Nikon lens advice please.

Hi Gary,
Back on topic :)
I think you said you already have the 70-200 f2.8 so the only way to go in my opinion is with the previously mentioned 17-55 f2.8 or a 35/50/85 prime. I rented the 17-55 a while back and it is awesome but £1000. A 35 f1.8 will set you back about £140, a 50 about £100 (not sure about the 85?). All will produce great quality and are fast enough for low light.
Hope this helps.
 
The 17-55 is a very nice lens indeed. It's vastly more expensive than the Tamron but it does show in terms of build quality, speed of operation etc... You certainly wouldn't feel hard done by. I also think it works far better at 2.8 than the Tamron but I have heard other's suggest otherwise so take that with a pinch of salt. MPB have a couple for less than £700. Not the cheapest ever but a decent warranty should the worst happen.
 
gad-westy said:
The 17-55 is a very nice lens indeed. It's vastly more expensive than the Tamron but it does show in terms of build quality, speed of operation etc... You certainly wouldn't feel hard done by. I also think it works far better at 2.8 than the Tamron but I have heard other's suggest otherwise so take that with a pinch of salt. MPB have a couple for less than £700. Not the cheapest ever but a decent warranty should the worst happen.
Click to expand...

I would like to have had this lens on a body with AF microadjust as I had backfocus issues even after sending it back to canon!

Was pretty much an L standard lens in all but name
 
TonyNI said:
I would like to have had this lens on a body with AF microadjust as I had backfocus issues even after sending it back to canon!

Was pretty much an L standard lens in all but name
Click to expand...

You sent a Nikon lens to Canon? That might be where the problem lay... :naughty:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You sent a Nikon lens to Canon? That might be where the problem lay... :naughty:
Click to expand...

LOL Sorry I had a canon 17-55IS before I switched to Nikon haha. My bad got mixed up
 
I think that given that you have the 70-200 f2.8 the only sensible way the go is the 17-55mm f2.8. I love my 17-55mm, yes it's expensive but I wasn't disappointed. I haven't used the tamron so don't know how it compares but if you are used to the build quality on your 70-200 you might be disappointed.
 
I started on an 18-70mm, moving to a Tamron 17-50mm and then onto a Nikon 17-55mm.

Like FITP says, there's very little optically between the Tamron 17-50mm and the Nikon 17-55mm. The AF is maybe a bit more positive and speedy on the Nikon but images laid side-by-side from both, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference, they really are optically superb.

Where the more expensive Nikon trumps the Tamron is in the build department - it really is a beast of a lens and will withstand most abuse. Mine is actually in the repair shop at the moment after getting submerged in a lake but it tried its hardest to keep working.... :lol:

I've always said that people buy the Tamron if they can live with a little compromise and people buy the Nikon if they're subjecting their gear to some incredible abuse.

I combine mine with a 70-200mm VR1 and TBH, don't notice the 15mm gap in focal length. I bought mine used for about £500 and it's been the best £500 I've spent on photography gear.
 
I've just made an offer on 16-85 VR because I have had no success getting an 18-105 so I thought I would push the boat out and go for better quality, looking at some of the earlier comments before the war started I'm wondering if I have made the right decision, after all I only desired VR. Having said that the member may not accept my offer.
 
specialman said:
I started on an 18-70mm, moving to a Tamron 17-50mm and then onto a Nikon 17-55mm.

Like FITP says, there's very little optically between the Tamron 17-50mm and the Nikon 17-55mm. The AF is maybe a bit more positive and speedy on the Nikon but images laid side-by-side from both, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference, they really are optically superb.

Where the more expensive Nikon trumps the Tamron is in the build department - it really is a beast of a lens and will withstand most abuse. Mine is actually in the repair shop at the moment after getting submerged in a lake but it tried its hardest to keep working.... :lol:

I've always said that people buy the Tamron if they can live with a little compromise and people buy the Nikon if they're subjecting their gear to some incredible abuse.

I combine mine with a 70-200mm VR1 and TBH, don't notice the 15mm gap in focal length. I bought mine used for about £500 and it's been the best £500 I've spent on photography gear.
Click to expand...

Thanks Pat that's a great help. The only disappointment for me with your reply is not having the full story of how it ended in the lake. :lol:
 
My choice would be primes, keep the 18-105mm for wide angle/general purpose and for the price of some of the other lenses talked about here you could pick up a 35mm 1.8G, 50mm 1.8G and maybe an 85mm 1.8 too. Way better quality.
 
The Chiller said:
....The only disappointment for me with your reply is not having the full story of how it ended in the lake. :lol:
Click to expand...

I was altering an off-camera flash at the end of a guy's keepnet in abut two foot of water. Once I'd made the flash adjustment I looked down and the lens was face down (attached to the D7000) in the water, nearly up to the lens mount. Probably like that for 10 seconds or more. I tried to dry it out but it was 80 degrees and instantly fogged up. The AF went all weird so I took it home, left it on the side to dry further and then tried it again.... it tried to work but there was residue inside and the AF went eventually.

Should get it back this week (a month after sending it off - damned Olympics!! :) ) but it's cost £460 to repair. I've missed it dearly though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top