Not another 'what lens' thread, surely??

Lefrash

Lefrash

Suspended / Banned
Messages
136
Name
Fraser
Edit My Images
Yes
But it is! Sorry!!i I've already been pestering you all with (probably) pretty basic questions, so thought I'd continue the pattern and ask, what lens should I get? It's a total minefield to a newbie like me, so hoping to drink from this fountain of knowledge! have I buttered you up enough yet?

Anyway...I now have a Nikon d7000. I have an old sigma 18-80mm which seems to be very 'soft' even in the focus areas. I was given a trade in price of zero for it from mpb, So that tells me everything! Haha. I've since bought a Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 2nd for 50 cabbage on eBay. This I'm not too sure about yet but price suggests it won't be particularly great either. Bit of an impulse but after a few glasses of red!

I'm looking to purchase a decent Sharp all rounder. Wide enough for landscape shots but preferably be a zoom. The 210mm I have isn't long enough for wildlife photography from my brief experience with it. Hard to fill the frame with anything properly wild.

Max spend would be 200 quid, new or used. If it was towards the top end then I'd probably want to sell my current lenses (hence a prime lens might not be a preferred choice) . But, what bargains are out there?

And yes, i know, a workman doesn't blame his tools.. It's probably my technique.. I don't know what im doing... and so on. That's all very true, but curiosity of a nicer lens has got me itchy for gas!
 
The lens you want doesn't really exist.

Any zoom wide enough for landscape and longer than 200mm is going to be challenged in the IQ dept.

If you want OK quality, you could do it with 2 lenses. If you want great, it's at least 3.

The whole point of buying an interchangeable lens camera is to be able to swap lenses.

If your priority is a camera with a wide to supertele lens,
Buy a bridge camera
 
Last edited:
To be fair to you Phil, after reading my own post I've kinda mistyped. I wouldn't be expecting a 15-3000mm or anything, I tried to make the point that even a 200mm would be too short for what I thought I could do with it... so a long lens would need to be a separate one. I agree with that.

The sigma 17-50 f2.8 is worth a look at though! Thanks for the input guys!
 
Sigma 17-70 2.8 - 4.5 I have is good.

Sigma 18-50 2.8 was terrible, sold it almost immediately.

Bit of a mine field
 
Lefrash said:
To be fair to you Phil, after reading my own post I've kinda mistyped. I wouldn't be expecting a 15-3000mm or anything, I tried to make the point that even a 200mm would be too short for what I thought I could do with it... so a long lens would need to be a separate one. I agree with that.

The sigma 17-50 f2.8 is worth a look at though! Thanks for the input guys!
Click to expand...

I used to have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 (there is a 17-50 too which is a DX lens). I found it to be excellent and at £200 or just under was a bargain. Should be great for what you want and did me fine until I could afford the 24-70 Nikon.

In terms of a good lens for the money the Nikon 18-70 is around £80 second hand - for a 'kit' lens it is very good and cant see you getting anything better for sub £150.
 
GTG said:
Sigma 17-70 2.8 - 4.5 I have is good.

Sigma 18-50 2.8 was terrible, sold it almost immediately.

Bit of a mine field
Click to expand...

I had the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and loved it. But that's the older version and Sigma's of that era were a bit hit and miss with build quality. The newer version is the 17-50 f2.8 and that is meant to be very good.

Get one of those or the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and then get something 70-300mm for your long end and add a 50mm or 35mm f1.8 prime. Then you're all good. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top