Please help me choose a walkaround lens.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/28/2005 09:14:33 PM · #1

I'm about to order my first dSLR, and lenses, and need some help in selecting the "walkaround" lens.

I plan to get
-Nikon d50 camera body
-Nikon 50mm f1.8 - imported version (anything wrong with buying imported? )
-Sigma 105mm f2.8 DG macro
and a few peripheral accessories.

I'm trying to decide on my walkaround lens, and was considering the Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5. But I've been reading about the Sigma 18-125, and the much praised Tamron 28-75, and now I'm confused. I think I'd like to have a wider focal length than the Tamron will give, but now I'm turning to you guys for your thoughts, please.

wewillexplore

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/28/2005 09:18:17 PM · #2

tamron 28-75 2.8

for canon mount it rocks - I've heard the same about Nikon

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/28/2005 09:25:11 PM · #3

Thanks Mavrik, I hear you, and have read such good things about it- but I'm concerned that I then wont have anything wide angle enough. Perhaps I should just stick with the Nikon 18-70 then.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

11/28/2005 09:28:42 PM · #4

Originally posted by Sinky:

Thanks Mavrik, I hear you, and have read such good things about it- but I'm concerned that I then wont have anything wide angle enough. Perhaps I should just stick with the Nikon 18-70 then.

True, 28mm is not very wide on a 1.5-crop cam, but how wide do you need as a walk-around? You might be best served getting the Tammy now and looking for an ultra-wide to augment it later. Once you use an f/2.8 zoom, it will be hard to use anything slower again...

yido

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

11/28/2005 09:35:00 PM · #5

I think ideally for walking around with a cropped sensor, an 18mm is a much better starting point than a 28mm. I personally think the 18-70 or a Sigma 18-125 maybe a good range.

11/28/2005 09:38:03 PM · #6

Yes, I see your point, Kirbic, ..thanks. The way I thought, there's a tradeoff I'm facing, between faster (the tamron) vs wider (the nikon 18-70, or sigma 18-125). The way I figured, I could shoot at a higher ISO, given that I hear my planned camera handles higher ISO's with relatively little noise. And I thought that when I need fast, I'd have the Nikon 50mm 1.8.
So, with this in mind, do you still recommend the tamron to me in my circumstances.
Thanks so much for the input...I'm a novice, and really appreciate your opinions.

11/28/2005 10:02:32 PM · #7

bump...for any more thoughts or opinions.

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

11/28/2005 10:15:46 PM · #8

As for why to by US vs Import the US Nikon lenses come with a five year warrantee. The import comes with a one year from the dealer.

BTW - you might want to wait until the middle of December when the new Nikon 18-200 VR comes out. Although not fast it looks like a great range for walkaround and travel. And it has VR II which they are saying will give you 3 maybe 4 stops. Looks like the cost will be around $750-800.

Message edited by author 2005-11-28 22:18:20.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/28/2005 10:37:29 PM · #9

I might not be the least biased person, but IMO, there is no substitute for fast glass. I've been the f/3.5-5.6 route, not going there again. Even with a very low-noise cam, and my current cam is one of the best in that regard, I really still need at the very least f/2.8 in low light, say indoors by tungsten lighting, to get good shots without resorting to flash. An f/4 or slower zoom is next to useless.
So it really depends on what you'll shoot most. If the vast majority of your shooting will be outdoors in reasonably good light, f/4 might work just fine, but if excellent low-light performance is a requirement, you'll be wishing for faster pretty quick.
The decision truly is a difficult one, you are giving up a lot on the wide end, but you can always fill that later... or get the wide now, and fill the 28-75/2.8 need later. Your preference, really.

labuds

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/29/2005 12:03:52 AM · #10

Originally posted by kirbic:

But wouldn't the VR II of the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 largely compensate for the smaller aperture? I mean in low light situations...

It would make it an effective 1.8-2.8 lens in terms of camera shake. As for bokeh or flash photography, that's a different story.

I'm actually thinking about substituting my 18-70mm for the 18-200mm, but only if the 18-200 is at least as good quality within the 18-70 range. Anyone have any comments about this?

Message edited by author 2005-11-29 00:07:08.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

11/29/2005 12:12:28 AM · #11

Aleks,
The VR can compensate for camera shake, but has no effect at all on subject movement, so really, for low-light photography involving live subjects, it's no substitute for aperture.

joezl

Nikon D200

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

11/29/2005 12:27:35 AM · #12

I use the Nikon 28-200 as my walkaround lens and it's on my camera 90% of the time. I rarely do low light shooting so that's not an issue for me. It's a relatively inexpensive lens, very small in size and which performs very well considering the range it's covering.

I hear the Tamron 18-200 is also a great lens.

Re the soon-to-be-released Nikon 18-200 with VR, we'll all have to wait and see how it performs and whether it's worth the money. The 24-120 VR suffers from giving soft images in some instances (certainly no sharper and in many instances less sharp than the 28-200 even though one is giving up range) and it will be interesting to see whether they have resolved this in the new lens. Some people seem to swear by the VR/IS lenses, others think they're a waste of time.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/29/2005 12:31:10 AM · #13

Fritz - I think you've just about convinced me.

Much of my photography will be indoors, and often moving subjects - children! And there is obviously so very much support on these forum posts for the tamron 28-75, so I guess I'll just log into my bhphoto cart, and make the switch, before proceeding to checkout.

Thank you for your input today....much appreciated.

labuds

Nikon D800

11/29/2005 12:31:56 AM · #14

Originally posted by kirbic:

Aleks,
The VR can compensate for camera shake, but has no effect at all on subject movement, so really, for low-light photography involving live subjects, it's no substitute for aperture.

True. I can't contest that.

But comparing the 18-200 with the 18-70, I wouldn't be sacrificing on aperture but the VR II would come in handy. I thinking of replacing my 18-70 with the 18-200mm to have a versatile lens when I go travelling or breaking into abandonned buildings (lots of dust!). It's nice to know that you won't need to clean your sensor when your on a trip and not to have to lug around a 1.5kg 70-200 2.8 lens.

Although I will later on invest in a 17-55mm 2.8 to have as a studio lens and a higher quality lens for situations when I can bring all my equipment.
But for now, I don't think the 17-55mm 2.8 will satisfy my needs (the 55-70 gap will drive me crazy) and the price is out of my current range (the D200 would be a better investment).

Now, the only question is whether the 18-200 is good quality?

Message edited by author 2005-11-29 00:39:29.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/29/2005 12:40:03 AM · #15

I have the Canon 28-135 IS and I really have come to dislike some aspects of the lens, mainly its aperture, or lack thereof.

The IS does work for camera movement, but in addition to not stabilizing the subject, the lens itself is dark. Faster glass not only lets more light in to the sensor when you shoot wide open, it lets more light in to the viewfinder making the image you see seem that much brighter. In daylight illuminated scenes, it's not a big deal, but in a dimly lit scene, it is very noticable.

labuds

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/29/2005 12:52:40 AM · #16

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I concur. and to add to that, it makes the focusing better in dark situations.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/29/2005 04:29:38 AM · #17

Originally posted by Sinky:

need some help in selecting the "walkaround" lens.

This was the best I could contribute...