pro lenses. If I could sum this lens up, it would be "sharp but cold".

In the end, the 16-85mm and 18-200mm - if you plan on using either of them as your primary lens, are too close in price to a lightly used 17-55mm f/2.8- which is all together something else.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emmkayfive/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top