Attaining my 18-200's range but with 2.8 glass....

kalibre

kalibre

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,121
Name
Doug
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Just got back from a holiday in Marakech where I was lens swapping like a good'n. I'm finding more and more lately that I'm using my nifty in order to get down to f2.2-2.8 and am getting a bit frustrated not having this aperture available at other ranges. (Natural progression I guess...)

So what's the best way to get to 2.8 on a reasonable budget? I'm thinking I mainly shoot between 18-50 so I've thought of maybe the following combo to avoid silly amounts of lens changes:

Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 70-200 2.8

Any ideas? (Not fussed about losing the 51-69 lengths)

Cheers in advance. ;)
 
that sounds like a good choice, heard good things about the Tamron, i have the Sigma to and its a cracking lens

something else to think about would be the 17-55, more expensive but a cracking lens
 
That's basically the coverage I have and I don't miss the in between bit, it just means walking a few steps foward or back, depending on which lens is on at the time.

I'd say for a budget 2.8 set up you've chosen well. What I choose was the Tamron and a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, which comes in at roughly the same sort of money as the Sigma, but it's down to personal taste.
 
Why not going for this combo?

Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8

The 50-150 is much lighter and smaller than the longer zoom and it's a better fit with the tamron lens! And it's a lot cheaper. Mind you, it's a digital lens and it's only suited for crop bodies. That's what makes it so much lighter.
I tried it at a shop, it's amazingly light for an f/2.8 lens at that range, reasonably fast to AF, even though i wouldn't use it for motorsports and quite sharp wide open.
 
The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a shoe-in.

I'm currently evaluating the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di.

If its as good as the Tamron 17-50, Tamron 90mm or Tamron 28-75 its going to be stunner... too early to tell right now though.

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is very good,try to get the MKII version (NOT the MKI) or the DG or pre-DG version if you buy used. Do not get a MKI its plop.
 
I suggest you PM Wack61 about a lens he has for sale:

Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 EX DC

He is doing that at a cracking price in a Nikon fit. Sounds perfect or your needs. I just purchased a 100-300 f4 from him and was very reliable to deal with.
 
Cheers for the advice guys (the 150-200 range is fairly important for me).

You know how in the movies, people bitten by Vampires after a while suddenly get this undeniable thurst for blood? Well, i've kind of hit that phase for F2.8.......

PD: Be really interested to know what you think of the Tamron 70-200 when you're done.
 
JustinParker said:
I suggest you PM Wack61 about a lens he has for sale:

Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 EX DC

He is doing that at a cracking price in a Nikon fit. Sounds perfect or your needs. I just purchased a 100-300 f4 from him and was very reliable to deal with.
Click to expand...

Thanks, have PM'd ;)

I suppose one important thing I need to ask is if you think the IQ will be superior on these lens compared to the 18-200 at the same lengths and apertures? The last thing I want to do is 'upgrade' to worse IQ despite being faster.....
 
kalibre said:
PD: Be really interested to know what you think of the Tamron 70-200 when you're done.
Click to expand...

Im really happy with the quality of my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 at the moment. However, its only going to get a real good test this Saturday. I will be posting results up here

If you can stretch to a 3rd lens, get a Sigma 24-70 or a Tamron 28-75 f2.8
 
One early impression of the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Di is that AF is really quite slow. I'm not someone that overly concerned with speedy AF, but you can practically sense the mice turning the wheels.
 
I'm currently using a Nikon 17-50mm F2.8 and a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8, not the later macro version.
The Nikon is very very sharp wide open, super fast AF and build quality feels spot on. The only problem is it's around £600 2nd hand. I've no regrets buying it, it's a super little lens which will stay with me for a long time.

The Sigma definitely benefits from stopping down 1 or 2 stops. It's pretty good wide open, but noticeably very good at F4. AF is fast and accurate, I seldom get hunting for focus lock. Build quality is good, but not on par with Nikon, then neither is the price.

cheers
Kev
 
I have no experience with the Tamron 70-200, but every review I have read ( while I was thinking of buying one) seems to criticise the slow and noisy A/F and mis focusing the lens exhibits. The optics are apparently excellent if a little soft wide open. The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 seems to have excellent A/F but not quite as good optics as the Tamron. I had the Mk 1 Sigma and wasnt very happy with it optically.

Allan
 
As said above- Tamron 17-50 2.8 excellent lens for the money:thumbs:
 
:agree:
 
Cheers for the views. I can only say that I'm definitely looking for a optical improvement over my 18-200VR. SLRGEAR (and their slidey softness gizmo) show both the Sigma 70-200 and the Tamron 17-50 being far superior over the 18-200 over the practically the whole range. If true this would confirm my purchase because I always thought the optics on the 18-200 were quite good. Any real world comparisons chaps?
 
pearce_jj said:
have you considered another prime or two?
Click to expand...

I have, and if I was a pro that relied 100% on IQ then I might have gone for them. But to be realistic I'm not a fan of changing lenses for every shot and would need to sell my Nikon 18-200 (any takers?) to justify the fast glass.

As long as I'm not taking a step backwards in terms of IQ then I'll be happy with the zooms........... I think.......... :bonk:
 
kalibre said:
Cheers for the views. I can only say that I'm definitely looking for a optical improvement over my 18-200VR. SLRGEAR (and their slidey softness gizmo) show both the Sigma 70-200 and the Tamron 17-50 being far superior over the 18-200 over the practically the whole range. If true this would confirm my purchase because I always thought the optics on the 18-200 were quite good. Any real world comparisons chaps?
Click to expand...

I do have a Tamron 17-50 vs Nikkor 18-200 comparision.

The Tamron beat the Nikkor @ 50mm convincing, mainly in corner sharpness.

I may still have it online, but if not trust me.
 
Thanks PD, totally trust you. To be honest it was corner sharpness at the wider end that the SLRGEAR gismo crucified the 18-200 on so that's a second opinion saying the same thing.
 
I have a friend who owns the 18-200VR and he was more than happy with it until he tried some faster glass (can't remember what it was, but it was defo in the league of your next purchases). He said that since the 18-200 was the only lens he was using, he never realised how much he was missing out in respect to IQ and light-gathering capabilities when it came to 2.8 glass. I know that all my next lenses will be with large apertures, and I was too looking at the tamron 17-50 since I read so much about it.

I own the Sigma 120-300 2.8, and it's extremely sharp even wide open. What I will do in the near future, to complement my line up, is to purchase the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Sigma 50-150 2.8, and hopefully, if I get the money, the Canon 500mm f/4 or the Sigma 300-800 f/5.6

So, it will be a beautiful range
Sigma 10-20
Tamron 17-50
Sigma 50-150
Sigma 120-300
Sigma 300-800

Along with a couple of fast primes, I'll never need anything else (even though the 24-70 range seems practical:thinking:).

One of the reasons I suggested you got the 50-150 2.8 instead of the 70-200 is that you already cover the range from 150-200 with your longer lens, and it's amazingly lightweight and got great reviews when it came to IQ. Don't know about AF performance though. This lens was specifically made to cover the 70-200 range in crop sensors. But again, you can't go wrong with the 70-200, if you can handle the weight and cost.
 
Thanks for the info stylgeo. You will have an impressive range, but will you have a kit bag big enough! lol.

The only probably with relying on my existing 150-200 range is that it's on the Sigma 150-500 which is a monster of a lens and only gets taken around occasionally.

I'll give the 50-150 another look though....
 
Purchased!

Tamron 17-50 2.8
Sigma 50-150 2.8
Hoya 67mm SHMC Pro-1 Protector
Hoya 67mm SHMC Pro-1 Circ Pol Filter
B+W 67mm ND-106 SH Filter
Black 6x6 Spudz cloth (cos it looked cool)

The Tamron seemed like the way to go form the start. Three things swung me towards the 50-150. Firstly the weight compared to the 70-200, secondly it shares the same 67mm thread size as the Tamron meaning I can share the filters which aren't exactly cheap and lastly it is £100 cheaper than the 70-200. I guess I'll just have to work around the lack of 150-200.

So thanks everyone for the advice, and especially thanks to stylgeo for making me look again at the 50-150.

I'll let you know what I think when I get'em. :)

Now I've just got to sell my 18-200 VR and filters.......
 
God I'm jealous now! Those are some tasty new toys!! Need to start saving for the purchases I mentioned above!

Glad I could help mate! Waiting on your views about them!

This was one of the articles that made me want to go for that lens!
 
Just got to tell the wife now...........

(stylgeo: Will read that article when I get out of work and away from the facist internet usage policy)
 
kalibre said:
Cheers for the views. I can only say that I'm definitely looking for a optical improvement over my 18-200VR. SLRGEAR (and their slidey softness gizmo) show both the Sigma 70-200 and the Tamron 17-50 being far superior over the 18-200 over the practically the whole range. If true this would confirm my purchase because I always thought the optics on the 18-200 were quite good. Any real world comparisons chaps?
Click to expand...

Can't compare because I've never owned the 18-200mm, but here's a shot with the Sigma on a monopod at 150mm, F2.8, 1/320s.
IMO a bit soft, but as I said it does get sharp at F4.

3003251547_6a8043f6d8_o.jpg


Kev

edit, just seen the last post. Congratulations with the purchase I'm sure they'll be better than the Nikon zoom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top