Forums


Go Back   The TrekEarth Forums > TrekEarth Forum Home > Photography

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-20-2012, 03:24 AM
ACL1978 ACL1978 is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 456
Default Lens ideas

I have a bit of disposable cash coming my way, and have decided to expand my lens collection a bit. Here's my wishlist:

A wider lens than the 18-55mm Nikon kit I have for the D3100 (even a small bit wider would be good)
A modest zoom - I doubt I even need to get to 200mm for what I generally do, but somewhere between 70 and 105 would be nice
A good walk around lens, which can and probably should encompass one or both of the above.

Here's what I'm thinking - let me know if you have any experience with any of these lenses, and what you thought of them:

1. The Nikkor 16-85mm AF-S. The priciest option I'm looking at, but one which also would bit everything I'm looking for in one lens.
2. The Nikkor 18-105 AF-S. Doesn't get any wider than what I've got, but it has a good reputation and would extend the zoom.
3. The Tamron 18-270 for Nikon - I've heard either stellar or mixed reviews; probably much more zoom than I'm likely to use, but a tempting lens.
4. Sigma 10-20mm for Nikon - a solid wide angle I could use to supplement the 18-105, for example

Any thoughts? Any excellent lenses I should be including? Thanks for any tips!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-20-2012, 02:37 PM
delpeoples delpeoples is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,311
Post Hi Andrew

HI Andrew

Lucky you, I hope you get some good toys to play with, sounds like you've been good all year and Santa is forking out big time. What a choice you have, a really difficult choice too, and one which is not really all that specific. As a Canon user, I'm not much help to you choosing Nikon or made for Nikon lenses.

The main things I'd think about are:

* what it is exactly that you'd like to shoot ie. architecture (wide angle?), sea/landscape (wide), animals (fast, long focal range), macro, portraits (50 or 85mm?) or street photography (a good, fast, all purpose lens) or space (300mm+).
* whether these lenses are adaptable for smaller frame aswell as full frame sensors.
* the quality of these lenses. I find that paying a little more for quality is a good option, because as you get more serious about your photography, you're going to want something better anyway. Why pay twice for a lens?
* what it is in the focal range that you're missing

Well, these are my main lenses, which might give you a better idea of what to get:

17-40mm lens - fantastic for architecture and seascapes
24-105mm lens (my walkaround lens)
70-200mm lens - I rarely use this, but it's good if I want to shoot portraits and also shows/exhibitions

I'm tossing up whether to get the 8-16mm as I've had a lot of fun with the 17-40mm and think the results would be even more dramatic.

Well, I hope that's helped. Happy lens-hunting.

Cheers
Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-21-2012, 02:42 AM
ACL1978 ACL1978 is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 456
Default

Thanks, Lisa. Basically, the answers to those questions are what led me to the choices I mentioned. As you know, I generally shoot a fair amount of architecture, with some street scenes and landscapes. A versatile lens is therefore right up my alley - something with a solid wide angle option. I like the 18-55mm lens I have for this reason, but often find that 18mm isn't quite wide enough. I have my trusty 50mm prime for portraits and specialty shots, so that's not a concern. I very rarely need a real telephoto - one thing I haven't missed at all from my old Lumix point and shoot. So, basically, that leaves me with a choice:

1. Get an all-in one lens with better wide angle coverage, like the 16-85mm Nikkor I mentioned, or
2. Get an all in one with longer range, like the 18-105mm Nikkor and supplement with a wide angle zoom like the Sigma 10-20mm or similar.

I guess right now I'm leaning toward the 16-85 as it's the cheaper option, is supposed to be a very good lens all around with solid build quality and excellent IQ, and would require fewer lens switches, but I was hoping to find someone who's used it before to give me a first-hand account - I'd love to see a wider range of sample shots, too.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-21-2012, 04:03 AM
delpeoples delpeoples is offline
TE Expert
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,311
Smile Hi Andrew

Hi Andrew

Oooh you have some decisions alright. Is there alot of difference in price between the 16-55 and the 18-105mm? I'd be more inclined to get the 18-105mm, just for the sheer versatility of it.

Cheers
Lisa
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-21-2012, 11:35 AM
ACL1978 ACL1978 is offline
TE Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 456
Default

Well, the 16-85 is a pricier lens - about $600 USD. The 18-105 is cheaper, at around $400. However, with the 16-85, I'd be less inclined to get a wider angle lens, which would set me back another $400-$500. So, in the end, the 16-85 solution would cost me $600, whereas the 18-105 and a wide angle could set me back $800-$900.

Now, what I don't know is whether the 16-85 is really quite wide enough for what I want... but I've never felt with my existing 18-55 that it needs to be too much wider, so maybe.

So many decisions....

Andrew
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


explore TREKEARTH