Right, but the difference between 12 and 18 is like the difference between 135 and 200.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If you could only buy 3 lenses . . .
- Thread starter NickD
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right, but the difference between 12 and 18 is like the difference between 135 and 200.
That's a lot at the wide end:
The field of view at 18mm of the Nikon 18-200 is around 76 degrees.
The field of view at 12mm of the Nikon 12.24 is around 99 degrees.
Thats a 23 degree difference, which is signficant.
It really depends on what you like to shoot. If you like to go wide, it might matter to you that the 18-200 has pretty significant distortion at 18mm, while the Tokina 12-24 has pretty much no distortion to speak of at 18mm. At 12mm the Tokina has significant distortion, but it still appears to be less than the 18-200 at 18mm.
I own both these lenses, although I haven't had a chance to really put the Tokina through its paces.
Westside Guy said:
I guess a true wide angle would be better at that end, especially as regards distortion.
Just not sure what I really prefer so far. Still finding out what I like to shoot.
If I could only buy three more...
180mm f/3.5L Macro
400mm f/2.8L IS
600mm f/4L IS
Yep...and I'm playing the lottery every day...
180mm f/3.5L Macro
400mm f/2.8L IS
600mm f/4L IS
Yep...and I'm playing the lottery every day...
Why the 75-300 and 28-200? Also I'm guessing your going the canon route since I don't believe there is a 75-300 in the Nikon camp. For landscapes you should probably get a better lens then the kit lens. But anyways try them out if you like them great if not you can always sell them on ebay.
I seriously couldn't recommend your lens selections less. The 70-300 is a slow, soft lens, which is alright for beginners, but definitely not worth the $550 price tag. Unless you're talking about the DO IS lens (which I doubt you are), I would strongly advise against it. The 28-200 is OK at best. If I had the $350 I'd go for the 50mm 1.4, or save another 100 bucks and get the 100mm f/2.8 macro.
From what I've seen on your flickr, and here at MR, your primary interests are in landscape, macro, and portraits. You're looking to spend... (sits there with calculator).... ~$1000 in glass. Given your interests, your best investment for that kind of money would be the 100 macro (excellent sharpness, 1:1 macro, and great for portraits, $460), and the 17-40L (exellent walk-around, and will mop the floor with the kit lens, $650). Then sell the kit lens for about $100, and get the 50mm f/1.8. Just my 2 cents- it'll run you about $100 more, but it will do everything you need, and more.
From what I've seen on your flickr, and here at MR, your primary interests are in landscape, macro, and portraits. You're looking to spend... (sits there with calculator).... ~$1000 in glass. Given your interests, your best investment for that kind of money would be the 100 macro (excellent sharpness, 1:1 macro, and great for portraits, $460), and the 17-40L (exellent walk-around, and will mop the floor with the kit lens, $650). Then sell the kit lens for about $100, and get the 50mm f/1.8. Just my 2 cents- it'll run you about $100 more, but it will do everything you need, and more.
This review says the new 70-300 IS is sharp:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm
Almost as sharp as the 70-200 f/4. The main trade off is IS and 300mm on the long end vrs build quality, non-rotating front, and constant f/4. Keeping in mind that the 70-300 is f/5.0 at 20mm, that's 2/3 of a stop, not a full stop difference. The DO version is a lot of money, and unless small size is crucial, a waste of money.
As for your recommendations for lenses though, sounds pretty good. He could go for a cheaper 3rd party 17 or 18 - 50 or so lens that's f/2.8 instead of the 17-40L. Obvious plusses and minusses to either direction. I was sort of intrigued by the idea of using the 100mm macro as a sports lens (assuming you can get somewhat close to the subject. How fast can it focus in those kinds of applications?
The 50mm f/1.8 is, dollar for dollar, the best portrait lens you can get.
No, no, you're right. That's the 75-300 I was thinking about. That one really is a paperweight. I guess I haven't heard much about the 70-300...
The 100mm really is a wonderful lens. I still don't get why Canon would put a red ring around the 180, which is actually slower, and not on this one. I had the chance to borrow it from a friend for about a week, and as soon as I get some money, I will own one. While when I used it, I was primarily interested in it's macro abilities, I tested it as a portrait lens and on my GF while she was running. The focusing seemed as fast as my 70-200 f/2.8, which means fast. My one concern about trying to use it as a sports lens would be the 100mm focal length on my 5D. Given the fact that it's going to be a 160 on a crop sensor, I'd say it might be long enough. A 200 or 300 would definitely be better, but hey- I'm sure NickD isn't made of money either.
I've owned the 70-300mm and it's okay...maybe a 7/10. The 70-200 f/4 is still much better, an 8 or 9/10. Other than that, jump on the macro and 50mm f/1.8 -- this seems best for what you like to shoot.
(ditch the kit lens quickly, in bright light, outside -- it will do fine; anywhere else, and I'd rather not bother.
(ditch the kit lens quickly, in bright light, outside -- it will do fine; anywhere else, and I'd rather not bother.
I own the Tamron 18-250... so far very nice outside. Inside... you need the flash or a nice window+sun. But great quality over the entire range with just minor issues at the extreme wide-side of things. (So I just stop it down a bit and zoom in a bit and pictures look beautiful)
Since I've got a Pentax I'm thinking my next purchase is going to be one of those pancake prime lenses they've got. The 28mm is shweett! Doesn't go past the flash. Of course, it costs a pretty penny. (Or a few thousand pretty pennies) But eventually...
Don't know what my next acquisition is going to be beyond a good prime. What type of camera we talking about again?
Since I've got a Pentax I'm thinking my next purchase is going to be one of those pancake prime lenses they've got. The 28mm is shweett!
Doesn't go past the flash. Of course, it costs a pretty penny. (Or a few thousand pretty pennies) But eventually...Don't know what my next acquisition is going to be beyond a good prime. What type of camera we talking about again?
I guess a true wide angle would be better at that end, especially as regards distortion.
Just not sure what I really prefer so far. Still finding out what I like to shoot.
I recently got the Sigma 10-20 along with a copy of Bibble to tune out what distortion there is, the angle-of-view is quite impresive.
Uh... you really trying to sneak that $5000 lens in there?
That is a good question to ask about the "only 3" question: who's paying?
I'd say that my choices would be:
Something really wide:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Something mildly long and quite utilitarian:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Something seriously insane:
Canon EF 400mm f/4L DO IS
With a 1.6x crop body and a 1.4x teleconverter, that last baby is roughly a 'handholdable' 900mm. If that won't pull in birds and eyebrows off of elephants, nothing will.
For me, I already have the middle lens and my wife now knows the name of the bigma that I want...I figure that if I can get that, a mere $500 lens to improve my existing WA should be a piece of cake
-hh
That is a good question to ask about the "only 3" question: who's paying?
I'd say that my choices would be:
Something really wide:
Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Something mildly long and quite utilitarian:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Something seriously insane:
Canon EF 400mm f/4L DO IS
With a 1.6x crop body and a 1.4x teleconverter, that last baby is roughly a 'handholdable' 900mm. If that won't pull in birds and eyebrows off of elephants, nothing will.
For me, I already have the middle lens and my wife now knows the name of the bigma that I want...I figure that if I can get that, a mere $500 lens to improve my existing WA should be a piece of cake
-hh
Not that it makes sesne to cover every focal length one might encounter, but that's a pretty huge gap between 22mm and 70mm, and quite a useful one too.
If it's for a 1.5x crop - a superwide, a 30mm Sigma and an 80-85 depending on what your cameramaker sells.
If this is your first serious camera, you're better off (presuming a 1.5x crop) buying a single Sigma 30mm lens (or if you're buying a Canon, they offer a 28mm that's a suitable alternative) and starting off learning to zoom with your feet.
If this is your first serious camera, you're better off (presuming a 1.5x crop) buying a single Sigma 30mm lens (or if you're buying a Canon, they offer a 28mm that's a suitable alternative) and starting off learning to zoom with your feet.
Zeiss 16-80mm
Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G with 1.4x Teleconverter
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (D) EX DC
(ok it's so cheap it should be allowed as 4th lens and everybody should have it: 50mm f1.7)
(all for a 1.5x crop factor dslr)
Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G with 1.4x Teleconverter
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (D) EX DC
(ok it's so cheap it should be allowed as 4th lens and everybody should have it: 50mm f1.7)
(all for a 1.5x crop factor dslr)
Agree that it is a pretty big gap. However, since this is a personal list, I've biased it based on my personal preferences, experiences...and the knowledge that a wide angle shot can be cropped to a narrower effective Field of View
My current EF lenses include:
16-35 {Tokina}
50mm prime
28-135 IS
75-300 IS
70-200L f/2.8 IS
(plus a 1.4x, various extension tubes, filters, etc).
And what I've been finding is that as I've picked through my gear for various 'big' trips, I've been frequently weight-limited, so I've cut down to just two lenses, particularly if I'm including a spare body, which at present remains 35mm film.
Typically, my choice has been one WA and one Tele. As a result, the last time that I took my 28-135mm IS with me on vacation with me was back in 2002 (Egads! I hadn't thought it had been that long). And even then, I ended up sending it home early because I wasn't using it.
Granted, upgrading the WA to 10-22 amplifies this gap, but I don't expect it to be that great of a problem, since with a crop body, its a 16-35mm equivalent, which is about what I have now with it being what I carry on my second (film) body.
-hh
EDIT: the lenses that are in BLUE, I find that I'm simply not using them much anymore.
Funny, that list of three pretty much matches the way I'm inclined to go in the near future (money permitting). I currently have four lenses: the 10-22mm, 50mm f/1.4, 17-85mm, and 100-400mm (all Canon EF or EF-S). If I had the choice over again, I'd get the 24-70mm f/2.8 instead of the 100-400mm (which would let me get rid of the 17-85mm) - it's not that the 100-400mm is bad, just that I'm not using it as much as I thought I would. To illustrate, I just went to Fiji, and took all my gear with me; I used it all, but the shots I took with the 100-400mm could just as easily have been taken with a 100mm macro lens and a bit of foot zoom.
The 10-22mm is a fantastic lens; I'm loving the shots I've taken with it, and I'm glad I bought it. The 24-70mm would be a nice complement to it, in preparation for a move to a full frame camera down the road, but until I can afford the $AU2000 it'll cost, the 17-85mm will serve well enough.
I'd go exclusively with Sigma for two reasons:
1. Price.
2. Weight.
I'd choose the 50-150mm 2.8, the 30mm 1.4, and the 10-20mm, all in a Nikon mount.
I'd prefer not to lug around the heavy Nikkor 70-200 VR or spend $1600 for a single lens. The Sigma 50-150mm is light enough to travel with, and is fast enough to work without VR/IS/OS.
I'd take the 30mm 1.4 because it fits best on digital bodies, it's pretty fast, and due to the crop factor, is a rough equivalent to the 50mm primes utilized on film bodies. Add that to the fact that I love taking night shots, and it's a no brainer.
1. Price.
2. Weight.
I'd choose the 50-150mm 2.8, the 30mm 1.4, and the 10-20mm, all in a Nikon mount.
I'd prefer not to lug around the heavy Nikkor 70-200 VR or spend $1600 for a single lens. The Sigma 50-150mm is light enough to travel with, and is fast enough to work without VR/IS/OS.
I'd take the 30mm 1.4 because it fits best on digital bodies, it's pretty fast, and due to the crop factor, is a rough equivalent to the 50mm primes utilized on film bodies. Add that to the fact that I love taking night shots, and it's a no brainer.