Upgrade my 18-55mm kit lens...

[orangedial]

Thanks for all your comments so far. It looks like the Tamron is a better choice for the availability of wide aperture and flexibility of wide-to-mid-tele focal range. I guess these are important features for taking indoor/outdoor events and even weddings.

Optically, is Tamron better than the rest? Does it have colour cast too? How about the build quality of the Tamron compared to Nikon and Sigma? I heard that it is quite plasticky and is the worst among the three. Is it really that bad?

 

[Cactus jACK]

fair that ppl don't always shoot at f2.8 unless there is a real "need for speed"... or if you want bokeh (although some would argue that primes are the way to go). but the f2.8 does also help heaps in the AF in low-light conditions!! over-rated? your milage may vary depending on what you shoot.

if you are comfortable with the 18-55 range, then can enhance it with a f2.8. if you're looking for something with a little more reach, you can consider the 18-70, 18-135, or the 18-200. alternatively, complement your 18-55 with a 70-300.

 

[tribal.snake]

well with the choices u give, the tamron is the logical choice.

color cast, imo tamron is acceptable
build quality can't compare to the nikkor, well i banged my 18-70 through lots of places and it still survived. i would say, build quality also depends largely on how u take care of ur lens.

 

[lsisaxon]

Personally I find lenses with f2.8 aperture are constantly over-rated.
...
Therefore, is there a blind need to chase after f2.8 lenses? Do you really need to use f2.8 often? If not, may I suggest that the slower wide angle lenses will give you similar results esp when stopped down to f8 and f11.

My baby is going to be due, so I'm now hunting for f/2.0 or faster lenses. ;p Every stop counts!

 

[hacknet]

if you seriously need something fast and of a useful range. i recommend you get a 50mm f1.8. gets the job done in most low light conditions!

 

[lsisaxon]

if you seriously need something fast and of a useful range. i recommend you get a 50mm f1.8. gets the job done in most low light conditions!

Would like something shorter.. I'm already using 50/1.4. ;p

 

[Yatlapball]

35/2 lorrrr... Join the crowd that's been recently boosting up demand for this piece. :bsmilie:

 

[sgguy022]

Would like something shorter.. I'm already using 50/1.4. ;p

Have an old 20-35mm F2.8 - works well for me. Think someone's selling it in the buy/sell, or you could check with TCW

 

[lsisaxon]

35/2 lorrrr... Join the crowd that's been recently boosting up demand for this piece. :bsmilie:

I'm looking at Sigma 24/1.8 to give me a versatile 36mm on FF FOV.

 

[kyo86sg]

since u are at 18-55mm u can try the 55-200mm VR? so u can cover 18-200 range. or get the 18-135mm (D80 kit lens) that cover wide to telephoto lens. both lens abt the same price range <$450

 

[daydreamz]

Hi orangedial, the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a very good choice indeed. Been looking at the reviews etc and studying the various feedback in CS threads...all very positive for this lens. In fact am considering buying it myself too so that I can upgrade from the D80 kit lens (18-135mm which is also actually quite a fantastic lens to start off with)

My only concern for your scenario (and mine too if i give up my 18-135mm) is that we will most certainly miss the added reach. In fact since you currently use the 18-55, my question to you is what do you do about shots in the 55-150-200mm range? Surely there must be times you need that extra reach beyond 55mm...i know that i do when I travel or zoo or taking longer range street/candids etc...

Well, the solution could be to fix that by combining it with a 55-200mm VR or a 70-300mm(Sigma etc)...but then that would involve changing lenses now & then and also the need to carry two lenses everywhere...quite troublesome (for me at least as usually have other paraphernelia like baby bags, pram etc etc in tow always....also when i travel). Alternately go for the best all in one solution currently in the market - the 18-200mm VR. However although the 18-200mm VR is a fantastic lens, the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 will give much better results in the overlapping focal range...

This is becoming quite a difficult choice for me really...two very good lenses(17-50/2.8+70-300) or one good generalist(18-200 VR)...!? Hmmm...would love to hear your thoughts and also from other more experience fellow CS'ers....

(had a PM chat with your18 on this - he recommends the 18-200VR in the above choice...and he has actually used the Tamron 17-50 too...so a very good viewpoint there from him on these)

Cheers...happy weekend everyone!!

 

[Yatlapball]

If you find it troublesome, then get the all-in-one solution.

If anything decreases your enjoyment of photography as a hobby... don't do it. In your case, changing lenses. Heh. Enjoyment should be #1 priority... unless of course you are the BDSM variety and like to torture yourself :bsmilie:

For the working pro, no choice. You got to torture yourself in order to get the quality shot.

 

[terpeh]

For me, if i were to choose between

1. 17-50/2.8 +70-300
2. 18-200VR

I will choose item 1.

To me, if changing lens is cumbersome, then i will never consider DSLR. The fun of using DSLR is the ability to use different lens at different time and get different results. If i just want to use 1 lens, then i will not consider DSLR but get Sony H5/Canon S3IS. Both give me the reach that 18-200VR gives, at a much lesser cost.

In fact if possible, you should go for 17-50/2.8 + 70-300VR. This is a nice combination to me.

 

[hacknet]

i totally agree with terpeh, infact the canon s3 might even give you a larger aperture at the wide end of the lens!

 

[daydreamz]

Thanks terpeh, some good insights and perspectives.

But you did not mention why you would chose option1 i.e. 17-50/2.8 +70-300?? I assume it is because of the 2.8 capabilities in this combo v/s the 18-200mm VR. Care to share your reasons...?

Cheers.

For me, if i were to choose between

1. 17-50/2.8 +70-300
2. 18-200VR

I will choose item 1.

To me, if changing lens is cumbersome, then i will never consider DSLR. The fun of using DSLR is the ability to use different lens at different time and get different results. If i just want to use 1 lens, then i will not consider DSLR but get Sony H5/Canon S3IS. Both give me the reach that 18-200VR gives, at a much lesser cost.

In fact if possible, you should go for 17-50/2.8 + 70-300VR. This is a nice combination to me.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

I got a 18-70, but only because I couldn't afford the 17-70 f/2.8

 

[XC Pictorial]

AFS 17-35f2.8 + 28-70f2.8 :thumbsup:

 

[calebk]

AFS 17-35f2.8 + 28-70f2.8 :thumbsup:

Has MiniUltraman infected you with the :devil:BBB:devil: ?

 

[ExplorerZ]

for digital it would be AFS 12-24 + 17-55. :bsmilie:

 

[orangedial]

Hi orangedial, the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a very good choice indeed. Been looking at the reviews etc and studying the various feedback in CS threads...all very positive for this lens. In fact am considering buying it myself too so that I can upgrade from the D80 kit lens (18-135mm which is also actually quite a fantastic lens to start off with)

My only concern for your scenario (and mine too if i give up my 18-135mm) is that we will most certainly miss the added reach. In fact since you currently use the 18-55, my question to you is what do you do about shots in the 55-150-200mm range? Surely there must be times you need that extra reach beyond 55mm...i know that i do when I travel or zoo or taking longer range street/candids etc...

Well, the solution could be to fix that by combining it with a 55-200mm VR or a 70-300mm(Sigma etc)...but then that would involve changing lenses now & then and also the need to carry two lenses everywhere...quite troublesome (for me at least as usually have other paraphernelia like baby bags, pram etc etc in tow always....also when i travel). Alternately go for the best all in one solution currently in the market - the 18-200mm VR. However although the 18-200mm VR is a fantastic lens, the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 will give much better results in the overlapping focal range...

This is becoming quite a difficult choice for me really...two very good lenses(17-50/2.8+70-300) or one good generalist(18-200 VR)...!? Hmmm...would love to hear your thoughts and also from other more experience fellow CS'ers....

(had a PM chat with your18 on this - he recommends the 18-200VR in the above choice...and he has actually used the Tamron 17-50 too...so a very good viewpoint there from him on these)

Cheers...happy weekend everyone!!

Hi daydreamz, I currently own the 18-55mm kit lens and the 70-300G lens. For a beginner like me, I enjoy these lenses very much, but not for too long before I start to become dissatisfied with the lesser image quality in terms of sharpness, CA, etc (natural for everyone lah, i supposed... )

In fact I was in the same dilemma as you. Personally I don't mind changing lenses, that's why I bought a DSLR. A one-for-all solution like the 18-200VR is certainly attractive, but it is expensive for a generalist lens. I guess that the VR would not provide the same advantage as a fast aperture would under low light condition. But it certainly is helpful to combat hand shaking when taking telephoto.

After much evaluation, I've decided that a multi-lens solution will be my best choice. Last week I borrowed the 18-70mm from a friend for a trial. It was a very good lens which is capable of producing much sharper and contrasty images compared to the 18-55mm. However, its limitation shown up when I tried to take photos in restaurants or indoor events (without flash). This had made me yearn for the f2.8 even more :sweat:

Like terpeh had suggested, a 17-50/2.8 + 70-300VR combo sounds perfect for me. I like to take photos during dinners, parties & events. So a fast wide-to-mid-tele lens would best serve my purpose. When shooting telephoto or even portraits, the result from the 70-300VR should be more superior than the 18-200VR. These 2 lenses might add up to be slightly more expensive than the 18-200VR, but I guess they will provide a much pleasing experience. What's more, I can acquire them one at a time!

Like many bro here, once you are hooked to photography, there's no way you could just stick to 1 lens. I'm also very susceptable to the BBB virus :sweatsm: Hence I will satisfy myself with 2 good lenses instead of 1... haha! Well, the bro here have affirmed that the Tamron 17-50 is the best constant f2.8 alternative to the Nikkor so far. But I'm keen to see what Tokina can offer in its much talked about 16-50/f2.8.

It is so exciting... Cheers for a good day!