new walk around lens help?

Dubn83 said:
...But will I miss the wider 24-17 I'd b missing in my new walk around?
Click to expand...
Why don't you make statistics of the shots, you've made this far? Then you have a clear view of, what you're most used focal lengths are...

Here's a sample made with Exif Viewer (http://www.amarra.de/englisch.html):

00-D300s-brndvidde.jpg



Dubn83 said:
Is there nothing with a bit more reach that's worth lookin at?
Click to expand...
You've already been told to get the Nikkor 16-85! :D
Wouldn't really recommend anything else...
 
You need to consider what other lenses you have ( or may get ), Dave. I started with the kit, then added 70-300, then 10-20 and now tamron 17-50 vc to replace the kit.

Ok, I have a 20 (30mm) gap between the 50 and the 70 but I don't miss it. The thing that I am constantly in need of is quicker lenses - the light in the uk often isn't brilliant so you might want speed or you'll be bumping the ISO and the d3100 can get noisy quickly.

Shame I'm a bit far aware or I'd be pleased to lend you the 17-50
 
Well I've got the kit lens that I want to replace as my 50mm 1.4 is living on my D3100 as my walk around lens at the mo. plus the sigma 10-20mm & a Nikon 70-300 vr. I've got a pod, pole spare battery, 32gb extreme 3 card + bk up 8gb, sb400 flash, 500gb hard drive, dell net book in the bag. So think I'm all covered except sum hitech filters/holders and the a new/upgraded walk around.
And on that note as u've said above the fixed 2.8 may well b more handy.
 
Last edited:
Ok so it's my 30th in a few wks and I've decided to treat myself with a new lens (and I just finished a big cash in hand job ;)
So should I go with what most people say and get the 17-50 2.8 tamron vc over the sigma 17-70 2.8-4?
Or splash out a bit more and get the 24-70 2.8 sigma (witch goes on dx & fx bodies?)


Or get a second hand nikon 17-55 2.8?
 
Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 every time

Riz :)
 
No experience of it, Dave but I'd save your cash toward a d7000 and get the tamron
 
First off the Nikon 17-55 is a stunning lens, imo the best DX specific lens Nikon makes. BUT it is big and heavy as is the siggy 24-70. With the D3100 being a nice small body it will be unbalanced. Of the lenses I've used the tammy 17-50 fits nicely.
 
They are not significantly heavier than the 70-300 VR, but you are asking for a walkabout lens ;) so weight maybe an issue is all.

I'd never have considered a grip for a D3100 (didn't realise they did them) but that would help with balance, it would of course add to the all up weight too. Also don't forget that the siggy takes 82mm filters if ever you want to use them, which will be costly!

And yes the siggy would be the same angle of view @ 24mm as the kit lens @ 24mm on the D3100.
 
Put it this way guys: u've got 550 notes to spend, u want to buy new, witch would u go for knowing u have a d3100, kit lens, nikon 50mm 1.4, sigma 10-20mm, 70-300mm vr.
•Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4
•sigma 24-70mm 2.8
•tamron 17-50mm 2.8

Now I do love the the 1.4 on my 50mm but as a walk around (witch as the d3100 isn't sealed ud only use in the dry outside) think I could live with a bit slower. And as I have the 10-20 don't think I'd miss the 20-24 gap that I mite end up with?

I really could do with a test run on the above don't I?
 
Dubn83 said:
Put it this way guys: u've got 550 notes to spend, u want to buy new, witch would u go for knowing u have a d3100, kit lens, nikon 50mm 1.4, sigma 10-20mm, 70-300mm vr.
•Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4
•sigma 24-70mm 2.8
•tamron 17-50mm 2.8

Now I do love the the 1.4 on my 50mm but as a walk around (witch as the d3100 isn't sealed ud only use in the dry outside) think I could live with a bit slower. And as I have the 10-20 don't think I'd miss the 20-24 gap that I mite end up with?

I really could do with a test run on the above don't I?
Click to expand...
For me I'd get the Tamron 17-50.
 
Secondhand Nikkor 16-85 mm! :D


Seriously though... have you tried any of them?
 
Get the tamron man and get shooting. If its not right, you can spend the rest getting bladdered to forget
 
I went from tamron 17-50 to the Nikon 17-55 and can say it was leaps n bounds ahead.
 
go with the VC version of the 17-55 its way sharper than the 'old model' dont belive internet myth... ive used both and did a write up of the lens on here shortly after owning it - its a BRILLIANT lens.. if you want more 'length' go with the 24-105 canon
 
tomkbucks said:
go with the VC version of the 17-55 its way sharper than the 'old model' dont belive internet myth... ive used both and did a write up of the lens on here shortly after owning it - its a BRILLIANT lens.. if you want more 'length' go with the 24-105 canon
Click to expand...

I'm not sure ill get the "new" version secondhand, but how do u know witch is witch?
 
I had a tamron 18-270 on my d7000, regret selling it... now have 18-55 and 55-200
 
Dubn83 said:
Ok so dose anyone live in the Dorset area and wouldnt mind meetin up so i can try out any of these;

Sigma 24-70 2.8
Nikon 17-55 2.8
Tamron 17-50 2.8

Or even a 17-70 2.8-4 (even if its just to rule it out)
Click to expand...

pop into Castle Cameras - very helpful
 
don't see why not, shame they are shut on sundays
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top