| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/19/2008 04:27:48 PM · #1 |
Sorry if I am repeating a question, I did search but I am not sure what to search for.
I currently have on my wish-list the following lenses, I would like to know your opinions. My goal is as wide a range of mm as possible not exceeding around $1500 per lens with as best image quality as possible.
Sigma 4.5mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye Lens for Nikon
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Nikon
Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D
Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 G ED
Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8G ED
Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4.0D IF-ED
I've noticed that most of these are AF-S, that means a cropped sensor yes? Is this a good investment if I plan to upgrade to a D700 or D3 within a year or two? Should I wait to see if Nikon comes out with some killer FX lenses now that they are rolling out full-frame cameras?
I won't be ready to buy the first for a few months yet however I would like to get it squared away so I can drool :)
Thank you all so very much!! |
|
|
|
07/19/2008 04:38:16 PM · #2 |
It sounds like you ahve a good list of lenses.
I personally like all the Nikon lenses you have listed and would crave to have all of them. I have used the the 60mm f2.8D and the 70-200 f2.8 and they are awesome. I don't know much about the Sigma's you have listed, sorry.
Regarding AF-S lenses - AF-S lenses are lenses have motors built into them to focus. The AF-S motor is driven by the electronics of your camera. All Nikon digital SLRs work with them. AF-S lenses work great on manual focus cameras, too, unless they are G. The S in AF-S has nothing to do with the s in AI-s.
AF-S G series lenses are not AI-s (lenses with a coupling prong for metering in pre-AI cameras) and will not work on manual cameras.
Message edited by author 2008-07-19 16:41:07. |
|
|
|
07/19/2008 04:40:49 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
07/19/2008 05:46:43 PM · #4 |
| For your macro lens you might consider the Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR. The VR is very useful for handheld shots (think insects and portraits), and the 105mm means you don't have to get quite as close to your subject as you would with the 60mm. |
|
|
|
07/19/2008 06:25:25 PM · #5 |
My wish list
Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED DX Fisheye AF over the Sigma 4.5mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM Fisheye Lens for Nikon
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S DX inplace of Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 G ED and
Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8G ED
I have a Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5G AFS DX that I still really like for a general walk around lens.
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR this will be my next lens
and Sigma APO 200-500mm F2.8/400-1000mm EX DG GO BIG OR GO HOME! YA BABY! VIDEO HERE
I'm not a big fan of primes. I have a 50mm1.8 and Sigma105mm I might get a 85mm 1.8
Edit to add DX is the digital crop code
Message edited by author 2008-07-19 18:29:53. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 03:13:20 PM · #6 |
Many thanks to everyone who has replied so far...
I have found this review of the image quality of a wide-range of lenses.
Tycho, thank you for that link. I have not had time to read it in detail but it has already been helpful in both reassuring my choices of lenses and also the warning that the 12-24 14-24 doesn't accept filters. For a $1500 wide-angle that seems... odd to me and is a disadvantage imo. However as the review above notes the Sigma 10-20 I had picked has a degree of edge softness that the 12-24 14-24 does not.
Anyone know if the Cokin system fits the 12-24 14-24? It appears to have a fixed hood.
ErikV, thank you for your suggestion of the 105mm. It is an interesting problem now. The 7 inches on the 60mm is a bit short, however according to the above review the 60mm has slightly better sharpness. The reason I admit I was originally interested in the 60mm is because of the number of wonderful macro images  IreneM has done with the lens. However I don't have a ring or macro flash so 7" might cause shadows. At some point I will try that with my 18-200, it will be blurry but it will give me an idea.
DarkRider, the 10.5 seems to have a fair review. The reason I chose the Sigma 4.5mm is because it is supposedly the only cropped-sensor fisheye to provide real 180 degree view edge to edge and not just corner to corner. Allowing for a true 180 degree shot of the entire sky. However I have yet to find a review for this lens as it just came out, so it might be blurry, etc.
I'm leery of the 17-55 as the review says it becomes soft with distant shots and is highly prone to flare. I'm currently struggling with this with the 18-200mm.
Sadly, it appears the 70-200mm I had on my list is a mixed blessing, getting a great review on cropped-sensor cameras but failing on full-frame cameras with visible edge softness and vignetting.
So more work to do, it is good to do the work now, before I am ready to buy so I do not jump into a purchase only to be upset later. :)
Thanks again everyone who has replied so far!
Message edited by author 2008-07-20 17:46:03. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 03:55:08 PM · #7 |
Hi TogTog,
Your question begs another question. "What sort of photography do you want to do?"
In my experience, every photographer favours a different aspect of the craft and leans towards it. Personally, I enjoy close cropped images usually resulting from long lenses. I am not really a wide angle guy. I do not like busy shots, just simple, isolated subjects. So, my lens inventory leans towards telephoto lenses. Now, since I have been at this for a long time, I now have 16 Nikkor lenses that cover almost any scenario. But, the truth be told, I use the longer lenses far more than the wider optics.
So, buy lenses that suite your favourite style of photography first, then back-fill your inventory to cover more scenarios as time and funds permit.
Cheers,
Michael
|
|
|
|
07/20/2008 04:20:05 PM · #8 |
The 12-24 is a DX lens (only for cropped sensors). The 14-24 is full-frame.
The 17-55 will absolutely clobber the quality of the 18-200, but it is a DX lens as well. It's a fantastic lens though.
The 60 2.8 can also double as a great portrait lens.
With the 70-200, I would advise to leave it on a cropped sensor anyways, as you will gain far more reach with it, unless of course you cannot keep the D300 after purchasing a D700, in which case you could always try and find an older non-VR model from the film days. No matter what though, this lens has consistently been better than it's competition, even Canon's. Your only other decent option for something like this would be the Sigma 70-200 2.8, which will fall far short of the Nikkor. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 05:24:19 PM · #9 |
I could be wrong but I think...and please correct me if I am
Sigma 4.5mm is a circuler fisheye = 180deg all around and does not fill the frame -see image 3 on the link
and the Nikon 10.5mm is a diagonal fisheye = 180 corner to corner and fills the frame - like image 2 on the link
LINK |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 05:42:16 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Tycho, thank you for that link. I have not had time to read it in detail but it has already been helpful in both reassuring my choices of lenses and also the warning that the 12-24 doesn't accept filters. For a $1500 wide-angle that seems... odd to me and is a disadvantage imo. However as the review above notes the Sigma 10-20 I had picked has a degree of edge softness that the 12-24 does not. |
The 12-24 can take filters. It's an IF lens with no bulge in the front; the only problem you might run into is vignetting if you use a thick filter, but that's conditional on the wide focal length, not the lens design itself.
Originally posted by togtog:
Anyone know if the Cokin system fits the 12-24? It appears to have a fixed hood. |
The hood is removable, and you can put filters on it (at least circular ones, if not others).
Originally posted by togtog:
Sadly, it appears the 70-200mm I had on my list is a mixed blessing, getting a great review on cropped-sensor cameras but failing on full-frame cameras with visible edge softness and vignetting. |
The 70-200 is an amazing lens–perhaps one of Nikkor's best. What is your concern about a bit of edge softening and vignetting? If anything, it helps draw the viewer's attention toward the center portion of the image, where I presume your subject is.
Message edited by author 2008-07-20 17:43:03. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 05:44:28 PM · #11 |
| geeze, I'm sorry everyone for the confusion, please replace any instances of 12-24 with 14-24 because I'm an idiot... |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 05:47:48 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by LERtastic:
With the 70-200, I would advise to leave it on a cropped sensor anyways, as you will gain far more reach with it. |
A DX sensor has no more reach than an FX sensor, any more than cropping one of your images makes it appear to be "zoomed in" more.
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 05:55:13 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by LERtastic:
With the 70-200, I would advise to leave it on a cropped sensor anyways, as you will gain far more reach with it. |
A DX sensor has no more reach than an FX sensor, any more than cropping one of your images makes it appear to be "zoomed in" more.
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml |
One thing to remember... if you crop a FX sensor you cut off megapixels from around the edge, resulting in a lower resolution image. While the DX fits the same megapixels as the FX into the cropped form, therefore the results are more like increasing the focal length not like cropping. The image from the lens is cropped and the outside lost yes, however the part that hits the image hits more pixels. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 05:59:01 PM · #14 |
As far as 300mm is concerned, you might want to save up (or sell your granny) for one of these.
|
|
|
|
07/20/2008 06:04:32 PM · #15 |
I dunno...I'm happy (so far) with the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II
The Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR was the 'kit' lens, it works OK but left me wanting to do more. Everyone on a thread I started awhile back suggested the 18-200 mm as I wanted a really versatile lens with lots of zoom/wide angle/telephoto capability; I'm not too heavily into macros.
Good luck! |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 06:40:14 PM · #16 |
Morgan, hehe, I knew that question would come up sooner or later. I like everything honestly. I only own the 18-200mm atm, my preferred focal lengths are, 18, 70, and 200. If I could increase the 200 I would, however currently my results at 200 have been very soft with flaring. And 18 is no where near wide enough :)
LERtastic, firstly I apologize for the confusion as I meant to only be speaking about the 14-24. If I were to use the 70-200 it probably would be on the D300. However if possible I would like lenses that work excellent on both DX and FX and really would like to avoid lenses that only work on one or the other, less money, less bag space needed, less weight. It seems to be a very nice lens, however I think Nikon goofed good on it that it suffers from the edge blur and vignetting on a FX at f/2.8. The wide fixed aperture like Canons L grade lenses suggests professional performance across the board and that the only cost of using a wide aperture at high focal length should be depth of field, not image quality.
geoffb, again I apologize for the confusion as I meant to only be speaking about the 14-24, being a $1500 landscape lens and not taking a polarizing filter seems very silly to me. So with the correction, I wonder if the 14-24 can accept the cokin filter system or if it will be the odd ball with no filters, no ND filters, no polarizing, and no UV to protect the front element itself...
As for my concerns of the edge blurring and vignetting, in my opinion those, defects, are not fitting of a professional lens costing that much. I would expect such from a $500 lens, my 18-200 has a little of that, and it was only $600. I believe it is a symptom of Nikon opening their aperture wider than the lens can cope with forcing the photographer to step down to control it.
raish, that indeed does look like a sweet lens... the review gives it a great rating. Sadly it does not compare DX to FX performance with this lens. I will think about dropping the 70-200 in favor of it, so it takes a few years to save up, I'd rather that then have flaws in the image itself. Thanks for pointing that out :)
snaffles, the 18-200 is a great lens and I would never sell mine. For the range it provides the image quality is great. Other lenses do much better at specific ranges but for three times the price per range.
The three biggest problems I've been having with mine are a soft center image at 200mm in certain lighting conditions, I have not figured out specifically what causes the issue and it might be related to the next problem, when I focus on infinity the image result is soft unless stepped down to f/11-16. This became especially clear during Night Sky when I was trying to take pictures of the stars and ended up with consistent perfect balls of light regardless of where the focus was set.
It was not motion blur sadly. And lastly there have been several instances where I am taken a shot of a general scene and wished to crop one corner and found the result was unacceptable and appeared to be badly motion blurred, while the center was crystal clear. Over all, I think the lens is a great deal and it performs great most of the time. :)
Message edited by author 2008-07-20 18:40:42. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 07:12:12 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by geoffb:
Originally posted by LERtastic:
With the 70-200, I would advise to leave it on a cropped sensor anyways, as you will gain far more reach with it. |
A DX sensor has no more reach than an FX sensor, any more than cropping one of your images makes it appear to be "zoomed in" more.
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml |
One thing to remember... if you crop a FX sensor you cut off megapixels from around the edge, resulting in a lower resolution image. While the DX fits the same megapixels as the FX into the cropped form, therefore the results are more like increasing the focal length not like cropping. The image from the lens is cropped and the outside lost yes, however the part that hits the image hits more pixels. |
I do see your point, and agree that an image from the D3 cropped down to "DX" resolution would technically have less megapixels than the same image from the D300. However, that's conditional on the presumption that the FX and DX sensors have the same resolutions, and that the sensor is not being limited by the optical constraints of the lens itself (which is becoming more and more common). If the glass the light is coming through cannot resolve what will eventually become 12 million pixels, then the argument is pretty much moot.
Not to mention, the image coming from a D3 has a lot of other factors working in its favour.
Edit for spelling.
Message edited by author 2008-07-20 19:16:23. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 07:19:57 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by togtog:
geoffb, again I apologize for the confusion as I meant to only be speaking about the 14-24, being a $1500 landscape lens and not taking a polarizing filter seems very silly to me. So with the correction, I wonder if the 14-24 can accept the cokin filter system or if it will be the odd ball with no filters, no ND filters, no polarizing, and no UV to protect the front element itself... |
I guess when I read $1500, I should have pieced together that you meant the 14-24.
It looks like it's possible, but only with some DIY work.
//www.flickr.com/photos/13847280@N03/2655841619/
//www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor/discuss/72157605467801609/#//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=27047243
//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=27047243
Originally posted by togtog:
As for my concerns of the edge blurring and vignetting, in my opinion those, defects, are not fitting of a professional lens costing that much. I would expect such from a $500 lens, my 18-200 has a little of that, and it was only $600. I believe it is a symptom of Nikon opening their aperture wider than the lens can cope with forcing the photographer to step down to control it. |
Have you experienced the blurring and vignetting yourself, or have you only read about it?
Message edited by author 2008-07-20 19:26:09. |
|
|
|
07/20/2008 07:37:57 PM · #19 |
geoffb, hehe, it's ok, it was my typo :)
So, it is possible, but not out of the box. Which is good, but also very odd for a premium lens like that one. Like having no lens hood, or being fixed focus.
As for the edge softness and vignetting I have not personally experienced it. I don't know if the reviewer is worth his salt but he seems unbiased and detailed. You can see exactly what he said about the 70-200 here.
Thanks :)
|
|
|
|
07/20/2008 09:26:00 PM · #20 |
You want a thorough review for the 70-200? Go to DPReview's review of it:
//www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/
As far as this lens compared to the Canon, well, if you compare the full-frame sharpness tests, the Nikon does dip at 200mm on the edges, but everywhere else, the Nikon is sharper. I guess it depends on how much you really care about the slight drop in quality, but honestly, not worth a brand change from Nikon to Canon. The Sigma and Tamron versions won't even come close.
Message edited by author 2008-07-20 21:26:42. |
|
|
|
07/21/2008 01:54:08 PM · #21 |
I omitted a reply to DarkRider? Well that sucks, I'm sorry DR.
DarkRider, I believe you are correct about the fisheye lenses. The 10.5mm is a rectangular and I know the 4.5mm is circular which is what I want, well I want both, but being able to capture the trees all around me and the sky is much more desirable to me. I would have given my left arm to have had the 4.5mm for that thunderstorm with all the rooster tail lightning all around me. Foolish I know but there is some beauty worth any risk to capture. |
|
|
|
07/21/2008 02:23:28 PM · #22 |
| It's all good! Did you change your mind on any? What's the first one your getting? |
|
|
|
12/31/2008 12:15:10 PM · #23 |
snaffles/togtog: The 18-200 is on my wishlist, as a replacement for my Sigma 55-200 and Nikon 18-55. Would you say this is a good exchange? I use my camera gear a lot on expeditions and the convenience of only having one lens (especially with wildlife shots where switching lenses can cause you to miss the opportunity) is appealing. I also expect the Nikon lens to produce a better image quality than the rather average Sigma.
I'm also in the market for a macro lens, as my old macro is for film SLRs and so lacks autofocus on my D60. I've also got my eye on the 60mm f2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor D, but this appears not to be an AF-S fitting. Can anyone tell me whether this lens (which now seems to be about five years old) is capable of autofocus on a modern DSLR? Alternatively, what are people's impressions of the newer version released this year, the 60 mm f.28G ED Micro-Nikkor NAFS?
Thanks,
Phil |
|
|
|
12/31/2008 01:19:03 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by pobblebonk:
snaffles/togtog: The 18-200 is on my wishlist, as a replacement for my Sigma 55-200 and Nikon 18-55. Would you say this is a good exchange? I use my camera gear a lot on expeditions and the convenience of only having one lens (especially with wildlife shots where switching lenses can cause you to miss the opportunity) is appealing. I also expect the Nikon lens to produce a better image quality than the rather average Sigma.
I'm also in the market for a macro lens, as my old macro is for film SLRs and so lacks autofocus on my D60. I've also got my eye on the 60mm f2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor D, but this appears not to be an AF-S fitting. Can anyone tell me whether this lens (which now seems to be about five years old) is capable of autofocus on a modern DSLR? Alternatively, what are people's impressions of the newer version released this year, the 60 mm f.28G ED Micro-Nikkor NAFS?
Thanks,
Phil |
The 18-200, while not a "professional" quality lens, will kick the butts of the lenses you're replacing. I use it on my D60, and it's a nice setup.
This is the 60mm macro you want, the newest version of the Nikon 60. It just came out a few months ago. The older one doesn't have AF-S. My understanding is that the new version is at least as good as the old one, which is also quite nice. |
|
|
|
12/31/2008 02:35:42 PM · #25 |
Well, I have the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens, and love it, a great all-around walk-around lens.
Not long ago I got the Nikon 50mm 1.4 and it is sweet.
But I just got the Nikon 85mm 1.4 and I am IN LOVE with it. The 50mm may be a lonely little orphan lens, now, seldom ever seeing the outside of the stay-at-home camera bag..... |
|
