Nikon Lens help wanted ....

[Matt K.]

... I know this is physics to some degree and any lens wide open will be equally challenged despite what the max aperture is, but it always strikes me as odd that I'm paying for a 2.8 but reviews say it's better stopped down to f/4.

Well yes, but then would the same not hold true for a f 3.5 lens ... stopping it down a couple of stops further to achieve better sharpness? So then I am looking at f 5.6 and beyond ....

[Matt K.]

Just wanted to RE-add...regardless of any optical/performance/value issues.... F2.8 lenses will always be brighter (than F3.5, F4, F5.6 etc.) in the viewfinder, always. This can indeed be a big deal when the light is low, and for me, is one of the KEY reasons that 99% of all the lenses I own are F2.8 or faster.

I agree with this 100%. I'd rather start with f 2.8 than 3.5 or higher. From the literature it seems that the Sigma 17-70 f2.8 to 4 seems the way to go. I am just surprised that not many people have more experience with this lens. I own the 150mm macro from Sigma, and it is a very nice piece of glass. Well, we will see, hopefully some more people will come forward wioth their opinions. And yes, JAS Nikon lens sounds very nice indeed, it's just a bit out of my $$ league right now.

[Greg_Nuspel]

Well then get some primes 50mm f1.4, 24mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and if you got a real body you could use the 50mm f1.2

[Matt K.]

Well then get some primes 50mm f1.4, 24mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4 and if you got a real body you could use the 50mm f1.2

Thanks Greg ... but I really would not want to change lenses all that often. I might have to get a pile of "unreal" bodies for this to work ... does anyone make a pack large enough to carry 6 bodies and lenses?

[Greg_Nuspel]

Makes you long for the simple point and shoot days

[Grant]

When I moved from film to digital I need a lens that was wide angle without being extreme. I have eight fast nikkor lenses and really wanted an AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D but I had already sent enough on a new dSLR and wanted to stay married. As a stop gap I purchased a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. The idea was to only keep it around until I could justify spending two grand on the better lens. That was about 5 years ago and I am still using the Tamron.

So how good is a cheap lens and what will the extra money get for you when you go with the high rollers? I think you will find that the high end Nikkors are more hand made and the lower end Tamrons are mass produced and you will have to pay for the extra attention. The Nikkor is built like a tank and if I were about to enter a war zone or my life depended on durability then that would be the lens to go with. My world is less robust. I suspect the optical quality the Nikkor, on a test bench, is much better than the Tamron but for my equipment, a D300, the Tamron does the job and does it well. The one area that the Tamron is weak is that there is a sight light fall off when you shoot wide open at the 17 mm range. This is “defect” can be controlled with software. I say “defect” in quotes because the effect is slight and it seems to be the fashion to put a slight dark vignette around image in post. Be warned this could be a problem if you were doing a lot of in-your-face very low light shooting. This is not a problem for me as I only use the extreme wide angle for landscape and for that I always shoot stopped down.


The bottom line is I am very happy content with my “cheap” lens and have not been able to justify purchasing the more expensive one.

[F8&Bthere]

Well yes, but then would the same not hold true for a f 3.5 lens ... stopping it down a couple of stops further to achieve better sharpness? So then I am looking at f 5.6 and beyond ....

Yes, that is what I meant by "I know this is physics to some degree and any lens wide open will be equally challenged despite what the max aperture is".

Have you seen the photozone.de review for the Sigma lens you are studying? I respect their opinions as do most of the photographic community and they seem to give that lens a thumbs up, overall.

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC (Nikon) - Review / Lab Test Report

[Matt K.]

[QUOTE=F8&Bthere;79568]Have you seen the photozone.de review for the Sigma lens you are studying? I respect their opinions as do most of the photographic community and they seem to give that lens a thumbs up, overall. QUOTE]

Yes I have, and I have also read the forum on nikon.ca; seems to be an agreement on all. Methinks the newer 17-70 from Sigma would be the choice, though. It has optical stabilization and a slightly better aperture rating. Though the test says the older lens has beeter glass ... go figure.