Reading mode: Light Dark

Which lens should I go for?

Go to last post
T

therapist

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hey folks,

I might buy D300s by next week, or so. I've got a budget of $1200-1500 for the lens.
I've researched a lot, but couldn't quite come on a conclusion.

I'm looking for a VR, high aperture. I don't care for zooms, but I cannot compromise on image sharpness and quality. So, you can judge by the post that I'm just a rookie.
I like to shoot still life, portraits and random stuff alike.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you. :-)
 
Hi, I think it may help if you sort out some meanings.

Firstly there are zoom lens and prime lens. A zoom covers more than one focal length, a prime is just one focal length. So your comment about not prime is at odds with you not caring about zooms.

Lens are then split into wide, standard and telephoto lens depending on theri focal length. Wide on DX is upto about 24mm, standard is from 24mm to about 40mm, and then telephoto above that. On FX format cameras multiply each figure by 1.5. The lens don't change their focal length, its the camera that causes the difference.

Given you want a sharp, fast lens I would suggest that you go for the latest Sigma 24-70 which would fit into your price range.

Personally though if you are really a rookie then get a much cheaper lens as your first lens and see how you get on. The 16-85 is a good first lens, or even the 18-105 which is even less cash. As the other poster said if you alse get the 35mm f1.8 as well as the 16-85 you'll cover low light as well.
--
Bluenose
 
therapist said:
Hey folks,

I might buy D300s by next week, or so. I've got a budget of $1200-1500 for the lens.
I've researched a lot, but couldn't quite come on a conclusion.

I'm looking for a VR, high aperture. I don't care for zooms, but I cannot compromise on image sharpness and quality. So, you can judge by the post that I'm just a rookie.
I like to shoot still life, portraits and random stuff alike.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you. :-)
Click to expand...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well after reading all the post so far and your response you do sound like a rookie .
You don't want a zoom or a prime , that doesn't leave much
You say you " cannot compromise on image sharpness and quality."
you are going to have to compromise somewhere else

Do yourself a favour and just get a zoom and learn to use the D300s so you get the best out of it.
It will be a great camera but it comes down to the operator
 
Wide, standard, VR, high aperture...not really many choices - the Tamron 17-50 and I think Sigma has a few image stabilized starting at 24.

Other than that, the new 16-35, although not fast.

Honestly, I think thats about it. Alot of choices if you take the Vr out, ...but not for the money your willing to spend.

It sucks, I know.

If you want the best, and sometimes some of the cheaper and smaller lenses, than the primes (you said no primes in a reply) - 50 1.4, 35 1.8 - about $650.00 there, leaves you with ~$800.00 on the high end. You could wait and go from there. See what your really missing after those two, or just pick up the 35, as someone else mentioned - $200.00 - at that price, one of the best price to IQ ratio lenses out there today. See what your really missing after using it and than make a more educated decision.
therapist said:
Hey folks,

I might buy D300s by next week, or so. I've got a budget of $1200-1500 for the lens.
I've researched a lot, but couldn't quite come on a conclusion.

I'm looking for a VR, high aperture. I don't care for zooms, but I cannot compromise on image sharpness and quality. So, you can judge by the post that I'm just a rookie.
I like to shoot still life, portraits and random stuff alike.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you. :-)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye
 
raymondox said:
On FX format cameras multiply each figure by 1.5. The lens don't change their focal length, its the camera that causes the difference.
Click to expand...
I don't think you said that right. On FX (full-frame) the focal length of the lens as "seen" thru the camera is the same; i.e. 24mm = 24mm on FX. On DX (crop-frame) the focal lenght of the lens as "seen" thru the camera is multiplied by 1.5; i.e. 24mm = 36mm on DX.
 
Hey,

16-85 looks a good bet. I was also considering MF 35mm f/1.4. Since it is an FX lens, I was wondering if I would loose something on the quality and cropping factor, as I would be mounting an FX lens on a DX format camera.

Thank you.
raymondox said:
Hi, I think it may help if you sort out some meanings.

Firstly there are zoom lens and prime lens. A zoom covers more than one focal length, a prime is just one focal length. So your comment about not prime is at odds with you not caring about zooms.

Lens are then split into wide, standard and telephoto lens depending on theri focal length. Wide on DX is upto about 24mm, standard is from 24mm to about 40mm, and then telephoto above that. On FX format cameras multiply each figure by 1.5. The lens don't change their focal length, its the camera that causes the difference.

Given you want a sharp, fast lens I would suggest that you go for the latest Sigma 24-70 which would fit into your price range.

Personally though if you are really a rookie then get a much cheaper lens as your first lens and see how you get on. The 16-85 is a good first lens, or even the 18-105 which is even less cash. As the other poster said if you alse get the 35mm f1.8 as well as the 16-85 you'll cover low light as well.
--
Bluenose
Click to expand...
 
Does mounting an FX lens on a DX camera compromise on the sharpness and cropping element.

Thank you.
msu79gt82 said:
I don't think you said that right. On FX (full-frame) the focal length of the lens as "seen" thru the camera is the same; i.e. 24mm = 24mm on FX. On DX (crop-frame) the focal lenght of the lens as "seen" thru the camera is multiplied by 1.5; i.e. 24mm = 36mm on DX.
Click to expand...
 
How about MF 35mm f/1.4, a Non-VR?
happypoppeye said:
Wide, standard, VR, high aperture...not really many choices - the Tamron 17-50 and I think Sigma has a few image stabilized starting at 24.

Other than that, the new 16-35, although not fast.

Honestly, I think thats about it. Alot of choices if you take the Vr out, ...but not for the money your willing to spend.

It sucks, I know.

If you want the best, and sometimes some of the cheaper and smaller lenses, than the primes (you said no primes in a reply) - 50 1.4, 35 1.8 - about $650.00 there, leaves you with ~$800.00 on the high end. You could wait and go from there. See what your really missing after those two, or just pick up the 35, as someone else mentioned - $200.00 - at that price, one of the best price to IQ ratio lenses out there today. See what your really missing after using it and than make a more educated decision.
therapist said:
Hey folks,

I might buy D300s by next week, or so. I've got a budget of $1200-1500 for the lens.
I've researched a lot, but couldn't quite come on a conclusion.

I'm looking for a VR, high aperture. I don't care for zooms, but I cannot compromise on image sharpness and quality. So, you can judge by the post that I'm just a rookie.
I like to shoot still life, portraits and random stuff alike.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you. :-)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye
Click to expand...
 
Get two lenses:

Nikon 105VR 2.8G micro / used as portrait, macro and medium tele - VERY versatile and sharp.

Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM / portraits, general use

or

Nikon 35mm 1.8 / for normal lens, group shots, walkaround.

All these are high IQ and FX, except 35mm.

Both Nikons should be within your budget.

Happy hunting. :)

Jar1San
 
therapist said:
Does mounting an FX lens on a DX camera compromise on the sharpness and cropping element.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. You don't have to worry about corner sharpness, but then if you're comparing 12MP FX to 12MP DX, the DX sensor is able to resolve higher resolution, so if a lens is weak in the center, the higher density sensor (in this case, DX) will shows it.

In the case of the 35mm f/1.4, the corners are weak on FX, but it might shine in DX since it's very sharp in the center (stopped down of course).
 
Hmm rookie who wants the best for not a lot of money.

Go with primes: 35 1.4G, 50 1.4G and 85 1.4

What you'll find is some inflexibility at the expense of having the best IQ, BTW few primes have VR beyond the micro nikkors

Seriously if you got a D300s you should consider as your first lense the 16-85 and maybe a couple primes to add.

IMHO the zooms are pretty good!

Unless peeping and measurabating are your fancy the consumer lenses stopped down are pretty damm good.
therapist said:
Hey folks,

I might buy D300s by next week, or so. I've got a budget of $1200-1500 for the lens.
I've researched a lot, but couldn't quite come on a conclusion.

I'm looking for a VR, high aperture. I don't care for zooms, but I cannot compromise on image sharpness and quality. So, you can judge by the post that I'm just a rookie.
I like to shoot still life, portraits and random stuff alike.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you. :-)
Click to expand...
 
No compromise, the DX just captures the a smaller image circle than the larger FX sensor. In general you got higher pixel density then FX and thus the inferor high ISO performance. If anything a DX pushes lenses less hard since they don't capture the harder to keep sharp edges.
therapist said:
Does mounting an FX lens on a DX camera compromise on the sharpness and cropping element.

Thank you.
msu79gt82 said:
I don't think you said that right. On FX (full-frame) the focal length of the lens as "seen" thru the camera is the same; i.e. 24mm = 24mm on FX. On DX (crop-frame) the focal lenght of the lens as "seen" thru the camera is multiplied by 1.5; i.e. 24mm = 36mm on DX.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
A really good lens whether for DX or FX makes good images on DX even when wide open. Most lenses and especially the mediocre ones will get better when you close them down by a couple of stops. f8 is a pretty good equalizer and only a really dreadful lens won't do well at that setting. But if you want great images when wide open there are three things you must do:

1. Read the reviews.
2. Understand the reviews.
3. Open your wallet and don't look back. It will only hurt once.

If you must keep a tight rein on the wallet then you'll often be stopping the lens down when the image must look great.

photozone.de has done a lot of testing of FX lenses on DX bodies.

However, not every nice FX lens will fill your needs on a DX body. If small distant subjects are what you want to shoot then you're in great luck. Narrow field of view lenses on FX bodies are even narrower on DX. If you like to take pictures of small birds then DX is perfect. You can invest your lens budget on a superb Nikon 300mm f/4, then add a 1.4 converter sometime later.

But there are few FX lenses that give a really wide angle of view on DX. Here your best chocies will probably be the wide DX zooms. Single-focal length length lenses that are super-wide or ultra-wide on DX are basically absent from Nikon's present offerings; check to see what the third-party manufacturers offer instead.
 
Definitely an option, especially if you don't mind manual focus. I've seen some absolutely spectacular shots from this one (I've never used it).

On that note - I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon comes out with an updated 35 1.4 in the near to not so near but not distant future (in other words, I don't know, but just ...hoping).

On another note - if I was in the market for a new camera body and system, and was looking at 35 primes ...Canon's 35 1.4 is one the best primes for sale today (again, in my opinion). Put it this way - if you had one of those stupid can only buy one lens to use for the rest of your life, the Canon 35 would be it.

John
therapist said:
happypoppeye said:
Wide, standard, VR, high aperture...not really many choices - the Tamron 17-50 and I think Sigma has a few image stabilized starting at 24.

Other than that, the new 16-35, although not fast.

Honestly, I think thats about it. Alot of choices if you take the Vr out, ...but not for the money your willing to spend.

It sucks, I know.

If you want the best, and sometimes some of the cheaper and smaller lenses, than the primes (you said no primes in a reply) - 50 1.4, 35 1.8 - about $650.00 there, leaves you with ~$800.00 on the high end. You could wait and go from there. See what your really missing after those two, or just pick up the 35, as someone else mentioned - $200.00 - at that price, one of the best price to IQ ratio lenses out there today. See what your really missing after using it and than make a more educated decision.
therapist said:
Hey folks,

I might buy D300s by next week, or so. I've got a budget of $1200-1500 for the lens.
I've researched a lot, but couldn't quite come on a conclusion.

I'm looking for a VR, high aperture. I don't care for zooms, but I cannot compromise on image sharpness and quality. So, you can judge by the post that I'm just a rookie.
I like to shoot still life, portraits and random stuff alike.

Any input would be appreciated.

Thank you. :-)
Click to expand...
--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye
 
The first lens should be a midrange zoom. Even a kit lens is fine. That will help you figure out what range to focus on for buying an expensive lens. Otherwise, you'll end up with lenses that just sit in your bag.

Get the Tamron 17-50 to start. Add the 35 1.8 prime, or if you want to spend a little more, the Sigma 30 1.4. Manual focus on DX is not fun, particularly with a wide aperture.

Think stuff out logically. Don't go with gut feelings about theoretical "quality". You'll waste a lot of time and money that way.
 
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