Lens Advice

[Warfel005]

Hi all. I have been struggling to make a decision so I thought I would put it out there and see what you have to say. I am a student and I am studying abroad in Spain in the fall. I have been photographing for a while now and know my way around a camera. I went from the Nikon d50 to the d200 and currently Im using a d7100. I've noticed that my current lens, 18-70 f/3.5-4.5G is just not that sharp on my d7100. Before I head to Spain I want to replace it. I should also mention that I will be doing a lot of photographing in indoor markets so I also need the speed boost. I'm currently looking at two different lenses (although I am open to suggestions).

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G (used)
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (less used)

Long term goal would be to pick up a 24-70mm f/2.8G But I really can't afford it right now and I really need the wide angle. I eventually want to make the switch to FX so I'm a little hesitant investing in a DX only lens (like the ones listed above) but I also need something that will work for me right now and is in my budget.

I appreciate any feedback you can give me and thanks for the help!

 

[Meister]

DX lenses perform better on DX bodies than FX lenses. If you are planning on investing in FX glas, then I recommend you go FF asap.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Hi all. I have been struggling to make a decision so I thought I would put it out there and see what you have to say. I am a student and I am studying abroad in Spain in the fall. I have been photographing for a while now and know my way around a camera. I went from the Nikon d50 to the d200 and currently Im using a d7100. I've noticed that my current lens, 18-70 f/3.5-4.5G is just not that sharp on my d7100. Before I head to Spain I want to replace it. I should also mention that I will be doing a lot of photographing in indoor markets so I also need the speed boost. I'm currently looking at two different lenses (although I am open to suggestions).

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G (used)
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (less used)

Long term goal would be to pick up a 24-70mm f/2.8G But I really can't afford it right now and I really need the wide angle. I eventually want to make the switch to FX so I'm a little hesitant investing in a DX only lens (like the ones listed above) but I also need something that will work for me right now and is in my budget.

I appreciate any feedback you can give me and thanks for the help!

The nikon 17-55mm on a cropped sensor is loverly. Don't worry about when you trade up to a FF. You should be able to sell the lens for most of what you paid for it.

 

[MCH-1138]

DX lenses perform better on DX bodies than FX lenses.

Not sure I understand -- care to elaborate on this? I suppose that some DX lenses may perform better than some FX lenses, but that does not apply to all lenses.

As to the OP's question, it sounds like either of the two lenses you are looking at are better suited for your current needs than the 24-70, since you like to shoot wide angle. As between the two, will you miss the 35-55mm range? I have the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 with a D7000 and I like it. But the Sigma 18-35mm has received very good reviews from what I have seen, and you gain the benefit of an extra 1-1/3 stop (f/1.8 vs. f/2.8), which may be useful if you are shooting indoors. You may also want to consider the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC, which I believe has been reviewed favorably.

 

[Meister]

Not sure I understand -- care to elaborate on this? I suppose that some DX lenses may perform better than some FX lenses, but that does not apply to all lenses.

Of course it depends on the lens, but the general rule of thumb is that FX lenses do not perform well on DX bodies. Check dxomark for further references.

 

[aerok]

I would personally go Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G, the Sigma is an amazing lens but that extra 20mm reach is too important to pass.

 

[Warfel005]

Thanks for the advice. If I got the Sigma I would probably keep my current lens to make up for the 35-55 range. But going with the Nikon would probably make more sense because I could leave my old lens at home. I also have a 50mm f/1.8 which could help with the low light stuff. As for the Tamron, I don't think I like the autofocus system and I read that the VC can be a little wonky but I appreciate the suggestion. I would probably go with the Nikon over the Tamron.

Meister: I would go FF now if I could. Sadly I can't afford to do that.

 

[v3rlon]

I would personally go Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G, the Sigma is an amazing lens but that extra 20mm reach is too important to pass.

20mm of reach is like two steps, isn't it?

I can usually step closer or further away, but moving the sun is right difficult. It's 880,000 miles across, 93 million miles away, and fairly hot to touch without mittens.

I used to want the zoom range, but now I would prefer aperture range. I guess it depends on what you like to do.

 

[aerok]

20mm of reach is like two steps, isn't it?

I can usually step closer or further away, but moving the sun is right difficult. It's 880,000 miles across, 93 million miles away, and fairly hot to touch without mittens.

I used to want the zoom range, but now I would prefer aperture range. I guess it depends on what you like to do.

Well if it were as simple as just taking two steps, I would agree with you. But for me, it's about the image compression, I have a lot of difficulties getting the portraits I want at 35mm even on a 1.6 body. It sounds like nitpicking but I'm picky like that

 

[v3rlon]

Well if it were as simple as just taking two steps, I would agree with you. But for me, it's about the image compression, I have a lot of difficulties getting the portraits I want at 35mm even on a 1.6 body. It sounds like nitpicking but I'm picky like that

Well, it depends on what you like then. I guess that about makes this kind of decision for you.

 

[leighonigar]

Are you photographing moving subjects or would something like a used 16-35mm f/4 VR work? And you could keep it for any future full frame.

 

[juanm]

Hi all. I have been struggling to make a decision so I thought I would put it out there and see what you have to say. I am a student and I am studying abroad in Spain in the fall. I have been photographing for a while now and know my way around a camera. I went from the Nikon d50 to the d200 and currently Im using a d7100. I've noticed that my current lens, 18-70 f/3.5-4.5G is just not that sharp on my d7100. Before I head to Spain I want to replace it. I should also mention that I will be doing a lot of photographing in indoor markets so I also need the speed boost. I'm currently looking at two different lenses (although I am open to suggestions).

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G (used)
Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 (less used)

Long term goal would be to pick up a 24-70mm f/2.8G But I really can't afford it right now and I really need the wide angle. I eventually want to make the switch to FX so I'm a little hesitant investing in a DX only lens (like the ones listed above) but I also need something that will work for me right now and is in my budget.

I appreciate any feedback you can give me and thanks for the help!

If you can take a second small lens with you like a small cheap 50mm, go with the Sigma. It's 1.5 stops brighter and that will help a lot. If you can only get one lens, grab the Nikon, its range is much more useful.

 

[MonkeySee....]

I just purchased the 17-55mm (used) for my Nikon D7000 from MPB Photographic http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/ before my trip to Orlando.

Then lens is stunning and incredibly sharp. I highly recommend it.

Forgot to mention that I rented the 24-70mm and although it was an epic lens I'm more comfortable with the 17-55mm on my DX Camera.

 

[DevNull0]

Of course it depends on the lens, but the general rule of thumb is that FX lenses do not perform well on DX bodies. Check dxomark for further references.

Are you making it up as go you along?

There's not a lot of good fast glass for DX. And why should just using a smaller circle in the centre (the sweet spot of the lens) give worse quality?

And I did check dxomark without finding anything. Did you just pull that out and random to pretend you're not making it up?

DPReview.com seems to agree with me for what that's worth.

 

[Meister]

Are you making it up as go you along?

There's not a lot of good fast glass for DX. And why should just using a smaller circle in the centre (the sweet spot of the lens) give worse quality?

And I did check dxomark without finding anything. Did you just pull that out and random to pretend you're not making it up?

DPReview.com seems to agree with me for what that's worth.

I looked for lens performances of the D7100 and it seems at least for the D7100 you seem to be right. My understanding was always that for dx bodies, dx lenses are preferable. It appears I stand corrected!

 

[simonsi]

DX lenses perform better on DX bodies than FX lenses. If you are planning on investing in FX glas, then I recommend you go FF asap.

LOL - where did that myth come from? Certain old (therefore FX), lenses have issues due to the angle the light on WA hits the sensor being too shallow causing light falloff but in general any FX lens work great on a DX camera as DX uses the centre of the FX image - which is the best area.

This is based on actual shooting DX with FX lenses.

Still, all the sweeping generalisations on the internet are wrong, right?

This image was taken with a D300 using the old 28-105mm Nikkor, the raw file is simply stunning.

OP you should consider the 18-55 DX VR Nikkor, maybe a good stopgap and will suit your shooting of indoor markets. The 17-55/2.8 is a great lens but isn't VR so a choice to make. That aside the 17-55/2.8 is a stunning quality lens I would recommend.

 

[Meister]

LOL - where did that myth come from?

I remember the best lenses for dx to be dx lenses on dxomark.
Also remember an article I read a while back.
Seems like I was hallucinating

 

[simonsi]

Seems like I was hallucinating

Probably just time and technology moving on, as I said it was a problem as photo-sites sit in wells on the sensor unlike film but of all the causes of light falloff at the edges it wasn't a major one AFAIK.

 

[tomnavratil]

I've made a switch from DX to FX as well from D7000 to D610 and I've decided to pick up NIKKOR 24–85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR as my all-purpose lens until I get money to get 24-70 2.8. Very decent lens and not that expensive. If you're planning to move to FX it might be an option, which you can use as a backup lens once you get the 24-70.

 

[JDDavis]

I've made a switch from DX to FX as well from D7000 to D610 and I've decided to pick up NIKKOR 24–85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR as my all-purpose lens until I get money to get 24-70 2.8. Very decent lens and not that expensive. If you're planning to move to FX it might be an option, which you can use as a backup lens once you get the 24-70.

Just FYI, there is also a Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4. It's also a very good lens and to me also fits the role of a 24-70 f/2.8 low budget substitute. It's only a few bucks more than the version your looking at. It does not have VR but the f/2.8 is nice to have when you need it. It's quite sharp and competes with the 24-70 when it's in it's sweet spot (and a good bit lighter). You can find both versions of the 24-85 used for easily half priced. I guess it comes down to VR or bigger Aperture. I haven't really missed the VR yet.

 

[tomnavratil]

Just FYI, there is also a Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4. It's also a very good lens and to me also fits the role of a 24-70 f/2.8 low budget substitute. It's only a few bucks more than the version your looking at. It does not have VR but the f/2.8 is nice to have when you need it. It's quite sharp and competes with the 24-70 when it's in it's sweet spot (and a good bit lighter). You can find both versions of the 24-85 used for easily half priced. I guess it comes down to VR or bigger Aperture. I haven't really missed the VR yet.

Thanks, that's the one I've been looking into before as well but the newer version I mentioned fit my needs better. A great lens for sure though!

 

[ChrisA]

....I've noticed that my current lens, 18-70 f/3.5-4.5G is just not that sharp on my d7100....

Why is the 18-70 not sharp? Maybe because it is a. f/4.5 lens and you have to shoot with a slow shutter? It is motion blur, camera shake?.... Blow up an images and look. Is it motion or just softness?

It could be that a VR lens would solve the problem it would be cheaper than the f/2.8 lens. Yes the f/2.8 lens is nice but VR might solve the problem, Then buy a 50mm f/1.8 for low light. You get two lenses and spend less.