Sorry but I need more lens help!!

[Mr Noble]

Right, its decision time as my mate has just e-mailed me to say he is coming home for the weekend from Hong Kong and did I want anymore lenses/kit??

I have.......

18-70 kit lens (D70)
70-300 ED (the good one?)
60mm micro.

All are Nikon.

I am happy with all of them and am not really after or needing the best (but would love to upgrade to 2.8's!)

But I feel I would like a 35mm f2 or similar(?) for a portrait lens, and a wide zoom.



So, I need to know which you chaps feel is the best out of the following.

Sigma 12-24
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 (favorite at the moment as its cheap and get good reports)
Tokina 12-24 f4
Nikon 12-24mm

Do you think that Nikon might be about to announce a 10-22 type lens for digital only as canon and sigma have? I think I would wait for that one if they did.

All views appreciated. But feel free to ignor as I know there have been loads of "new lens" threads recently!!

Thanks
Greg

[happy snapper]

Get yourself off to focus at the end off the month and test as many of the lenes as you can!

I use the Sigma 12-24 it very good as I use film and digi I need a lens that will fit both bodies (F5 and D2H). I also have a Tokina 28-70 ATX pro very good nice and sharpe and a tenth of the Nikon price!

[simpo two]

Mr Noble said:

But I feel I would like a 35mm f2 or similar(?) for a portrait lens, and a wide zoom.[quote] A portrait lens would be more like 50-60mm (75-90mm equivalent on 35mm) to avoid distorting faces. [quote=Mr Noble]So, I need to know which you chaps feel is the best out of the following. Sigma 12-24 Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 (favorite at the moment as its cheap and get good reports) Tokina 12-24 f4 Nikon 12-24mm

'Best' or 'best value'? These have different answers!

[GetCarter]

A lens will outlast several bodies, (Like an Alfa engine) so I'd only add... buy the best.

[Mr Noble]

I am a sukker for wanting the best and would love to get the nikon, but...........

a) I think the 20% extra wide-ness (10mm rather than 12mm) is a benifit and quite significant.

b) I am no pro and will never (I doubt) "push" any lens to its absolute edge. I think I might notice the difference and use the speed and DoF of a faster (more expensive) lens.

c) I wonder if I would notice the real term differences for my extra 2-300 squids on the nikon?



Greg

ps, its fine to be honest as I am aware of my limited abilities at the moment. (don't want to appear as someone with all the kit and sod all skill!!)

[simpo two]

I think it's a bit like hi-fi, or the law of diminishing returns. Getting to 98% perfect is affordable, but getting to 99% costs twice as much.

The Sigma 20-40mm:

[leonski]

Hi Greg,

Its always a hard decision knowing what lenses to buy, I had a similar dilemma when I was looking for lenses for my 10d.
But I have found through experience (10yrs freelance) that its always worth spending as much as you can afford, by that I mean dont skimp on your lenses.
I ended up paying double for a 16-35 f2.8, when I was originally looking at a 17-35 f3.5. Before it arrived I thought what have I done but as soon as I used it there was no looking back, its the nicest bit of glass I have ever used!
I had a D100 as loan camera for a while, one of the lenses was high end Nikon and the other was low end, there was an unbelievable difference!
I also have heard good things about the new top end Sigma digital lenses, but personally I would go Nikon and if its f2 even better, you will definitely notice the difference, and if you spread the cost of the lens, pound for pound, over the years you will be using and enjoying it, its a small price to pay!


>> Edited by leonski on Thursday 16th February 20:44

[poah]

35mm is not a portrait lens. it will show some distortion. you want the 86mm f1.8.

out of the UWL the tokina as the sigma's are poor and the nikon while a very very good lens is too expensive

[Mr Noble]

Thanks Leon,

I get the point about getting the best you can afford, not to sound cocky, but I could afford all the best Nikons but I don't "need" them and can't really justify the difference to me at paying double the price.

If I was a pro and was shooting for other peoples cash, then I would get the best kit available, but just for me and my pretty pictures I think the sigma f4-5.6 will be just as good as the Nikon f4-5.6

If there were a Nikon 10-22mm f2.8 (or f4) DG DX then I would definatly pay for that, but when they are the same speed, I think the difference would not be noticed by someone with my limited abilities and needs.


Poah, I dissagre (in a nice way!) The 30mm sigma f1.4 on my D70 is about 50mm which is IMO the most useable focal lenght for everyday stuff. (going to the park or on a city visit) An 80mm lens would give an effective 130mm which would not be at all useful for using indoors (parties, museums etc)

Also an 80mm "fast" lens (f1.4 orf1.8) would surely cost the earth?

Correct me here if I am wrong, but I have been looking for ages at getting the full range of lenses in my bag at the best "value for money" and I think the Sigma 30mm f1.4 would be a great lens to have.

www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/30mm.htm


Greg

[simpo two]

Mr Noble said:

Poah, I dissagre (in a nice way!) The 30mm sigma f1.4 on my D70 is about 50mm which is IMO the most useable focal lenght for everyday stuff. (going to the park or on a city visit) An 80mm lens would give an effective 130mm which would not be at all useful for using indoors (parties, museums etc)

Um, but you said 'portrait' lens not 'standard' lens. On a DSLR (excepting full frame ones), standard is 35mm, portrait is 50mm (75+mm in old money). The closer you get to someone + the wider the angle, the more you distort the features. It's fashionable on telly to shove a wide-angle lens in someone's face and focus on the b/g so they're not sharp, but it's patently wrong and looks crap

[poah]

Mr Noble said:

Thanks Leon, Poah, I dissagre (in a nice way!) The 30mm sigma f1.4 on my D70 is about 50mm which is IMO the most useable focal lenght for everyday stuff. (going to the park or on a city visit) An 80mm lens would give an effective 130mm which would not be at all useful for using indoors (parties, museums etc) Also an 80mm "fast" lens (f1.4 orf1.8) would surely cost the earth? Correct me here if I am wrong, but I have been looking for ages at getting the full range of lenses in my bag at the best "value for money" and I think the Sigma 30mm f1.4 would be a great lens to have. www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/30mm.htm Greg

I have the sigma 30mm and for head portraits you still have to be close up. 50mm better. 85mm better still.

these where all taken with the 30mm

www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=534997

[Mr Noble]

I appologise, I meant standard, I have the 60mm micro for the portrait stuff. (right?)

Yea, I meant the 30mm as a pin sharp everyday lens for indoors etc. The lens to take out for the day if your only taking 1.

Is that a good one then? I have been bidding on a few 35mm f2 nikkors on ebay but they go for about £150 and my Hong Kong mate says they are only £175 new over there.

I figured the Sigma 30mm 1.4 would be better for me than the nikon, even though its slightly more expesive.

Greg


ps. Sarah is super pretty!! Can I meet her?

[simpo two]

Mr Noble said:

Yea, I meant the 30mm as a pin sharp everyday lens for indoors etc. The lens to take out for the day if your only taking 1.

Well my weapon of choice, unless there are special circumstances, would be the 18-70mm for decent quality and versatility. It did 98% of my NZ shots, and that's in spite of the fact that I had the 50mm f1.8, 70-300mm and Micro 60mm with me as well. But - your needs/wants could easily be differnt from mine, so use what you feel is best.

[Mr Noble]

Think your probably right John. I don't really need the 30mm too. I just like to have all angles covered. Prahaps I will just go for the 10-20mm then. Your right that I do have 30mm covered on the 18-70, just thought the f1.4 would be useful for low light stuff and dusk landscapes etc. Not to mention having a very light lens to take out on trips for the day.

But............my mate who is supposed to be coming back from HK next thursday night called me last night FROM the UK. DOH got the weekend wrong

At least I will not have to wait till after the NEC show and others. Bring on the Nikon 10-22mm f2.8

Greg

[leonski]

Mr Noble said:

Thanks Leon, If I was a pro and was shooting for other peoples cash, then I would get the best kit available, but just for me and my pretty pictures I think the sigma f4-5.6 will be just as good as the Nikon f4-5.6 If there were a Nikon 10-22mm f2.8 (or f4) DG DX then I would definatly pay for that, but when they are the same speed, I think the difference would not be noticed by someone with my limited abilities and needs.

Hi Greg,
The only problem you may find is if you are shooting in low light or inside, you may find an f4-5.6 lens to slow, you are looking at 2 stops difference, which can often be the difference between being able to hand hold a shot or not, or the shot being pin sharp or soft, which will drive you nuts!

Yet again its the need for speed!!

Happy shopping
Cheers
Leon.

ps.check out the number of elements in the two lenses, you will often find the more expensive one has more, which is yet another factor to take into account!
pps. hey...maybe you could de-cat and put a miltek system and a re-map on your current equipment, that seems to make cars go quicker.

>> Edited by leonski on Friday 17th February 09:39

[Mr Noble]

leonski said:

[quote=Mr Noble]maybe you could de-cat and put a miltek system and a re-map on your current equipment, that seems to make cars go quicker.

Good plan, but then it might fail noise regs at weddings and christnings!



G