Recommendations to cover focal lengths

T

tubbylad

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I'm new to posting on the site but have been an avid reader for some time.

I have a Nikon D7000 with kit lens 18-105, plus Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 all of which I am happy with.

However I'm lucky to have £300 of Jessop vouchers burning a hole in my pocket and willing to add some cash towards it to get a good lens set up across the focal range (without spending silly money) essentially by replacing the kit lens.

I like to take photos of pretty much every situation: architecture; holiday snaps incl city breaks; my baby; sports; wildlife. I wouldnt say I am particularly interested at the moment in sitting on top of a hill taking landscape shots, but hey that may change.

My question is should I look to get (not necessarily at the same time) a WA (Sigma 10-20 / Tokina 11-16) then a standard zoom ( Sigma 17-50 / Sigma 17-70 / Tamron 17-50) or do you think I would be best utilising the 50mm prime in this general range and go for a 35mm prime with a WA?

Any advice or idea of your set ups would be much appreciated as I don't want to make an expensive mistake by having lenses I won't use.
 
Possibly my question was to long and vague (sorry).

Really what I am after is advice on the amount of usage people get from their lenses.

From what I read i would say a high proportion of people have lenses between circa 20/24mm and 70/120mm on their camera the majority of the time.

Starting afresh would the advice be to fill that space with a decent standard zoom at the wider end plus 1 prime, or have 2 or 3 primes in the bag only.

Sure it's each to their own but I am interested in opinions.
 
tubbylad said:
Hi all, I'm new to posting on the site but have been an avid reader for some time.

I have a Nikon D7000 with kit lens 18-105, plus Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 all of which I am happy with.

However I'm lucky to have £300 of Jessop vouchers burning a hole in my pocket and willing to add some cash towards it to get a good lens set up across the focal range (without spending silly money) essentially by replacing the kit lens.

I like to take photos of pretty much every situation: architecture; holiday snaps incl city breaks; my baby; sports; wildlife. I wouldnt say I am particularly interested at the moment in sitting on top of a hill taking landscape shots, but hey that may change.

My question is should I look to get (not necessarily at the same time) a WA (Sigma 10-20 / Tokina 11-16) then a standard zoom ( Sigma 17-50 / Sigma 17-70 / Tamron 17-50) or do you think I would be best utilising the 50mm prime in this general range and go for a 35mm prime with a WA?

Any advice or idea of your set ups would be much appreciated as I don't want to make an expensive mistake by having lenses I won't use.
Click to expand...

I'd be adding a UWA, but then I am biased as I like w-i-d-e shots and encourage distortion. I have recently sold my Sigma 10-20mm to replace it with the Sigma 8-16mm next month or so.

Have a search of flickr to see if UWA is something you would use, but at that price it would have to be used a lot.

Other than that, you mention sports. You may wish to get a 70-200mm f2.8 if you have the budget. But again, how much do you really shoot at longer focal lengths?

Have you considered a macro lens? Something like the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is one sharp lens. I have it.

The 18-105mm is very good, so unless you are shooting in low-light I am not convinced that you'll benefit from something like a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. You have the 50mm f1.4 for that.
 
Last edited:
eddiewood said:
I'd be adding a UWA, but then I am biased as I like w-i-d-e shots and encourage distortion. I have recently sold my Sigma 10-20mm to replace it with the Sigma 8-16mm next month or so.

Have a search of flickr to see if UWA is something you would use, but at that price it would have to be used a lot.

Other than that, you mention sports. You may wish to get a 70-200mm f2.8 if you have the budget. But again, how much do you really shoot at longer focal lengths?

Have you considered a macro lens? Something like the Tamron 90mm f2.8 is one sharp lens. I have it.

The 18-105mm is very good, so unless you are shooting in low-light I am not convinced that you'll benefit from something like a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. You have the 50mm f1.4 for that.
Click to expand...

Thanks eddiewood.

How much use do you get out of your macro, is it just for close ups or do you use it for anything else - its not a lens I have looked at so know nothing about them.

Do fancy an UWA but I need to think how much I would use it, especially if I get a standard zoom like the Tamron. As for the telephoto I'm happy with the 70-300 at the moment.

Thanks Mike
 
tubbylad said:
Thanks eddiewood.

How much use do you get out of your macro, is it just for close ups or do you use it for anything else - its not a lens I have looked at so know nothing about them.

Do fancy an UWA but I need to think how much I would use it, especially if I get a standard zoom like the Tamron. As for the telephoto I'm happy with the 70-300 at the moment.

Thanks Mike
Click to expand...

I only use it for macro, so it is probably the least used lens. I also have the Metz 15 MS-1 macro flash on it, which is very nice. It does double up as a portrait lens though, as macros are very sharp (but slow to AF). But I prefer the 50mm focal length on APS-C for portraiture.

I use the UWA much more than the macro, probably more than the 16-50mm f2.8 too, but I am a wide freak like I said, I intentionally get right up close at 10mm to distort the subject.

Other than replacing your walkabout lens, your lens selection would be in niche areas like UWA, macro or sports, so it may be inevitable that it is your least used lens. But like I said, if you are a daylight shooter, will you see any benefit from a constant aperture zoom like the Tamron 17-50mm when you already have a good walkabout and the 50mm f1.4?

Have you considered getting a flash, tripod, or some other accessory instead?
 
I'd say an UWA was the way to go, or how about Macro? - both lens' don't have to be used soley for their intended purpose, but more creatively aswell!
Or how about a 35 1.8 (possibly my favourite ever nikon lens!)
 
Sigma 10-20 is a great fun lens I loved it when I had a DX camera.
 
I've the Sigma UWA 10-20mm and enjoy using it. I couldn't believe how much more you can get in, including your feet if you're not carefully ...
 
andyred said:
I've the Sigma UWA 10-20mm and enjoy using it. I couldn't believe how much more you can get in, including your feet if you're not carefully ...
Click to expand...

In my case stomach, I haven't seen my feet for years. :D
 
Think a flash might be worth thinking about rather than a lens - probably the one thing that will improve your photography the most (although you might not realise)...lots of people assume flash will result in output just like your pop up flash, until they get a 'proper' flash and better still get it off the camera.

Your lens setup is more than enough to get very good images IMO, and covers quite a lot of ground. For a few hundred quid, and not spending big bucks, I dont think you'll see the massive improvement in lenses considering what you have.

Appreciate you did say lens, but maybe give the flash a thought?
 
Thanks for the advice all. It's definitely food for thought and I think I will plump for an UWA and flash and possibly look to upgrade my kit lens with the Tamron when I can
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top