advice please, 10-20 or fast 50mm

bsmotorsport

bsmotorsport

Suspended / Banned
Messages
918
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
Looking for some advice based on experience on this one, I want a new lens but unsure on which of the following to go for. I currently have basic kit lenses of 18-200 and a 70-300, neither of which are particularly 'fast' or have VR. Its for a d200 by the way. I fancy a 10-20 as most of my hobby is spent on landscape/scenery type stuff, my other intrest is motorsport obvioulsy and im saving for a 120-300 (2.8) as it is. Im struggling to decide though as I quite fancy a really fast 50mm say a f1.4 or f1.2 if one comes up, purely down to the low light capabilities of it. Ive seen recent posts on the 10-20mm and im loving the images it can create but cant get a 50mm out of my mind. If you had to chose one which would it be???
any advice much appreciated, thanks, steve
 
The Sigma 10-20mm isn't a fast lens by any means with the maximum apertures that it sports, but it's a much more useful lens than a 50mm IMO.

If you're unsure about whether you want a 50mm or not, set your current zoom at 50mm, walk around and see what you can photograph – chances are you'll soon find that on a digi SLR you'll think 50mm is a pretty boring focal length to have; it's neither wide-angle nor telephoto. Can't see the attraction of a 50mm lens on a DSLR – how many of us actually owned and walked around with 75mm lenses on our 35mm cameras?

If I were gonna go for a half decent prime lens I'd opt for something like a f/2.8 24mm AF-D. At least it's at the wide end of the focal length spectrum, although it'll be nothing like a 10-20mm for landscape photography, which is what you've said is your main thing.

Seems strange how so many folk want 50mm f/1.8 lenses for low light photography – there seems to be a stigma attached to bumping up your ISO. Plus, your D200 is a great camera for high ISO shooting, much better than the equivalent Canons.
 
I agree with settling for the 50mm 1.8 and the sigma. I'd go for a 50 as a priority but that would be a very happy compromise.

1 - It's pretty close to standard and so if you can get yourself used to creating great shots with it, moving around more etc as well, then you'll be on the way to training a good eye for a shot. I think the 10-20 makes it easier to get an interesting image because it's focal lengh(s) are out of the usual to begin with. I do love the 10-20 though!

2 - It is fast, in low light situations a 1.4/1.8 lens is invaluable... whatever the ISO capabilities of your camera are it is (IMO) best to shoot at as low an ISO as possible. Also the lens will let in more light and be faster in general because of the aperture and mechanics.

Your cons in getting the 50 really only stem from your love of landscape but why not train your eye with the 50, and at least it'll be in your kit bag for those situations where you need speed etc. It is less than half the price too.

I wouldn't say no to the sigma 10-20 though. I had one!
 
I'd go for a cheaper 50mm and the Sigma too
 
specialman said:
Seems strange how so many folk want 50mm f/1.8 lenses for low light photography – there seems to be a stigma attached to bumping up your ISO. Plus, your D200 is a great camera for high ISO shooting, much better than the equivalent Canons.
Click to expand...

I love my 50 for taking people pictures at parties etc, it is a fantastic portrait lens and the f1.8 lets me get away with little or no flash while throwing the background nicely out of focus. Shallow DOF is also great fun for arty shots and impressing people!

I wouldn't want it for an every day lens or as my only lens but I wouldn't be without it either, especially when it cost peanuts!

To the OP get the cheap 50 and the sigma and I'm sure you'll be happy! You can always trade up to a faster 50 at a later date, the f1.8 ones keep there value very well indeed so you wouldn't make much of a loss!
 
save up, sell the dog, put the wife on the street, whatever you have to do and buy the Nikkor 10.5mm F2.8

It's fantastic, I haven't used it but apparently there's some nikon software for sorting out the fisheye effect that only works on this lens,

I had one, sold it then bought another, love it to bits also the close focus on the nikkor is about an inch so you can get some really wacky shots
 
wack61, thi is deffo going to be my next buy, along with a 80-200mm or a Sigma 70-200mm. Seems the 10.5mm has a bit of a following because it's so cheap but soooo good.
 
I Love mine, both of these are straight out of the camera

DSC_1598.jpg

DSC_1467c.jpg
 
Thanks for that, definately some food for thought. Im not particularly a big shooter at 50mm as said above but it seems the cheapest way of getting such a fast lens in my kit bag that the extra work of having to work around for shots seems a small pay off. I hate using a high iso on my d200 it seems to get so much noisey at anything above 200 if im honest, not horrible noise but clearly not as sharp as when im at 100, its because of this that I feel I need such a quick lens as I spend alot of time fighting with the shutter speed v's a low ISO. But then the question would the 50mm satisfy this need or just not be appropiate to the shots I like to take?? I think as mentioned the best bet would be to get say a f1.8 and see how I get on with it as far as focal length goes. Definately want a 10-20mm but now theres the question of a 10.5? Although the fixed length is slightly putting me off as Id like a 'little' bit of room to play with when shooting so wide. Hmmm, not an easy one this.
 
Chalk me up as a vote for the Sigma. If you're doing landscapes on a cropped sensor you'll want that extra width.
 
th 10.5mm Nikon is a true fisheye mind, so unless you want the wierd fisheye effect, the Sigma 10mm might be better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top