Lens Upgrades - So confused

[spesh]

Hi all, wonder if some of you can assist me in my search for lenses.

I got my D80 about a year ago and since then have learnt lots, been on a course, done a friends wedding, taken some baby shots etc etc.

What I have realised is that the kit 18-55 and 55-200 I got with the camera were soft, slow focus and generally a good start, but I need more. For the wedding I purchased a 2nd hand 28-105 f2.8 Tamron and an SB-200.... both were a step up from kit, but have realised that the Tammy lens is a little soft, slow to focus and a little heavy for the range.

I'd like to do more wedding photography, have taken some great landscapes which I've had put onto canvas around the home, have another baby shoot in a few weeks and just want to learn more and more and maybe, just maybe get really serious.

So, I'm considering the following.... getting rid of all my lenses and purchasing some of the following, with some guidance!

Nikon 50mm 1.4
Tamron 28-70 2.8 or Tamron 17-55 f2.8
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 AF-S or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or Sigma HSM II 70-200 f2.8
Tamron 18-200 (all rounder for when I dont want to take the other lenses around)

Now you see my dilemma? Which lenses should I get out of each section... is the 1.4 worth it if I have he 2.8 for the same range? Would I just spend too much time swapping lenses? Is the Tamron all rounder worth it?

Thanks, I know there are a few choices, but my head is hurting and not sure what is best for my "type" of photography - sports, pets, portraits and landscape!

Andrew

[surenj]

Congratulations! you have been bitten by the photobug.

If money is a concern, I would be patient and carefully consider what you want to achieve that you definitely cannot achieve with what you have currently. It may be that you need to take an extra step or two, but most things you mention could be achieved with what you have now.

It's good to know your equipments' weaknesses, but make sure you know their strengths. At what zoom and aperture is your lens best? Which ISO is your camera at it's best? Can you use that in your shoots?

As a general rule it's good to buy the best lens. It is also advantageous if you can try to handle them prior to buying.

Once you find your niche in photography, you will know what you need to achieve a specific result. The differnt genre's that you mention have specific equipment requirements.

I am sure the others will have very different advice... Good luck.

[mikecarlotto]

I won't comment on what particular lens to get for each "type" but I wouldn't worry about an all rounder. I know I'd rather keep that money and put it towards other types of gear.

[Reschsmooth]

Tamron 18-200 (all rounder for when I dont want to take the other lenses around)

If your purchases are based on your growing photographic business, I would not buy a lens based this. It is a bit like a barista turning the espresso machine off and using a plunger only because they didn't want to grind/tamp/extract/steam/pour. I don't think your prospective clients would be satisfied with you making a compromise like that because you didn't want to carry around more or heavier lenses which may have been better suited to the job.

I note my comments may come across as abrasive - just trying to be concise.

[aim54x]

So, I'm considering the following.... getting rid of all my lenses and purchasing some of the following, with some guidance!

Nikon 50mm 1.4
Tamron 28-70 2.8 or Tamron 17-55 f2.8
Nikon 70-200 f2.8 AF-S or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 or Sigma HSM II 70-200 f2.8
Tamron 18-200 (all rounder for when I dont want to take the other lenses around)

Andrew, you have made some good choices here, but the main question that you need to answer to yourself is the upgrade path question...will you be going full frame? This will affect a few of your choices. BUT in general I would go:

DX only
-Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (f/1.4 if you can afford it)
-Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (if you can find the non-micro motor version even better)
-Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (if your on a budget the Sigma)

If you have FX intentions then swap the 17-50mm for either the 28-70 or the Nikkor 24-70 or the 17-35mm (pricey and a tight zoom range though)

I am with Patrick (Reschsmooth) with leaving the all in one out of the kit...you are better off just carrying the 17-50 + 55-200 (ie dont sell it yet)

[Murray Foote]

Hi Andrew

Another question to ask is what your post-processing choices are. Probably especially because you're interested in weddings, I'd suggest Lightroom is useful if you're not already using it. For something like weddings you're going to be taking lots of images and achieve a quick turnaround. Lightroom allows you to deal with images en masse, quickly make selections and perform preliminary optimisation relatively easily. There is of course a learning curve, as with everything.

The first thing I'd suggest you do is analyse the images you have taken already. What focal lengths, apertures, ISOs and shutter speeds did you use? What was your percentage success rate at each focal length? Where did you need a wider aperture, a higher ISO or a higher shutter speed?

There's no point in buying a 14-300mm zoom lens if you're only going to be using it at 300mm for example.

It's not really possible to advise someone else what lenses they should buy because no-one else can be expected to know how another's mind works. However, consider what your primary purpose is and what lenses may work best with that. If it's portraiture for weddings the 50mm f1.4 could be an advantage for good bokeh and subject isolation though you may have to play around for awhile to start to work out how that works and what you can do in post-processing. If it's landscape then cheaper lenses may work reasonably well provided you stop them down - having and using a good tripod is then probably a more important factor in image quality.

Whether you even need a mid range zoom might also be a question, sacreligious as that might sound. The 50mm prime will give you better image quality (well, unless you go for a $2,500 Nikon 24-70mm) and if you can move around may be all you need. The cheaper f1.4D might be an option assuming you want to stay with DX for a while. None of that's a recommendation, though, just food for thought. As I've already said, you'll have to make up your own mind.

Regards,
Murray

[spesh]

Thanks for all your repies so far, keep them coming, it makes for a great read and helps quite a bit.

I'd love the Nikon 70-200 VR but it is well out of my price range, so I think the Sigma 70-200 HSM is the likely choice.... too many people say the Tamron is slow to focus, and for the sports and wedding shoots I want to do, this is obviously a no-go.... I can't hope to get the fast paced dog agility shots if the camera is still hunting.

For what I'd get for the 2 kit lens, it'll be worth holding out selling them until I see which way I go... I admit that with the tripod and the 18-55 I do get some good quality landscape shots, so that is a goode enough reason, and if I go for the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 then I'd need the wider angle.

The wedding I did do was mostly on the 28-105 f2.8 tamron, of which most shots were at the 2.8 for the church shots, with it stepped to either f4 or f5.6 for the outside group shots where the DOF was important. However, my main concern is the slow autofocus and the poor IQ that came from it. Even on a tripod it wasn't anywhere as good I would have hoped.

Which brings me on to the PP... I have CS4 Photoshop which I am slowly learning how to use, but en-mass I'll have to try lightroom to get more work done quicker. My PP skills are ok at the moment, but I found myself doing too much on the photos to sharpen them, which is not good.

I think I am now heading towards having the following

Nikon 50mm 1.4D (Not G, too expensive!)
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM (Fast motor and long reach for the sports)
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (Allowing wider, and closer shots than the 50mm)

Although, is the Tamron really necessary with the 50mm 1.4 in my bag? Would it be better to get the 17-50mm f2.8 Tamron and replace kit 17-55 instead? I've heard more good stories about the 28-75 than the 17-50.

Sorry for so many questions, members here seem to be a fountain of knowledge.

Thanks

Andrew

[aim54x]

The Tamron 70-200 is slow to focus, but slow focus and hunting are two very different things. I agree that the Sigma would be a better choice than the Tamron for the purposes of sports due to the faster focus speed.

As for the 17-50 vs the 28-70, I will assure you that the 17-50 gets a very good rap from anyone who has used it http://bythom.com/1750lens.htm. For a DX body it seems like a logical choice as it covers you for the wider end (although it is not an ultra wide). The 28-70 does get some nice write ups as well! PS I am a VERY happy 17-50mm user (A16N not the N II version on a D300 or a S5 Pro)

[gstark]

Andrew,

You've been given some great advice already, but I'm going to ask you to step back a little bit so that we can review where you are. While it's all great to have the best glass etc, there's often a lot that we can achieve with what we have ...

Let's start here ...

For the wedding I purchased a 2nd hand 28-105 f2.8 Tamron and an SB-200.... both were a step up from kit, but have realised that the Tammy lens is a little soft, slow to focus and a little heavy for the range.

I'll accept that this lens is a little on the heavy side, but can you please show us some of the images that you had shot with this lens? Images that you consider to be soft, and please include the EXIF data from those images.

Before we start looking at spending your money (spending the money of others is always such fun! ) I'd like to understand what your current level of expertise is, and how advanced your actual technique is. It may well be that with a few simple tips and pointers, we might be able to help you to improve your shots with your current kit.

It may be that I'm talking through my arse - that is often the case - but it's always good to start from the basics, and then see where the path leads us.

[aim54x]

For the wedding I purchased a 2nd hand 28-105 f2.8 Tamron and an SB-200.... both were a step up from kit, but have realised that the Tammy lens is a little soft, slow to focus and a little heavy for the range.

I'll accept that this lens is a little on the heavy side, but can you please show us some of the images that you had shot with this lens? Images that you consider to be soft, and please include the EXIF data from those images.

I also own a 2nd hand copy of this lens, it doesnt get used very often and it was a bit of a bad buy (off fleabay) as it has never been great at AF - mine just hunts way too much. It is a very large and heavy lens for its range but I have never found any reason to complain about its sharpness, even wide open. This is the lens in question right?

Before we start looking at spending your money (spending the money of others is always such fun! )

I would have to agree, it is great fun spending money, more so when it is not your own!

[spesh]

Yes that is the lens I have and I agree that it hunts too much, doesnt focus correctly in time in both indoor and outdoor scenarios unless there is really good light and is just really heavy!

I'll try and get some photos on to here, but in the recent wedding I did I had to do a lot of contrast and sharpness work on the photos.... most of the photos turned out good after this.

The speed when photographing at soccer or with the dogs is also a big issue, and I find myself having a lot of blurry images, even when pre focused on a spot beforehand and with a good shutter speed... and that is with a higher f stop than 2.8 for a better DOF.

I think the 17-55 f2.8 is looking a good option and can replace my kit lens, so the question is a tamron, sigma or the very expensive nikon? If I go for the expensive nikon, it almost rules out the 70-200 f2.8 sigma as the 17-55 will take all the budget... so should I go with sigma lens all round as these read up the best?

Thanks

[spesh]

OK CR Kennedy have offered me a new Australian Warranty Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens for $1000 so will be shipping it across for me to hopefully pick up next week I guess that should vastly improve my sports shots with the faster lens and mean that I can get some portrait stuff at the shorter end (70 to 105 I guess) with that. Wohoo... Tax time is great!

So now it is up to the wider end options....

Have been reading some reviews and spent some time with the 28-105 and the photos I took on the tripod with the f8/f11 are very very sharp (I have a 20 x 30 canvas) so I like it for that.... so it is really now just for portrait type work.

The f4 and f5.6 photos I took are great, it is just the slow AF and softness at f2.8 (until f5.6) that is the biggest issue for me.

Would a 50mm 1.4D be enough, and I could just move myself back and forth to get the better shots, and then keep the 17-55 Nikon AF-S 3.5-5.6 for the wider angle shots of the pets etc?

This is a photo taken that was stiched using f8 and a tripod

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/344 ... f6259f.jpg

This is a wedding shot taken using f2.8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/361 ... 8193d0.jpg

This is the dogs taken at f3.5 using the f2.8 lens

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2439/364 ... e974f7.jpg

All the way out at 105mm with f3.5

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3355/364 ... de9621.jpg

Should I just stick to f3.5, f4 and f5.6 for the portrait shots and just not get the DOF that the 2.8 gives to balance out the sharpness I don't get?

[Alpha_7]

and mean that I can get some portrait stuff at the shorter end (70 to 105 I guess) with that.

Mate don't right off the long end, given enough space between you and the subject the 200mm end can be great for portraits, especially good background seperation.

[Reschsmooth]

and softness at f2.8 (until f5.6) that is the biggest issue for me.

I am wondering if it is softness or a function of the plane of sharp focus not being where you want it to be - 2.8 would result in a relatively shallow DOF.

[spesh]

I'm usually pretty good with the thumbpad and getting the focus point at the right part of the photo, however sometimes it is in the right point and is just a little too soft.... doesn't bother me too much for some of the portrait shots, but can be a little interesting.

Sometimes I need to just look at the DOF meters and work out the best f stop for the right photo... like with the baby shoot I am doing in a few weeks... think an f5.6 might be the way to go to make sure the photos are tac sharp so that they can be blown up nicely... will just need to get the lighting right so that they stay sharp.

The 70-200 will probably give me good portraits with the dogs, they'll sit still long enough when I am at distance, rather than when I am near them with the 82mm filter of the tamron pointing at them! I guess the same principle could be used with the baby shots, given the right DOF and distance.

[Murray Foote]

Would a 50mm 1.4D be enough, and I could just move myself back and forth to get the better shots, and then keep the 17-55 Nikon AF-S 3.5-5.6 for the wider angle shots of the pets etc?

Probably or even with a wider angle zoom but it's a question you'll have to answer for yourself.

[spesh]

I've just picked up my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 II HSM EX APO DG MACRO and my first impressions... OMG this is exactly what I've been missing!

I've not done any real fast movement, but just by panning around the room the focus is so quick and the images are so sharp even at 2.8!

Thanks for your assistance so far guys & gals.... I can't wait to get this home and start playing properly!