DSLRUsers.com

This topic has probably been absolutely and positively done to death. That said, I'm looking for some suggestions for a lens purchase (and a search didn't return that much).

Much of the photography I find myself doing is at the wider end of things, and at the moment, this is the duty of the humble Nikon 18-55 kit lens. I'd like to move onto something a bit better, but I'm not sure what.

Eventually, at the ultra wide end, I'll have a Sigma 10-20. I currently have a Sigma 70-200 for the longer stuff, but I need something to fill the gap!

I can probably spend up to about $500, with no real problems about buying grey/through HK etc. I have heard many good things about the Nikon 18-70, but I'm not sure if that's because it's good, as compared to many other kit lenses, or good - in it's own right.

I guess my other options are through Tamron or Sigma - in one of their f/2.8 lenses, like the Tamron 28-75.

Any suggestions, thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated!

A 50mm prime lens, if you don't have one. http://dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?t=26940

Underload wrote:I guess my other options are through Tamron or Sigma - in one of their f/2.8 lenses, like the Tamron 28-75.

With the D50, the 28-75 will look like a 42-112 mm which is not really wide.

I am not sure about 3rd party offerings, but one option, which works well for me, is the 20mm 2.8. Granted, it is effectively 30mm with the crop factor thrown in, but it is still pretty wide, fast and well built. You could easily get that for less than $500 second hand.

perhaps somehting for high speed, or dark? like the sigma 30mm 1.4.

tell us more, like to you want low fstop, like 1.4, 2.8, or is the focal length more iportant to you. Also, zoom, or prime?

If you like zooms, and maybe want 2.8, the 17-55 or 28-70 are wonderful keepers (the tamron, sigma price points might get closer to $500).

could try the sigma 18-50 f2.8 if you're finding the current range matches your needs.

Thanks guys

Definitely a zoom - sorry, I probably should have mentioned that earlier. At the moment, I'm not at a point where I would get a lot of use out of a wider prime. Perhaps in the future, but not right now.

I'd like something a little longer than the kit 18-55mm, as there have been a few times I'd like to get closer, without changing lenses. Would I notice the difference in 2/3 of a stop between 2.8 and 3.5 (18-70)??

don't forget that it's constant f2.8 and not variable aperture. If you shoot lowlight, then it would have an advantage. Also it gives you more DOF control if you really want your subject to stand out from the background.

I get lots of use out of the sigma 30mm 1.4 It is a good focul length, and has the best low light capabilities of any affordable lens.

Not wishing to speak on behalf of Underload, but I think it has been made clear that the requirements are for a zoom lens for less than $500?? Is that correct?

Sorry, but I see this all too often when someone requests lens advice, say, for a wide angle zoom lens with a strict budget, and the discussion ends up at somewhere around a 400mm 2.8 prime because the OP's request hasn't been read closely!

Not sure if it will go on your camera (I have a Canon) but I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 And it's great. I bought it as a replacement for the 18-55 kit lens and have been VERY impressed.

It's a VERY sharp lens and the constant 2.8 is nice in low light. You should be able to pick it up for around $500.

Underload wrote:Eventually, at the ultra wide end, I'll have a Sigma 10-20. I currently have a Sigma 70-200 for the longer stuff, but I need something to fill the gap!

The gap from 55-70 is NOT considerable to 'fill' up. It makes no real sense in practical use. A step forward/backward will make you to fill this gap.

Rather, look at something at faster speed in the lower end of the focal lengths. Say, a Sigma 30mm f/1.4? Or if you want the longer ends, a 60mm macro?
My suggestion is definitely get faster glass than to fill up the gaps.

Reschsmooth wrote:Not wishing to speak on behalf of Underload, but I think it has been made clear that the requirements are for a zoom lens for less than $500?? Is that correct?

That's correct - thanks! I didn't think I was being that inarticulate

Yi-P wrote:

Underload wrote:Eventually, at the ultra wide end, I'll have a Sigma 10-20. I currently have a Sigma 70-200 for the longer stuff, but I need something to fill the gap!

The gap from 55-70 is NOT considerable to 'fill' up. It makes no real sense in practical use. A step forward/backward will make you to fill this gap.

Perhaps you have misinterpreted what I mean. Once I have something to replace it, I no longer plan on using the kit 18-55. My point in the post you quoted is that I will have a 10-20 for wide stuff and a 70-200 for longer stuff. I need something in the middle to fill the gap. That gap filler lens is this, the purchase that I'm trying to decide on.

Underload wrote:Perhaps you have misinterpreted what I mean. Once I have something to replace it, I no longer plan on using the kit 18-55. My point in the post you quoted is that I will have a 10-20 for wide stuff and a 70-200 for longer stuff. I need something in the middle to fill the gap. That gap filler lens is this, the purchase that I'm trying to decide on.

In this case, you might want to look at the Sigma 24-70 or Tamron 28-75, they're very well regarded lenses for your budget.

get a tammy 17-50 f2.8,

or a sig 30mm 1.4 and use the foot zoom feature.

Underload wrote:Eventually, at the ultra wide end, I'll have a Sigma 10-20. I currently have a Sigma 70-200 for the longer stuff, but I need something to fill the gap!
I can probably spend up to about $500

FIll the gap, in terms of focal lengh, 18-70 kit lens is very good value. Used for about $300. aftermarket 28-70/2.8 would be very good too, probably more like $800. Add VR, if you want some low light "camera handshake" minimising, somehting like the first generation VR's, like a 24-135 VR, much cheaper than a f/2.8 lens. Think you can get a 18-135 VR or 24-135 VR for somewhere just over $500.

18-70 build and glass quality is a lot nicer than 18-55.