Best lens line up for crop sensor?

ian-83

ian-83

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,541
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
So after starting up a thread about should I spend my money burning a hole in my pocket upgrading my lens slection I am just wondering what's peoples views on the best lens line up for a crop sensor?

I am thinking from what I have read on here on a budget it would be Sigma 10-20,Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 70-200 plus a 1.4x teleconvertor.

If money was no object a Nikon 10-24,Nikon 17-55 and Nikon 70-200 with a 1.4x teleconvertor as well.

Most of the type of photography I do is landscape and cars along with a bit of motorsport too. Hence neededing the longer focal length for track side shooting.

Whats other people on here think? So many ideas from peoples signatures it's hard to decide what to choose on.
 
I reckon pretty much any prime is a decent addition. The 50mm F/1.8 is obviously a good idea, but my lens list for 2012 goes as follows.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Canon 28mm F/2.8 OR 20mm F/2.8
Sigma 50mm Macro lens.. no idea which one yet
Samyang/Whatever 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye

And something old and vintage to mount to my camera just to be a hipster ;D

If money was no object, it would be every single prime Canon L lens. MMMMM :)
 
As above, I'd want a fast prime in there! My ideal set up would be wide zoom, fast mid prime, tele zoom and if money was no object last fast prime.
 
Last edited:
The Nikon 24-120 F4.0 VR lives on my d7000 - I also have the 50mm F1.4 and the 70-200mm F2.8 VRII - but the 24-120 is so good it hardly come off. Failing that look at the Tamron 18-270mm with VR cracking all round lens but slightly slow at 270mm I think f3.5 to F6.3

Hope that Helps

Ian...
 
My choice would be...

Tokina 11-16, Nikon 17-55, Nikon 70-200 VRI and a 35 f/1.8 as the token prime :D
 
Flash In The Pan said:
My choice would be...

Tokina 11-16, Nikon 17-55, Nikon 70-200 VRI and a 35 f/1.8 as the token prime :D
Click to expand...

I have something very similar. After a bit of trial and error I realise what works for me is to cover from WA to 200mm at 2.8 with a fast prime at a length I use most and a 1.4 TC for the extra reach when I need it.
 
When I had a D300, my line up was:

Tokina 11-16
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 35mm 1.8
Sigma 180mm Macro

Really nice set up that allowed me to do anything I wanted and of course as soon as I'd aquired them all, I promptly sold the lot and moved to FF, oops.

Looking back, there are only two things I would have changed, money permitting. I'd have swapped the 18-50 for a Nikon 17-55 just because I love the big tank like pro zooms and I'd have bought a smaller macro lens because the Sigma, though superb, was just too big and heavy to carry around (it couldn't physically fit in my camera bag).
 
ise438 said:
The Nikon 24-120 F4.0 VR lives on my d7000 - I also have the 50mm F1.4 and the 70-200mm F2.8 VRII - but the 24-120 is so good it hardly come off. Failing that look at the Tamron 18-270mm with VR cracking all round lens but slightly slow at 270mm I think f3.5 to F6.3

Hope that Helps

Ian...
Click to expand...

How do you find the 24-120 f4 on a cropped body? This is one lens I have considered.

Flash In The Pan said:
My choice would be...

Tokina 11-16, Nikon 17-55, Nikon 70-200 VRI and a 35 f/1.8 as the token prime :D
Click to expand...

If only my bank balance allowed this is probably what I would have. Well I have the 35 f1.8 so far! Only 3 lens to get!

gad-westy said:
When I had a D300, my line up was:

Tokina 11-16
Sigma 18-50 2.8
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 35mm 1.8
Sigma 180mm Macro

Really nice set up that allowed me to do anything I wanted and of course as soon as I'd aquired them all, I promptly sold the lot and moved to FF, oops.

Looking back, there are only two things I would have changed, money permitting. I'd have swapped the 18-50 for a Nikon 17-55 just because I love the big tank like pro zooms and I'd have bought a smaller macro lens because the Sigma, though superb, was just too big and heavy to carry around (it couldn't physically fit in my camera bag).
Click to expand...

There's that Tokina 11-16 again and after the reviews and comments on here I think it's most likely I will get one over a Nikon 10-24.

I have the Nikon 70-300 VR and it is a cracking lens but I am not sure yet if I need something more suited to low light.

Also tempted to future proof myself should I decide full frame tickles my fancy.
 
Wide angle = Tokina 11-16mm
Mid range Zoom - Tamron 28-75mm
Longer zoom = Sigma 70-200mm or Nikon 80-200mm AF-D or Nikon 70-300mm VR
 
ian-83 said:
There's that Tokina 11-16 again and after the reviews and comments on here I think it's most likely I will get one over a Nikon 10-24.
Click to expand...

It's genuinely the only lens that I miss since moving to FF. All of the others have been replaced or upgraded to some extent.

I bought an 18-35 recently but it's not really the same in terms of speed or IQ and it's not built to anywhere near the same standard.

Just going to have to save up for a 16-35 but they're a lot more money that the Tokina.
 
farrance said:
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Canon 28mm F/2.8 OR 20mm F/2.8
Sigma 50mm Macro lens.. no idea which one yet
Samyang/Whatever 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye
Click to expand...

I personally don't see the point of a non macro prime of f2.8 or slower when there are faster alternative 20/28mm f1.4/1.8 or even quality f2.8 zooms.

Primes really come into their own (IMVHO) when you need a wide aperture or macro ability or I suppose when you are going for the most compact camera plus lens possible.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Wide angle = Tokina 11-16mm
Mid range Zoom - Tamron 28-75mm
Longer zoom = Sigma 70-200mm or Nikon 80-200mm AF-D or Nikon 70-300mm VR
Click to expand...

Is the quality of the Sigma 70-200 on par with the Nikon 70-300?
 
I swapped my 70-300 VR for a Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II

I would say there isn't a great deal in it for most things. The 70-300 is a great lens, so is the Sigma. It's nice to have 2.8 from time to time though and I was surprised by how sharp it actually is at 2.8. I'll try and show an example later.

Downside to the Sigma is that it weighs probably double the 70-300
 
Cheers if you could get some pics up. I seen a few used ones for about £450 and there the latest models I think. The only time I can see the f2.8 being an advantage over the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 is when shooting motorsport if it's a bit of a dull day.
 
Mmmm, was considering the Tamron 28-75mm but a lot have seemed to go the 17-50 type lens, got me thinking now :confused:

Would i noticed a massive gap between the 17-50 and 70-200..?
 
ian-83 said:
Cheers if you could get some pics up. I seen a few used ones for about £450 and there the latest models I think. The only time I can see the f2.8 being an advantage over the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 is when shooting motorsport if it's a bit of a dull day.
Click to expand...

Here you go. I'm actually mildly disappointed with these shots but overall it's certainly useable at 2.8 although I think it sharpens up a fair bit from F4.

200mm F2.8


TRI_2545 by G.A.D, on Flickr

400mm F5.6 (2x Teleconverter)

GAD_2548 by G.A.D, on Flickr
 
my current line up
  • 17-50 2.8 vc tamron
  • 35 1.8 nikon
  • 105 2.8 sigma macro

my ideal dx lineup
  • 8-16 sigma or nikon 10-24
  • 17-50 tamron 2.8
  • 50-135 tokina 2.8
  • 35mm 1.8 nikon
  • 50mm 1.4 / 1.8 nikon OR a tamron 60mm f2 macro
  • 85mm 1.8 nikon
  • 105mm 2.8 vr nikon

and a couple of others if the money allowed
  • Nikkor AF 10.5mm f/2.8G ED DX
  • Zeiss Distagon T* 21mm, manual focus
  • Nikkor AF 80-400mm

Thom Hogan has an article discussing his "desert island camera's"

http://bythom.com/desertislandkit.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Those images look sharp enough for me. Hmmm choices choices choices lol
 
I know a lot of people think Ken Rockwell speaks a load of bull but his DX dream team has me thinking. Wondering how versitile it could be just to have a 10-24mm, 35mm prime and the 55-200mm lens. Or maybe swap some lens about to get a similar set up with maybe a 50mm prime and a 70-200mm lens instead.
 
ian-83 said:
I know a lot of people think Ken Rockwell speaks a load of bull.
Click to expand...

The man states that the 18-200 is the best portrait lens Nikon have made. If he told me the time I'd seek someone else for a second opinion.....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The man states that the 18-200 is the best portrait lens Nikon have made. If he told me the time I'd seek someone else for a second opinion.....
Click to expand...

From what I have read on here about him I will take what he says with a pinch of salt. Just wonder if 3 lens could be enough or is 4 ideal ranging from wide angle, mid zoom and a telephoto with a fast prime
 
For my old 40D I had

EFs 10-22
EFs 17-55
EF 85mm f1.8
EF100-400
Sigma 10mm fisheye
Sigma 30mm f1.4
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Lens-baby
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The man states that the 18-200 is the best portrait lens Nikon have made. If he told me the time I'd seek someone else for a second opinion.....
Click to expand...

Yet some of his guides to using the kit are well written ... best taken with caution, but his site does have some useful info.
 
ian-83 said:
From what I have read on here about him I will take what he says with a pinch of salt. Just wonder if 3 lens could be enough or is 4 ideal ranging from wide angle, mid zoom and a telephoto with a fast prime
Click to expand...

When I go away, day trip or holiday I always limit my bag to 3 lenses.

Sometimes I will just put the one zoom on and live with it.

The more you have the more time you spend thinking should I change for this one or that one, rather than looking for an image and making it work with what you have attached to the camera.
 
woof woof said:
I personally don't see the point of a non macro prime of f2.8 or slower when there are faster alternative 20/28mm f1.4/1.8 or even quality f2.8 zooms.

Primes really come into their own (IMVHO) when you need a wide aperture or macro ability or I suppose when you are going for the most compact camera plus lens possible.
Click to expand...

well - they're small ! that's a biggest issue for me for the daily photographing.
but tbh they are not small enough hence my recent move to panasonic.

but in general - yes - at least a canon 17-55mm f2.8 is would eat f1.8+ primes up to 50mm for breakfast. would think it's the same with nikon as well.
 
My current lineup is:
Nikon 10-24mm
Nikon 35mm f/1.8
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 18-200mm

I wouldnt change any of them for my use and although the 35 is more convenient indoors, i prefer using the 50mm whenever possible as i get better images from it, i must prefer the perspective compression of a longer lens.

The 18-200 is the perfect holiday lens for me, and the 10-24 for creative and landscape shots.

The only lens I would add is a sigma xxmm-500mm EX lens for the reach. As always ymmv.

Nick
 
I'd like a lightweight kit like:

Nikon 10-24
Nikon 35/1.8
Sigma 50-150/2.8 + TC
 
ian-83 said:
I know a lot of people think Ken Rockwell speaks a load of bull but his DX dream team has me thinking. Wondering how versitile it could be just to have a 10-24mm, 35mm prime and the 55-200mm lens. Or maybe swap some lens about to get a similar set up with maybe a 50mm prime and a 70-200mm lens instead.
Click to expand...


That setup can work, but it will have some limitations. I have the 35 and 55-200 VR (plus a 50/1.8, 18-70, 18-55) If you had the first set of three above, you'll be limited in lower light at the longer end (the 55-200 is not a low light beast). Personally I would also be limited in the mid range zoom (or lack thereof). I find that the 20-60 range is important to me when I'm taking pictures of people and things inside. I've done it with just the 35 (before I had good flash) but sometimes you can't just take another step back. If you were going to go with that set, I'd say throw in a cheap 18-xx kit lens and a flash.

For the second set you gain the lower light at the longer end, but you still have the mid range missing. I like the midrange.

Thanks
Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top