DSLRUsers.com

OK it's my turn now
My current lens list is 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 90mm f/2.8 & 70-200f/2.8.
while I am pretty happy with my collection, on a recent trip to the city & up the mountains I found that 35mm isn't quite wide enough for the big stuff (a couple of trees & a bridge).

So I am looking at either a 17-50 range lens or 12-24 or 20mm prime.

I am on a budget of around the $600 mark

I had considered the new Nikon 16-85VR but that is just a bit too far out of my limit

Not sure if I need 2.8, just want something that will be sharp & give good colour & contrast.

I've seen some reasonable images out of the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 which sits pretty nicely in my budget
A lot of people rave about the Tokina 12-24 which sits right at the far edge of my budget
I'd love another Prime in the 20mm (they're so light to carry around) but have read mixed reviews of the 20mm on digital SLRs - any comments
Is the new (as opposed to the old 18-55 kit lens) 18-55VR worth a look

So what do you guys & girls reckon would be the go

HI DJT, I have a 20 and 12-24 and 18-70. If you are going for wide, I would go wide and get the Sigma 10-20. I find I don't use the 20 much on DSLR, the 18-70 is more along the lines of the widest lens with me and if I want wide I use the 12-24. The 10-20 wasn't available when I purchased, that would be my current choice.

The above is based on the guess you have a crop frame camera. You didn't mention what camera you had and there are a lot of D3 and 5D about so I would change that advice and lens for full frame.

Sorry forgot to mention I have a Nikon D70

Full Frame is a loooooooong way away, so not a concern for me.

2 hours left and it's still at a dollar...

http://cameras.listings.ebay.com.au/Fil ... ngItemList
(Sigma 28 2.. I find i use the 28 a lot more on FF, than I did on crop though.

thanks Justin, but that one is a minolta mount & 28 probably isn't quite what I'm after, I'm not ready to buy anything yet. Only set a myself a budget. I can't do anything until the Mrs. goes back to work & even then wil have to have a bit of a scout through the shed to see what can get converted to $$$.
Mainly after others thoughts as $600 might not be a lot of money for some, but it is for me. So I want as much info as possible before I jump in.

The 18-55VR does get some good reviews but I haven't tried it myself.

I got a 20mm f2.8 second-hand for $300. It is in very good condition. I quite like the lens, it is very light so for bushwalking, it is always taken. I also have the Tokina 12-24, great lens.

There are plenty of 18-70mm going around at very good prices, I used to have one and it was a great lens. I ended selling it to make room in my bag.

HTH,

André

The new Nikon motorised version of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 would be around that price.

I have the Canon version which is fantastic.

I love my Tokina 12-24!

Thanks for the comments guys. I think I'm going to go with dvivs suggestion. I moved my keyboard at work this morning & found my wish list from a while back & 18-50 f/2.8 is at the top. I think it will be an ideal lens to have long term $$$ wise and the Tamron fits in nicely with my budget and gets pretty good reviews. I had the Tamron 28-75 a while back & couldn't fault it, I sold it to help fund the 70-200 f/2.8. if I find that 18-50 isn't wide enough down the track then I'll look at the 10-20.



Now all I have to do is get the wife back to work & get jnr toilet trained so we can stop buying nappies aaahhh the sacrifices we make for our kids . A year ago I could have just gone out & bought it

Hey DJT
I have the Tamron 17-50 and it is amazing. I read heaps of reviews and comparisons to the Nikon 17-55mm and could not justify the extra $'s to get slightly if at all, noticeably better image quality.
Shame you're not near me I would lend it to you to try. I use it as my wide angle lens for the weddings I shoot and am constantly amazed by the quality.
Have a look at some of the wedding images for Daniel and Melissa, http://gallery.mac.com/chrisdalton even though these were all high ISO shots the lens handled the lighting exceptionally well on my D300, at least I think so.
I think I bought mine for around $450 on e-bay, I'll try to dig up the receipt so I can tell you where it came from.