lens wish list.....

IanC

IanC

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,318
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone, whilst money is a bit short at the moment i have compiled a list of len's that i will hopefully be owning and getting to play with by the end of this year. They consist of;

Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 (this will provide me with the majority of my landscape shots and with an aperture of 2.8 will be good for interior shots if i ever need to shoot them)

Sigma 24-70 2.8 (this will provide me some extra reach, and i can use it for portraits as well as landscapers)

Nikon 70-300 (this will give me even more reach and at some point this year i want to try and get a few shots of planes,some of the photos of jets on here taken in the welsh mountains have inspired me!)

Just wanting to know peoples thoughts on any of these lens's and if anyone can suggest a better alternative then im all ears :D
 
Since you are interested in landscapes, Ian, I'd suggest you look for a lens that will fill in that gap between 16 and 24 mm. I think that is a handy area to have covered for landscape work. I am not suggesting you add a fourth lens to your list, but rethink your first two lenses mentioned.
 
Hi there

Have you considered the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8d lens? This only costs about £109 and is a fast lens giving shallow depth of field shots.

I got this bargain lens last week and have had some great portrait shots of the kids already, and am looking forward to my garden bursting into life in the Spring :)

Cheers, Kevin.
 
For interiors, I wouldn't worry about a fast lens like a 2.8 to be honest, especially if there's no people in the shot.

I've had no problems with the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 lens on interiors, and it lets you get just over 90 degrees fov on a DX body, the 11-16mm won't. It'll also help lessen that gap to the 24-70mm.
 
arclight said:
Since you are interested in landscapes, Ian, I'd suggest you look for a lens that will fill in that gap between 16 and 24 mm. I think that is a handy area to have covered for landscape work. I am not suggesting you add a fourth lens to your list, but rethink your first two lenses mentioned.
Click to expand...

Agree with the above how about the Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6, not as fast but i don,t think thats absolutely necessary for interiors, a great lens that has given me superb results.

Roy
 
arclight said:
Since you are interested in landscapes, Ian, I'd suggest you look for a lens that will fill in that gap between 16 and 24 mm. I think that is a handy area to have covered for landscape work. I am not suggesting you add a fourth lens to your list, but rethink your first two lenses mentioned.
Click to expand...

Thats a good point dougie and one i have considered solving by getting the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 10-20

kevinmunro said:
Hi there

Have you considered the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8d lens? This only costs about £109 and is a fast lens giving shallow depth of field shots.

I got this bargain lens last week and have had some great portrait shots of the kids already, and am looking forward to my garden bursting into life in the Spring :)

Cheers, Kevin.
Click to expand...

yeah i almost bought one just before christmas, its definitely a lens i will be looking to get in the near future :) ps cant wait for spring!



Kaouthia said:
For interiors, I wouldn't worry about a fast lens like a 2.8 to be honest, especially if there's no people in the shot.
Click to expand...

I keep overlooking the sigma 10-20 to be honest mainly due to how sharp the tokina 11-16 is supposed to be. i really need to get to a shop **** stocks the 10-20 and try it out, its a shame jessops stopped stocking sigma len's!
 
Well, the Sigma was the sharpest of the bunch that I tested with less horrible distortion (better than even the Nikon lenses), although I will admit I didn't check out the 11-16. I just needed more range.

Definitely get that 50mm f/1.8 too though, it's a sexy lil lens. :)
 
Roy S said:
Agree with the above how about the Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6, not as fast but i don,t think thats absolutely necessary for interiors, a great lens that has given me superb results.

Roy
Click to expand...

Yes, that would fit the bill and plenty fast enough for landscape which will probably be shot around f.11 in any case.
 
Just to be clear, it was the 10-20mm f/4-5.6 I'm using, not the 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6, that I'm using.

I generally found the 10-20mm to be a bit sharper, I didn't need the full-frame coverage of the 12-24mm as I'm on DX bodies, and I didn't like the idea of not being able to use filters on it. If I can't put CPL or ND filters on the end of it, it's useless to me as a landscape lens.
 
Kaouthia said:
Well, the Sigma was the sharpest of the bunch that I tested with less horrible distortion (better than even the Nikon lenses), although I will admit I didn't check out the 11-16. I just needed more range.

Definitely get that 50mm f/1.8 too though, it's a sexy lil lens. :)
Click to expand...

which len's did you test when you were looking at the sigma? just out of interest.
 
I was looking at the other sigma, the 10-20mm f/3.5 and the Nikon 12-24mm f/4, but I was also comparing images from reviews online for the other wide lenses not physically available to me.

I had considered the primes (14mm & 16mm f/2.8 Nikons, and a couple of others), but I didn't have a play with them in the end as I wanted the versatility of the zoom.
 
daugirdas said:
Get Tokina; most Sigma lenses are horrible. 24-70 is their worst example, mcuh softer than kit lens. If anything tamron 28-75 is a better lens.
Click to expand...

Have you tried the Sigma? I agree that most of their lenses are abysmal compared to their Nikon & Canon equivalents, but most is not all, and the Sigma 10-20mm is definitely better overall than the two Nikon wide lenses I tried (just as sharp, but less undesirable distortion effects, and less CA).

There is definitely no comparison between the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 though.
 
Kaouthia said:
Have you tried the Sigma? I agree that most of their lenses are abysmal compared to their Nikon & Canon equivalents, but most is not all, and the Sigma 10-20mm is definitely better overall than the two Nikon wide lenses I tried (just as sharp, but less undesirable distortion effects, and less CA).

There is definitely no comparison between the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 though - although, the the Nikon is 2-3x the price.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've tried 10-20mm. It is not that horrible, and capable of 6x4 prints. However, it can't do much more, max sharpness is around f/16 which is really poor. When there are better and cheaper lenses, why bother unless 10mm vs 11mm makes a big difference.
 
Kaouthia said:
There is definitely no comparison between the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 though.
Click to expand...

Yes your right their is no comparison but then your not comparing like with like as the sigma costs around £700 where as the Nikon £1200.

I know this thread started as a wish list and ideally i suppose we would all like a full selection Nikon or Canon Lens in out kit but we have to be realistic.

Roy
 
Roy S said:
Yes your right their is no comparison but then your not comparing like with like as the sigma costs around £700 where as the Nikon £1200.

I know this thread started as a wish list and ideally i suppose we would all like a full selection Nikon or Canon Lens in out kit but we have to be realistic.

Roy
Click to expand...

yeah, think i might call it a "realistic wish list" instead :lol:
 
Have a look at the nikon 16-85mm VR excellent IQ and miles better than the sigma
 
Roy S said:
Yes your right their is no comparison but then your not comparing like with like as the sigma costs around £700 where as the Nikon £1200.
Click to expand...

You are comparing like with like.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8

Both manufacturers only have one choice for that focal length & aperture, and those are them.

Sigma 10-20mm f/4.5-5.6 = £399
Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 = £499
Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 = £694
Nikon 12-24mm f/4 = £805

The Sigma f/4.5-5.6 is still the best of the three overall. Sure, it's a stop or so slower than the others but as I said, just as sharp, but with less unwanted distortion issues and CA than the others. Cost isn't necessarily a deciding factor in "best".

Roy S said:
but we have to be realistic.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this bit.
 
daugirdas said:
Yes, I've tried 10-20mm. It is not that horrible, and capable of 6x4 prints.
Click to expand...
Sigma 10-20 only capable of 6x4 prints? Huh?

I rented one from Lens for Hire last summer, used on a 2nd body (which was only a D40x) at our school's prom, and the prints were excellent at A3 size (I didn't try anything bigger, but wouldn't imagine it would stretch much higher without going a bit soft in the eyes).

I was so surprised at the quality that I nearly ordered one myself, but as it is I'm considering full frame for the summer and as such will probably rent a Nikon 12-24 2.8 for this summer's prom with a view to buying one for the following year. I have to say the lack of flexibility to use grads on the 12-24 is a bit of an issue for landscapes though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top