D50 newbie needs a walkabout lens

[Bootz]

As I understand it, here are my basic choices:

• Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ED-IF ($1,199, 754g, 25.5-82.5mm)
• Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF ($399, 385g, 27-202.5mm)
• Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 ED-IF ($260, 390g, 27-105mm)
• Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX ($409, 445g, 27-75mm)
• Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 ($389, 455g, 25.5-105mm)
• Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ($449, 430g, 25.5-75mm)

I want to replace my kit 18-55 and I'm leaning toward the new Sigma 18-50. Kit lens shot below. Will the Sigma be obviously sharper? Better close ups than the kit, no?

 

[edwardneal]

It is clear that for whatever reason you think you have to have a zoom. I would like to suggest a prime. Get the Nikon 35mm f/2. In my opinion it will produce much better results than every zoom on your list. I tried zooms when I first got my D70. click on my name at the top of this post and look at my profile. You will see all of the zooms I have bought and sold. These days I only use primes. They are smaller, 99% of the time they are better, and compared to the f/2.8 Nikon zooms they are almost always cheaper. here are some vacation shots with the 35 f/2 just to show how well it can work as a "walk around" lens









zooms may give you flexibility, but if you shoot in low light f/2.8 is not all that fast

Just A Thought

As I understand it, here are my basic choices:

• Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ED-IF ($1,199, 754g, 25.5-82.5mm)
• Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF ($399, 385g, 27-202.5mm)
• Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 ED-IF ($260, 390g, 27-105mm)
• Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX ($409, 445g, 27-75mm)
• Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 ($389, 455g, 25.5-105mm)
• Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ($449, 430g, 25.5-75mm)

I want to replace my kit 18-55 and I'm leaning toward the new Sigma
18-50. Kit lens shot below. Will the Sigma be obviously sharper?
Better close ups than the kit, no?

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

 

[Digiprint]

Why don't you consider Nikon 18-200 VR on your list, the lens really work for me when I got to light traveling, it stucked with the body 90% of the times, if you want prime lens maybe Sigma 30mm f/1.4 would be good choise for low light shoot

 

[ElijahDesign]

I just upgraded my 18-55mm kit lens to the 18-70mm. I considered those other lenses as well but when it came down to it IMO $200 used for the 18-70 is an awesome value compared to the rest (AF-S, build quality, etc.). So many new owners of the 18-200mm VR lens are selling their kit 18-70 making it very affordable!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/elijahdesign/
http://www.elijahbrandon.blogspot.com

 

[climbingstevie]

I would like to second the prime advice. You have a pretty decent consumer zoom with your 18-55. No need to get the same kind of thing. Keep your current lens and add something really different, like a prime.

Your choice then would be the 20 2.8, 24 2.8, 28 2.8 and 35 2 from Nikon or the 30 1.4 from sigma. Depending on what kind of focal lenght you like you can make your choice, they are all fine lenses. Apart from the sigma, all of these are readily available used, so with your spare change you can add a 50 1.4/1.8 and your all set!

Stevie

 

[DJ Dunzie]

Yeah, you know, it's never easy spending someone else's money (ok, it's super easy), but I don't see that re-investing in another general purpose lens is going to be any significant upgrade on your current one. For me, anyway, I'd rather upgrade to something new and different that allows me to add a different kind of photographic experience to my kit.

Maybe an ultra-wide? Maybe a faster lens, possibly a longer one too for sports or action? How about a prime lens that will literally shock you with image quality?

The 18-55 is a pretty good kit lens. The 18-70 is a good kit lens. But I don't see how that upgrade will give you any significant, immediately noticeable boost to your photos. A 50mm f1.8, on the other hand, for a tick over $100 US, definitely will. Or how about a good used 80-200 f2.8? Or a 10-20mm Sigma? Or another quality Nikkor prime (24mm, 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm?)

I'd say have a look at the typical photos you take and find a lens that matches best that type of shooting that can honestly make a dramatic improvement. Or give you a new option altogether that you never had until now.

Good luck!

 

[jfk]

I have the Nikon 17-55 2.8, and also bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8. The Tamron is an excellant buy...very sharp with build quality better than 18-70. It is now my walk around lens because of it's nice size compared to the Nikon counterpart. You won't be disappointed with it.
jk

 

[ecxs]

I have the Sigma 17-70mm f2.8
(aside from Nikkor 50 1.4 / 105mm F2 / 70-200mm 2.8 vr)

Nothing compared to Nikon primes but it's worth the price you pay.









--
http://www.ecuaso.com
http://www.pbase.com/ecuaso

 

[Fins]

I have a D50 and went for the 18-70 as well. I wanted to get the 18-200 vR but it was too expensive. I could get the 18-70, another lens and a flash for that price.

 

[riversideray]

Here some shots done with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8:

 

[Stephen Best]

I want to replace my kit 18-55 and I'm leaning toward the new Sigma
18-50. Kit lens shot below. Will the Sigma be obviously sharper?
Better close ups than the kit, no?

Check out this site:

http://www.headphoneland.com/

Mostly taken with a D50 and Nikkor 18-70, some of the early shots with an 18-55. Don't let gear get in the way of taking great photographs.

 

[sox OZ]

For me, anyway, I'd rather upgrade to something new
and different that allows me to add a different kind of
photographic experience to my kit.
Maybe an ultra-wide? Maybe a faster lens, possibly a longer one
too for sports or action? How about a prime lens that will
literally shock you with image quality?
The 18-55 is a pretty good kit lens. The 18-70 is a good kit lens.
But I don't see how that upgrade will give you any significant,
immediately noticeable boost to your photos. A 50mm f1.8, on the
other hand, for a tick over $100 US, definitely will. Or how about
a good used 80-200 f2.8? Or a 10-20mm Sigma? Or another quality
Nikkor prime (24mm, 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm?)
I'd say have a look at the typical photos you take and find a lens
that matches best that type of shooting that can honestly make a
dramatic improvement. Or give you a new option altogether that you
never had until now.

Hi DJ…

I fully agree with you, why replace a lens with a similar lens, especially when you haven’t experienced different focal lengths. Try a different focal range, and after using a few lenses, you will then get a feel what focal length you tend to use the most.

Some have suggested the 18-200VR which is a good lens, but it is usually hard to get and also it normally sells for well over its retail price. I would suggest getting a Nikon 28-200G as this will give you great IQ even used wide open. This lens is also sharper than the 18-200VR towards the long end. After using it for a while, you will get a feeling what focal range you tend to use then make your decision on either a zoom or get a few primes in that focal range. For the price I would just go out and get a Nikon 50 f/1.8, as they are a very versatile little prime, best value for the money Nikon offer.

The 18-55 is a very sharp lens, and is as good as any Nikon in the 18-35 range (f/5.6-8), and some do start to get soft towards 55mm. I posted a few sample photos from the Nikon 18-55 (you don’t need to replace this lens at the moment), Nikon 28-200 and the Nikon 50 f/1.8.

Nikon D50 Nikon 18-55 @18mm – 1/125sec – f/5.6 – ISO200



Nikon D50, Nikon 28-200 f/3.5-5.6G - 200mm @ 1/500sec, f/5.6 ISO500



Nikon D50 Nikon 50mm @ 1/60sec f/4 ISO400



--

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
C.Ya.....
Wally..........
Adelaide,AUSTRALIA



-=camera gear in profile

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

[DeDe15]

Can some of you please give lessons?!! Shots are just beautiful, and now I want to learn, learn, learn!!

Nice thread, as I was on the phone today with a camera store over just this topic. Thanks for sharing!

 

[PaulS2]

In my opinion, the best choice is a second lens. The money you'll get for your current zoom is a pittance. The primary benefit of an SLR is the abiliity to pick from a stable of lenses for specific challenges.

Ansel Adams would do well with a single prime lens. For newbies, I suggest a reticence to dump any lenses you already have.

A great 2nd lens? Here are some choice cuts:

• 50/f1.8 - fast, sharp, light, small, dirt cheap ($100)
• 50/f1.4 - REALLY fast, light, small, sharp ($300) (existing light photos)
• 35/f2 - "normal" focal length, sharp, small light ($300)
• 12-24 Tokina - ultrawide ($500)
• 180/f2.8 - fast, superb quality, long range, small ($400 used)
• "old" zoonm (dirt cheap because they're yesterday's news): 70-210/f4-5.6 ($200)
• 85/f1.8 - killer portrait lens for the price. small, light ($300)

--
Paul