| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/16/2006 07:41:30 PM · #26 |
Bigma would suit my needs.
Please let there be an attractive girl on this island too. :-)
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 07:42:47 PM · #27 |
personally, if i was stuck on a deserted island, i'd want a 600mm or better with a 2x teleconverter so i could look for passing ships...
but that's just me...
|
|
|
|
09/16/2006 08:11:10 PM · #28 |
| if it was only one lense, I would get the oe of those 18-200 zooms and I guess Tamron just came out with a 18-250mm(!). I personally have the Sigma and really enjoy it. I would buy another in a heartbeat. |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 03:13:26 AM · #29 |
k so here is my decision and why.
I have given much thought to the decision and looked at a ton of reviews and sample photos.
I am going with the Nikon 17-55 AF-DX Zoom f2.8 IF ED. Thanks to eschler for pointing out to me this is not a VR lens (don\'t think I will need VR at this range and no macro).
Basically, I spent the last week forcing myself to use my Nikon 50 1.8 and have again fallen in love with both Nikon quality and that lens. I realized the focal plane is much closer than I thought which works perfect for portraits.
Two very close contenders were the Nikon 60 2.8 macro (Wow, Nice Lens good shots, reasonable price).
Sigma 105 2.8 Macro. (This is one exception where I think the macro shots are equal or better than Nikon quality).
Reasons: I plan to shoot mostly portraits, except for challenges, and the conversion factor gives me plenty of room. It will also give me the extra room for group shots.
Do I want to go wider yes, do I want a macro yes, but that̢۪s not my main staple at this point. Even this lens is over my budget. I believe next purchase will be the Sigma 105 just to mess around with, But for now I am locking in my finances to Nikon Somewhat wide zoom.
P.S. - it really irritates me that some lenses are now being made for DX Smaller sensors only and that if someday I go full frame I am again buying more lenses. That̢۪s what they call planned obsolesce and the market is really playing this one out (yes Cannon gave us the option, but the market is not there yet), but that̢۪s an entire separate thread.
Thanks for all the feedback; it really helped me to get thinking about my options. I guess I am dressing my camera for success I hope it works. I will let you know; probably the next challenge will be shot with this lens. |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 03:19:44 AM · #30 |
| a super macro lens so I can use it to start a fire |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 03:46:31 AM · #31 |
"Macro to start a fire," Ohh a candidate for survivor.
At least you have a plan, my lens is niether macro nor long so I would be voted off being no use to the tribe.
Yes and the woman I would be stranded with would be my wife, since when you have kids it takes a deserted island just to have a conversation (P.S. I am banking brownie points in case she ever reads the form).
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 04:15:27 AM · #32 |
ROFL. Definitely read the reviews on the Nikon vs the Tamron version of that lens if cash is an issue.
The Tamron variant comes HIGHLY recommended by many people that I've talked to so far.
Almost equivalent.
You will be glad of being able to go wide.
The 55mm end of the Nikon (as opposed to the 50mm on the Tamron) is probably going to get used a lot for portraits. :)
Don't forget to ditch the other two lenses to help pay for it.
While you are at it, you might want to consider the Sigma 70-300 APO. It's got a 1:2 macro mode which isn't amazing, but it's not bad for slightly larger subjects.
The quality is very good (not excellent, but definitely usable), and you could probably resell the lens later for a loss of only around 50 bucks or less. It's a gread bridge lens for people on a budget. Especially when the budget is only really temporary. I'm pretty sure that it outperforms the 28-300 quite easily beyond 100mm or so.
It's not a fantastic lens, but it's a fantastically practical lens. |
|
|
|
09/18/2006 04:19:49 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Elliottjms:
P.S. - it really irritates me that some lenses are now being made for DX Smaller sensors only and that if someday I go full frame I am again buying more lenses. That̢۪s what they call planned obsolesce and the market is really playing this one out (yes Cannon gave us the option, but the market is not there yet), but that̢۪s an entire separate thread. |
It's NOT primarily a matter of planned obsolescence. Every lens represents a series of compromises in optical design to optimize performance in certain ways or to minimize flaws in other ways. FF lenses (designed to cover 35mm film area) have to have decent performance over a much larger area than is actually covered by the industry-standard APS-C sensor. Optimizing corner performance in these lenses, especially in the wider range, is very difficult and it makes for heavy, expensive lenses. If you reduce the design parameters to coverage of only the area read by and APS-C sensor, you can make the lens smaller and lighter and still produce outstanding performance in that central area.
When you go to the extreme WA lenses (like Canon's EFS 10-22mm) another factor comes into play that's even more significant, having to do with engineering the lens to bend the corner rays to a more perpendicular orientation to the sensor, which pays huge dividends because of the physical design of the photoreceptors and how they deal with gathering light that strikes them at a very oblique angle.
The bottom line is that lenses like the Canon EFS lenses are optimized for performance on the vast majority of the bodies Canon sells, and they deliver superior performance in a smaller package at a lower cost. Realistically, relatively few people are going to upgrade to a FF sensor; there are compelling arguments against this sensor ever becoming the industry standard size.
I have TWO of Canon's EFS lenses (10-22mm and 60mm Macro) and I'm delighted with both of them. Upgrade path was not a factor in my buying decision; I'll cross that bridge when and if I come to it.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-09-18 04:20:57.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2006 04:59:49 AM · #34 |
I actually forgot to mention in my previous post that Canon will not likely be switching any serious segment of their camera line to FF due to VASTLY increased cost.
People see that the sensor is 1.6x larger and they think that the sensor costs 1.6 times as much to make.
Read up a bit. Logic will tell you that costs are MUCH, MUCH higher for a FF sensor than APS-C.
There was a link posted in the forums to a Canon White Paper report about sensor technology. Some of it is flavored with marketing, but there's still a lot of real information that can be gleaned.
APS-C format is here for a while.
Nikon has announced several times that they have no immediate plans to go FF as well. |
|
|
|
09/21/2006 09:37:13 PM · #35 |
So after reading a few more reviews I purchased these:
Sigma 105 2.8 Macro $399
Nikon refurb 18-55 3.5-5.6 $100
So for $500 bucks got a couple of really fun lenses.
So much for the Nikon 2.8 17-55 the more I read the more I wondered if the Tameron was a better deal for dollar. Basically I will be using it for Weddings/people (and just playing around with landscapes). So I figured I would get the $100 refurb slower lens to play around for a while while I decide between the Tameron 17-50 and the Nikon 18-55.
Out shooting with both lenses above today and they are both very nice. The challenge is to bring out the portrait aspect of the 105. It takes wonderful macros but the portaits take a little more work. I am sure I will get it to sing soon.
I am very surprized about the kit Nikon refurb. Its taking wonderful landscapes and its nice to have the wider angle back that I had with film.
So much for dress for success, and Nikon quality. I will be getting a fast wide angle for weddings but right now I am shooting landscapes so I am going to takes some time to decide and research more.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/08/2026 02:19:11 AM EST.
