which lens
- Thread starter ftmftm
- Start date
I also have the kit lens 18-50 on my D50 and for Landscapes and indoor portrait use find it very good.
For further away shots, such as sport and wildlife i bought a 70-300 Nikon lens off ebay for £50, have found it very good
For further away shots, such as sport and wildlife i bought a 70-300 Nikon lens off ebay for £50, have found it very good
Sonsey
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 427
- Edit My Images
- No
Well as an owner of the Tamron you mentioned I can tell you that I've been very happy with it.
Pro's:-
Sharp with decent contrast.
Light as far as lenses this size go, great for walkabout duties.
Constant f/2.8 through the range, this would probably be helpful when being used for portraits aswell.
Con's:-
Build quality isn't as good as the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
No USM, so the focus motor can be a bit noisy, but no too bad.
Only 28mm at the wide end, not the widest on a 1.5/1.6 crop factor camera... but then again you have the kit lens for wide duties.
I've no knowledge on the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro you mention but I personally did alot of online research compairing the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 before buying and came to the conclusion that the Tamron just edge's it in the picture quality stakes (but not by alot) and the Sigma wins in the build quality stakes at the cost of extra weight.
I went with the Tamron because I wanted a light walkabout lens with very good picture quality at a decent price... you pay's your money, you take's your choice.
Pro's:-
Sharp with decent contrast.
Light as far as lenses this size go, great for walkabout duties.
Constant f/2.8 through the range, this would probably be helpful when being used for portraits aswell.
Con's:-
Build quality isn't as good as the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
No USM, so the focus motor can be a bit noisy, but no too bad.
Only 28mm at the wide end, not the widest on a 1.5/1.6 crop factor camera... but then again you have the kit lens for wide duties.
I've no knowledge on the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro you mention but I personally did alot of online research compairing the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 before buying and came to the conclusion that the Tamron just edge's it in the picture quality stakes (but not by alot) and the Sigma wins in the build quality stakes at the cost of extra weight.
I went with the Tamron because I wanted a light walkabout lens with very good picture quality at a decent price... you pay's your money, you take's your choice.
DJW
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,040
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think you should try & keep the wide angle end of the zoom at around 18mm if poss.....you'll miss it otherwise. How about the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 ...review here
If you look at FingerZ shots / blogs you'll notice most if his are by this lens....nice & sharp. Only downside is people report a bit of AF hunting now & again.
If you look at FingerZ shots / blogs you'll notice most if his are by this lens....nice & sharp. Only downside is people report a bit of AF hunting now & again.
noah
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,059
- Edit My Images
- Yes
you could consider the 18-70 ED that often comes with the d70. it's not f2.8 but that's the only way in which it can be faulted. it's also only £160 in perfect condition at ffordes and other s/h shops when they have them in stock.
it's sharp, light, fast and silent SW focusing, and comparitively cheap.
it's sharp, light, fast and silent SW focusing, and comparitively cheap.
It's just as sharp across the board but with an extra bit of reach - very good colour rendition and only a couple of grammes heavier (you don't notice any additional weight.
Zoom action is smooth with no rough spots and the Manual override is good.
I would say it's just on the edge of being OK for portraits - I still use the 80-200 at the short end (equivalent to 120mm in digi terms). That would have more flexibility, I reckon.
And yes it's not cheap but it's worth every penny in my opinion. I will buy one for myself when I move on from my current job.
Zoom action is smooth with no rough spots and the Manual override is good.
I would say it's just on the edge of being OK for portraits - I still use the 80-200 at the short end (equivalent to 120mm in digi terms). That would have more flexibility, I reckon.
And yes it's not cheap but it's worth every penny in my opinion. I will buy one for myself when I move on from my current job.