Lens expert needed: am I making mistake switching?

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

06/22/2006 09:38:48 AM · #1

Preface: I've always loved wide angle images. My coolpix camera always had a wide adapter attached. In DSLR my lens knowledge is limited but growing. I have limited $ that I can justify for lenses for my D70.

So anyway ... I've purchased a 18-55mm Nikon 3.5-5.6 and plan on selling my Tamron 19-35mm 3.5-whatever. I'm getting 21mm more range and there have been some decent reviews of each. However, the mount for the Nikon is plastic while the Tamron is metal.

Should I make the switch and sell the Tamron?

Bugzeye

06/22/2006 10:02:38 AM · #2

which lens has better glass? thats the most important part. however plastic mounts are grabage. Being the tamron fan I am. I would go with the tamron.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/22/2006 10:20:30 AM · #3

Them is some cheap glass...

Here are some other alternatives:

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-5.6

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

or for doing something really drastic...

Tokina 12-24 f/4.0

All of those lenses are around 350 dollars...

If you want a good lens, that's a pretty good starting place..

I think the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 is the Kit lens that comes with the D50... I'd have trouble calling that an upgrade any day of the week...

You are probably exchanging a mediocre lens for a barely mediocre lens in all honesty...

That kit lens is bottom of the barrel stuff.. The Tamron is probably a little bit better in most respects, from build quality to optical quality... the difference however is likely to be almost irrelevant...

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 10:23:02.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

06/22/2006 10:43:16 AM · #4

Hmmm ... thanks for the input. Pardon my ignorance, but how do you know it's "cheap glass" ... Anyway, My wife would snuff me out with a pillow in my sleep me if i bought two 350$ lenses ... which is what I would need to do with that taste ...

I was pretty much sold on the Nikon lens from this review:

//www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm

He loves the Nikon 18-200mm VR which most people do ... but this was his less expensive alternative (18-55 and 55-200 combo for $350 or so) ... Also, since I already have the 50mm 1.4 which also has a 52mm filter, I would only require 1 filter for both lenses.

I guess I'm in a position where there is no right answer since i'm not gonna drop over 200$ on a lens right now. I hated the sigma 70-300mm which even i could tell was junk. I'm thinking if I stick with Nikon at least i'll have the brand.

Zal

Nikon D200

06/22/2006 10:47:58 AM · #5

eschelar has it right. What you'd be doing is replacing one somewhat crappy lens with a different somewhat crappy lens.

If you're going to go through to trouble of buying a new lens, at least get an upgrade--look at lenses like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. At least with those lenses you will be getting contast 2.8 aperture. Or, as an alternative look at the Nikon 18-70, which is generally considered better quality than the Nikon 18-55.

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 11:41:53.

Bugzeye

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

06/22/2006 10:49:21 AM · #6

If you are on a tight budget . Go with Tamron. You get most of the quality you'll find in Nikon. in some cases even better quality. The price factor is the real difference though.

I just got this lens for fathers day. I really like it,. and I believe my wife picked it up for under 300 plus there is a 30 dollar rebate.

//www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=794

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 10:51:23.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/22/2006 10:53:39 AM · #7

Originally posted by metatate:

Hmmm ... thanks for the input. Pardon my ignorance, but how do you know it's "cheap glass" ...

You know it's cheap glass because of three main reasons.

1.) How much you pay for it. Granted there are a few of lenses that far out perform their prices (50mm f/1.8), but for the most part, you get what you pay for. Cheap glass is at a cheap price. Great glass is at expensive prices.

2.) Camera companies don't want to give out high quality kit lenses with their kits, they want you to buy those later and in addition to the ones you already have.

3.) The image quality. Refer to this thread for a comparison of the Canon 18-55mm kit lens and the 17-40 f/4L lens. The difference is night and day. Although those are Canon lenses and not Nikon, the differences will be similar.

In the end, if you buy a cheap lens now, you'll get sick of it and want to upgrade later at a loss and end up paying more. If you don't have the money now, I would recommend not buying the 18-55mm at all and find another alternative or not buy a lens at all and save up for a better one.

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 10:55:57.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/22/2006 11:02:27 AM · #8

Originally posted by KenRockwell:

I prefer it over the twice as expensive 18 - 70 mm lens for smaller size, less distortion and better zooming. This 18 - 55 zooms easily and precisely while the 18 - 70's zoom control bunches the wide settings together at one end. I won't miss the 2/3 stop and 15mm longer ...

He got my eyebrow raised at the first part, but I carried on heedless until he really lost me at the last bit...

Now I'm no Canon-fanboy-Nikon-basher...

I'm a pretty big fan of the Nikon system in a lot of respects. And I know a handful of guys who shoot Nikon digital...

I've never heard anyone else say that they prefer the 18-55 over the 18-70.

The 18-70 is generally considered to be a really decent lens and the best of all the 'kit lenses' from all the brands...

Seriously, check photozone.de for lens reviews... forum searches on DPC are good as is a good google with a sharp eye...

Ken Rockwell is highly questionable.

I see that just as I posted this reply, SamDoe has posted above me, so I'm going to skip the answers to the 'cheap glass' question...

Thanks sam :)

I will add that the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 was an excellent lens and filled a valuable gap in the market, but it is a generation behind the summer's new lenses... I think the critical issues are edge sharpness, focus speed and color rendition when comparing to newer lenses like the Tamron 17-50...

I think I heard somewhere that they have updated or are in the process of updating the Sigma 18-50... not sure... maybe someone else can mention any new updates?

Anyhow, if you don't want to get two lenses for 350, just choose one...

The Tamron 17-50 will give you everything and more than the 19-35 gave you...

Or, keep the 19-35 and get the Tokina 12-24 and go W I D E.

Message edited by author 2006-06-22 11:05:30.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

06/22/2006 12:45:07 PM · #9

Waxing philosophical:

I remember when I had the coolpix 880 and 995 with the wide adapter and all was simply awesome. Since I started to dpchallenge, my sights are higher and my photo budget is bigger (but not big enough :) ...

I have yet to zoom into images and think that my lens is inferior to another lens I could have used simply for the reason that I haven't experimented with awesome lenses. However i have realized that the 50mm Nikon 1.4 is giving me by far the best images I've ever created.

Anyway, for DPC, it's certainly more about the photographer than his equipment so maybe I knew the answer before I asked it :(

I know I can get stellar quality with the 50mm 1.4 and that can be used for many subjects â�¦ Since I'm not trying to .. and donâ��t soon plan on making money taking pictures at this point, I can't justify L quality lenses or other â��glassâ�� in my bag. I think I can rely on Nikon for a decent lens and keep the money for other thingsâ�¦ like days off to take pictures :]

Thanks for your help everyone.

SamDoe1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/22/2006 12:51:22 PM · #10

Just out of curiousity, did you decide to buy the 18-55mm lens or keep what you have for later?