wide angle for Nikon D300

lukewoodford said:
Yes but I was refering to wanting autofocus and alot of my shoots do involve kids but that doesnt mean I want the wide angle mainly for shooting kids. It means that if I use this lens for kids it would be easier at the moment if it had autofocus not manual. This lens will mainly let used more for the senior work where im in urban areas. This is all pointless anyway because I only mentioned kids in the first place because someone mentioned manual. I didnt think id have to go into great detail about exactly what I was using it for. I just wanted simple advice on a lens which will be mainly used for portraits. Once again everyone give nice good advice but you have to come in and complicate things. Please just dont post in my advice threads mate because you dont help.
Click to expand...


I have to say "Flash in the pan" has made valid points and your attitude will not help in getting advice on here, you wouldn't use anything less than 50mm for good portrait shots, good landscape shots 10-24mm, just take a chill pill and listen to the advice that's been given, or alternatively don't bother asking !
 
lukewoodford said:
Thats interesting, that lens is the same price as the 24mm 2.8 prime. Do you know if the prim would be better quality? The fact that it goes to 17mm would be great and the zoom is just a bonus.
Click to expand...

Good question - I never shot both side by side.

However I did shoot my Tamron 17-50 @ 35mm vs. a Nikkor 35/2 and when both were at f/2.8 the Tamron was sharper.

So I'm going to speculate and say that it'll probably be very close indeed - but bear in mind I'm only guessing.
 
This thread is getting a tad harsh, the guy asked for some advice, that is all.It is up to him wether he chooses to heed all advice,some advice or none of it, his call, end of.........:)
 
TG. said:
I have to say "Flash in the pan" has made valid points and your attitude will not help in getting advice on here, you wouldn't use anything less than 50mm for good portrait shots, good landscape shots 10-24mm, just take a chill pill and listen to the advice that's been given, or alternatively don't bother asking !
Click to expand...

Yeah but its not the first time. And I have taken advice on aboard from everyone and grateful to everyone that has imputed. Check back some of my previous threads like the Nikon Lens money no object one if you want a good read.
 
A lot of good advice has been given here, and if you don't mind me saying ... the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a fantastic lens. I had one, and sold it when I got the Nikon 24-70 f2.8. The Tamron was very sharp throughout, and very well priced. Loved it.

This would be the lens that most suits your budget and apparent needs. It's wide and fast enough for indoor use and priced very well.
 
I also believe Tokina are bringing out a 10-24 2.8 constant, which I'm waiting for I think. Not sure when it's due out and it'd probably be out of your budget (around £400 I think) but worth considering perhaps.

Eddie
 
Some heat in here chaps - chill pill methinks too

Luke - why an f2.8? If it's for use in lower light then fine, if you're thinking it'll give less DoF than an f4 lens for arty effects, then on a wider lens you're sadly mistaken

To others, I use the 18-70 most of the time in my kid shoots often at the wide end, and yes I do use (and find it fantastic) a 12-24 too

On very wide lenses the aperture setting has more to do with the shutter speed than any DoF control as it's so great whatever the aperture setting

For what you're doing I think you'll find a prime a bit restrictive when shooting active beasts like kids, so I'd suggest a wide-ish or very wide zoom - I also wouldn't give much heed to whether it's f2.8 or f4, there's sod all difference and the D300's higher ISO capture can compensate anyway

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Some heat in here chaps - chill pill methinks too

Luke - why an f2.8? If it's for use in lower light then fine, if you're thinking it'll give less DoF than an f4 lens for arty effects, then on a wider lens you're sadly mistaken

To others, I use the 18-70 most of the time in my kid shoots often at the wide end, and yes I do use (and find it fantastic) a 12-24 too

On very wide lenses the aperture setting has more to do with the shutter speed than any DoF control as it's so great whatever the aperture setting

For what you're doing I think you'll find a prime a bit restrictive when shooting active beasts like kids, so I'd suggest a wide-ish or very wide zoom - I also wouldn't give much heed to whether it's f2.8 or f4, there's sod all difference and the D300's higher ISO capture can compensate anyway

DD
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info Dave, I didnt know about the DOF on a wider lens so thats interesting. Id say the most important reason for 2.8 would be I hate using flash but then again unless im trying to acheive DOF im usually fine with with f/4 or even 5, its just nice to know it can go to 2.8 if needed. I know I can wack the iso up but dont like any noise in my family/portrait type images, however I know there is a good program out there to get rid of it but i dont have it (i dont think the lightroom noise reduction is very good).I would possibly be using it in low light but if im at a gig that isnt to rammed ill probably wack on the 50mm 1.4. and to be honest I dont think I will have many gigs anyway.

Also someone said that wide angle for landscapes but im not traditional and like the effect a wide angle can give. I say I do portraits but I dont know what my work is classed as really, I just say portraits so you get the rough idea.

On another note I saw the 17-55 nikon 2.8 for sale on ebay earlier, mint condition, I bidded as it was at $800 (£500) and got out bidded with 2 seconds left! Gutted! I dont want to spend that much but I know its an amazing lens and it was a bargain.

Im gonna do some think as in what lens to get, I have got so used to just using my 50mm and im extremely happy with the results (once I leart to stop it down a bit for sharpness) but I do sometimes wish I had a wide angle for some situations.
 
DiddyDave said:
also wouldn't give much heed to whether it's f2.8 or f4, there's sod all difference and the D300's higher ISO capture can compensate anyway

DD
Click to expand...

Extremely silly and ill thought out statement.

-You get a brighter viewfinder with an f/2.8 which is very useful in lower light.
-You get better subject isolation possibilities if thats what you are looking for
-An f/2.8 stopped down to f/4 will be sharper than an f/4 lens at f/4.

Cracking up the ISO helps with non on those things.
 
Luke, no disrespect and no offence intended, but your previous posts suggest that you are wanting an f/2.8 without appreciating why.The lens you just sold was f/3.5 at it's widest and the difference between the two (especially if you aren't going to be shooting wide open all the time) is minimal.

Also,if the 18mm end of your 18-200 wasn't wide enough, then a 24mm prime seems a really odd choice as a replacement :shrug:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Luke, no disrespect and no offence intended, but your previous posts suggest that you are wanting an f/2.8 without appreciating why.The lens you just sold was f/3.5 at it's widest and the difference between the two (especially if you aren't going to be shooting wide open all the time) is minimal.

Also,if the 18mm end of your 18-200 wasn't wide enough, then a 24mm prime seems a really odd choice as a replacement :shrug:
Click to expand...

No mate im probably dont explain myself that well at times but I sold the lens because I only sometimes use it for the wide angle so I thought someone could get much better use out of it, I only bought it in the first place because I knew nothing about photography and knew it was a good all rounder. I assumed that a wide angle for the same price or less would be better quality than a lens that has all that range. I do think the lens was great but I might aswell just have a wide lens as thats what id use. I dont want to get in a talk about its the photographer thats makes the pictures and stuff, I just asume that its logical to get a range that I would use.

The 18mm end was wide enough but again the lens was quite pointless for me not using anything but the wide end. Now someone can appreciate it and get good use out of it.
 
Well lets distill the options a bit.

Personally I really like most Nikkor primes (apart from the 28mm which is crap), the 24 to 35mm lenses are all small, light, fast, sharp and cheap. I really like fitting a prime to my D60 - its small, lightweight discrete and fun package.

For wideangle usage, the 24mm isn't that wide on a crop camera. Its a very nice lens though, and is really good if you have plans to go full frame.

The Tamron 17-50 is a REALLY good choice here though as well.

Maybe you could have a look at your 18-200 images and find out where you shot the most - there is a program called ExposurePlot (http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html) which will go through your images, and tell you where you shoot. Perhaps this will help you focus on your most used range.

At this point, you are getting a lot of advice from all directions, most of it very sensible, but some of it conflicting!

So I'd be tempted to have a good long think, look at your previous usage and your preferred focal range, and possibily re-evaluate?
 
puddleduck said:
Well lets distill the options a bit.

Personally I really like most Nikkor primes (apart from the 28mm which is crap), the 24 to 35mm lenses are all small, light, fast, sharp and cheap. I really like fitting a prime to my D60 - its small, lightweight discrete and fun package.

For wideangle usage, the 24mm isn't that wide on a crop camera. Its a very nice lens though, and is really good if you have plans to go full frame.

The Tamron 17-50 is a REALLY good choice here though as well.

Maybe you could have a look at your 18-200 images and find out where you shot the most - there is a program called ExposurePlot (http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html) which will go through your images, and tell you where you shoot. Perhaps this will help you focus on your most used range.

At this point, you are getting a lot of advice from all directions, most of it very sensible, but some of it conflicting!

So I'd be tempted to have a good long think, look at your previous usage and your preferred focal range, and possibily re-evaluate?
Click to expand...


Yeah definately mate but not much point going and looking at my old pictures thoguh because I only uded a bit of the range on my first couple of shoots and that was because I hadnt leart to use my feet:) I got my 50mm and never looked back, love it for what I use it for, just a wide angle would be handy in some situations, ill go and have a think. thanks for the help.
 
I've got the Tamron 17-50 and I can highly, highly recommend it (for what my recommendation is worth). It's a great lens. Focuses fast, nice and sharp and just a good workhorse lens. I got mine from ebay for £219 delivered which is a bargain. It's pretty much not left my camera since getting it.
 
welly said:
I've got the Tamron 17-50 and I can highly, highly recommend it (for what my recommendation is worth). It's a great lens. Focuses fast, nice and sharp and just a good workhorse lens. I got mine from ebay for £219 delivered which is a bargain. It's pretty much not left my camera since getting it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, can you use f/2.8 throughout the range?
 
puddleduck said:
Extremely silly and ill thought out statement.
Click to expand...

My thoughts on your comments precisely m8 :cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:

-You get a brighter viewfinder with an f/2.8 which is very useful in lower light.

In the real world it makes no difference at all unless you're using manual focus, if the camera's focus points can 'see' well enough that's fine

-You get better subject isolation possibilities if thats what you are looking for

Not with very wide lenses you don't, try using a DoF calculator on 12-24mm and you'll see what I mean

-An f/2.8 stopped down to f/4 will be sharper than an f/4 lens at f/4.

Depends entirely on the lens. A cheap f2.8 at f4 is unlikely to be as sharp as a good f4 lens wide open; and just because on a bench-test you may see a difference that doesn't mean in real world shooting you would - and why on earth would anyone buy an f2.8 lens if not to shoot it at f2.8

Cracking up the ISO helps with non on those things.

And this last point is just irrelevant as none of your points has any merit

There's often a big difference between those who read about this technical stuff and those that just shoot it. Unless you shoot with a pile of crap these differences from f2.8 to f4 are marginal at best, and then only on large enlargements

:thumbs:

DD
 
lukewoodford said:
Thanks for the reply, can you use f/2.8 throughout the range?
Click to expand...


Yes, it's a cracking wee lens, Luke. Image quality-wise it's excellent, build-wise I found it a bit plasticky for my tastes (although well enough screwed together), but as it's less than a third of the price of a Nikon 17-55 that's a moot point.
 
Very good choice you did :thumbs:, do enjoy your new toy :)
 
Its fab, IMHO its one of the best Nikon fit lenses you can get. Superb for landscape (better than the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX)



429975624_3afb1c99a9_o.jpg


440597847_946d1457e0_o.jpg


441674126_d0670edc88_o.jpg


522093017_cc7647f4fc_o.jpg


1536759562_6e046665cd_o.jpg


1570639480_5f8b110c23_o.jpg


​
 
puddleduck said:
Its fab, IMHO its one of the best Nikon fit lenses you can get. Superb for landscape (better than the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX)
Click to expand...


Jeez Puddle - do you get around a bit or what :eek::eek::eek:

Some great places & stuff on your flickr too - are they all in Cambridge too ??? :lol:

Luke - glad you're sorted - enjoy

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Jeez Puddle - do you get around a bit or what :eek::eek::eek:

Some great places & stuff on your flickr too - are they all in Cambridge too ??? DD
Click to expand...

Yeah, I tend to spend about 3 months of the year shooting overseas.

Hardly anything at all is in Cambridge :lol:
 
Yep, great choice with the Tamron. Definitely a thinking man`s lens. I`ve owned one for over a year now and it`s an absolutely fantastic choice. I live in Japan and it`s a very popular model over here too.

Puddleduck...nice shot of Tokyo with Roppongi tower in the background. Unfortunately Roppongi reminds me of some of the worst hangovers I`ve ever had...
 
Puddle, the last photo of your example set is awesome.............:thumbs:
 
RichieRich said:
Puddleduck...nice shot of Tokyo with Roppongi tower in the background. Unfortunately Roppongi reminds me of some of the worst hangovers I`ve ever had...
Click to expand...

Thats about as close as I'd get to Roppongi! :gag:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top