Which lens should I splurge on?

[HiSpec]

First off, thanks for all the people who replied in my D90 purchase thread. I have acquired a D90 with 18-105mm kit. However, I did not purchase the prime lens.

I will be going on a trip to Vancouver in late August. I have some extra funds that I can splurge towards a lens. At his moment I am debating between two lenses:
Prime or Wide Angle.

I know most people will ask "what do I shoot more of?" But I would like to know for people who travels a lot or fair amount to Vancouver, which lens do you use most often.

[Mitsu3000gt]

How much money is a "splurge"? You have several options in every category:

For Vancouver I would take a wide angle unless you were doing whale watching or something to do with wildlife.

There is no better wide angle from any manufactuer than the Nikon 14-24. It's also as good or better than the primes in that range. The Tokina 11-16 or new Nikon 10-24 are your next best bets if you don't have $2,000 kicking around.

If you're looking at primes in the 24-70 range, the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is the best one on the market and as good or better than any primes in that range so if you could afford it ($1900) and if f2.8 is fast enough for you, I would just get that. Your 18-105 covers this range though, and also the range of most of the other primes except for the big telephoto ones. The main advantage you would get from adding a prime in this range would be low light performance.

I have no idea if August is whale season, but perhaps a longer lens might suit you if you are planning on doing any of that. Your 18-105 is pretty wide, but not very long considering what else is available. The Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR is the best 70-200 available for a crop sensor, and is one of the "must-have's" if you use that range. The best bang for the buck zoom is the Nikon 70-300VR if, again, you aren't looking to spend $2,000. If you're looking for a telephoto prime, the Nikon 300/4 is the way to go but needs good support (i.e. not that easy to hand hold).

[HiSpec]

Sorry, I should mention that I have about 400 to splurge on, but if the lens is worth the extra cost I can spend up to 700.

Which I realize is waaay under budget for the lenses you have listed LOL:banghead:

[TDFTW]

edit. you shoot nikon cant help u har ahr

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by HiSpec
Sorry, I should mention that I have about 400 to splurge on, but if the lens is worth the extra cost I can spend up to 700

Then you could get:

- Tokina 11-16 F2.8 (Better than Tokina 12-24 & Sigma 10-20 unless you need the extra reach, but you have 18mm and onwards already)
- Nikon AFS 30 f1.8 G
- Nikon AFS 50 f1.4 G
- Nikon AFS 60 2.8 G MACRO
- Sigma 105 2.8 MACRO
- Tamron 90 2.8 MACRO
- Nikon 85 f1.8
- Nikon 70-300VR

It still matters what YOU like to take pictures of, because you will still have this lens when you return from Vancouver. If you like landscapes, go with the Tokina 11-16, if you want more reach, get the 70-300VR, or if you are into low light, portraits, etc. consider the 30/50/60/85 primes. One of the macro lenses would be neat too if you're into that. For vancouver I'd go with a wide angle unless you're there for wildlife.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
If you're looking at primes in the 24-70 range, the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is the best one on the market and as good or better than any primes in that range so if you could afford it ($1900) and if f2.8 is fast enough for you, I would just get that. Your 18-105 covers this range though, and also the range of most of the other primes except for the big telephoto ones. The main advantage you would get from adding a prime in this range would be low light performance.
I thought prime lenses are fixed focal length? Or am I retarded? I dont get why you're recommending a 24-70 when his current lens covers it. He's looking for cheap so I doubt he wants to cover the same focal range with a cheap lens.

I've been on my trek around the world the last 6 weeks, and I'm hauling around a large range lens like your kit lens. I'm also carrying a 50mm prime but I've really used that only once or twice, and I'm carrying a wideangle. Next time I do this, I wouldn't bring a prime with me, that general purpose lens (24-105 for me, full frame) and my wideangle (17-40) does everything I need. Sure I miss having a telephoto, but it's not practical to haul that around.

I'd go with a really wideangle. I don't know Nikon at all, but for Canon, I used a 10-24 on my crop 40D, and it was awesome for shooting on trips.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by rage2

I thought prime lenses are fixed focal length? Or am I retarded? I dont get why you're recommending a 24-70 when his current lens covers it. He's looking for cheap so I doubt he wants to cover the same focal range with a cheap lens.


No you have it right. I didn't know his budget when I wrote that, and also commented that the range was covered but, before, he was looking at a 30mm prime, which his current lens also covers.

In the case of the Nikon 24-70 f2.8, it's as good or better than any prime in that range so unless you need faster than 2.8 or a physically smaller/lighter lens, it's kind of pointless to get a prime in that range if you have the cash. Same story with the Nikon 14-24.

[AccentAE86]

Tokina 11-16, as mentioned, is awesome. I've been using mine for over a year and it's killer. The new nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX seems like it would be a good idea. I actually hate the 14-24. It's SO huge and heavy and so awkward to carry around. It's shaped like a pylon so it doesn't fit nicely into any camera bags. LOL.

[quazimoto]

I'd say +1 to the tokina as well based on your budget.

[Lagerstatten.ca]

+1 for the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens...been using it for the past month and it's awesome!

[Bukka]

I'd also go with the Tokina 11-16 or the 35 1.8.
I'm interested in both of these lenses myself too actually hahah.
Let me know how you like either one if you pick either of those up.

[clem24]

For $400, a used Tokina 12-24 is a lot of lens. Most people don't need the 11-16. I honestly wouldn't ever really recommend it to a casual shooter because it's basically a wide prime - it's zoom range is practically useless. With the 12-24, I could still get normal shots with it fully zoomed (i.e. 36mm - doesn't get anymore normal than that), but 16 is just too wide to be normal. Which means a lot of changing lens.

Honestly, most people won't notice the extra stop, extra 1mm and bit more sharpness. But everyone will notice how useless the zoom range on the 11-16 is compared to the 12-24. So that's what I would stick with - a used 12-24.

[C4S]

Yeah .. $ 400 ... hardly get anything ..

For a little more .. ( close to $500 ) get the Tokina 12-24 .. Period.

Just no better wide angle zoom for that price range.

~$700 .. more choice .. a used 12-24 Nikon around $800 .. and Tokina 11-16 is around $700 as well ..

As cleam said .. by comparison .. 11-16 is a great lens, sharp and fast .. however, 12-24mm range is just so much useful then 11-16.

[Travel_Dude]

50 mm with some polarizing filters. Cheap and fun.

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by clem24
For $400, a used Tokina 12-24 is a lot of lens. Most people don't need the 11-16. I honestly wouldn't ever really recommend it to a casual shooter because it's basically a wide prime - it's zoom range is practically useless. With the 12-24, I could still get normal shots with it fully zoomed (i.e. 36mm - doesn't get anymore normal than that), but 16 is just too wide to be normal. Which means a lot of changing lens.

Honestly, most people won't notice the extra stop, extra 1mm and bit more sharpness. But everyone will notice how useless the zoom range on the 11-16 is compared to the 12-24. So that's what I would stick with - a used 12-24.

where can i find a used 12-24?

[clem24]

Originally posted by HiSpec


where can i find a used 12-24?

I sold mine on here not too long ago. You can also try FM Forums (i.e. Fred Miranda). There's always eBay... Just make sure you do your due diligence when buying a used lens online.

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by clem24

There's always eBay... Just make sure you do your due diligence when buying a used lens online.

What do you mean by that?

thanks

[clem24]

Originally posted by HiSpec


What do you mean by that?

thanks

So make sure no issues with the lens (like scratches or dings/dents which can indicate abuse), past issues, focusing problems (like front/back focus), etc... Then ask for full size unedited photos (straight from cam, no editing whatsoever). You can also ask them to do a focusing test. All that good stuff.

[kertejud2]

How does the Sigma 10-20mm stack up against the Nikon and Tokina lenses for quality/value? It seems to be pretty popular amongst landscape shooters from what I can tell.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by kertejud2
How does the Sigma 10-20mm stack up against the Nikon and Tokina lenses for quality/value? It seems to be pretty popular amongst landscape shooters from what I can tell.


The third party wide angle lenses seem to vary more than usual from copy to copy as far as how good they are.

The Tokina's are built like tanks and have a constant aperture, but don't have built in focus motors.

The Sigma 10-20 doesn't have a fixed aperture, but has a built in focus motor (HSM) which might make or break the deal for someone with a Nikon D40/D40x/D60/D5000. Build quality is just fine on the 10-20.

The Tokina 11-16 is the best of the 3rd party bunch but has the most limited range. It's also is f2.8. For many this doesn't matter, but if you want to squeeze the lens into the "walkaround" lens category, you might appreciate the texra 4-8mm that the other options provide.

The Tokina 12-24 is another good choice, but has a bit of a reputation for having bad CA. Tons of people have this lens and are happy with it.

The Nikon 12-24 is as good or better as the above, but its expensive and doesn't represent a very good value given the competition.

The Nikon 10-24 is still pretty new, but initial reviews are positive. It's really expensive too, so probably not a good value.

The Nikon 14-24 is in a class of its own, and has zero competition. The downsides are that it's $2,000 and its huge haha.

The Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24 are the most direct competetors. Assuming you had two really good/sharp copies, you can't go wrong with either. The Tokina is built better and has constant aperture, but the Sigma has a built in focus motor and has better control over CA. Some of the newer Nikon bodies automatically remove all but the worst CA as well.

[kertejud2]

Good info, thanks.

[ex1z7]

covering the same range you already have with faster lenses in the 400 dollar range wouldn't be a wise investment.. What I would honestly advise is pick up a Nikon 70-300vr, they're about 550 or so now and you said you can go a little higher.. That's what I would suggest..

Travelling around, I always find myself reaching for a long lens to get tight crops on things.. I don't particularily like super wides (Widest I have is a 17-70mm..) when I'm sight seeing because everything generally looks pretty boring - I like capturing the detail in small things, not the detail in a city scape.. Plus, with your 18-105, you can capture PLENTY of wide stuff..

If you find yourself always wanting to be wider, consider the Tokina 11-16mm, if you find yourself wanting to be further more often - look at the 70-300vr, aside from not being pro/fast lenses, you'd have a complete kit with some nice enough overlap where you wouldn't need much else - maybe a flash or something..

The 70-300 is also super light and easily hand holdable, the VR also helps with your hands shaking - but I would advise packing a tripod in case you want to shoot low light or something.. Unless you have one already - look into carbon fiber tripods for weight saving, Slik makes some cheap and decent light CF tripods if you're interested in that kind've thing.. I hardly notice I have my tripod clipped to my backpack when I'm lugging gear around because it's only a few pounds - a bag of milk weighs more..

And about the 11-16 - yeah it doesn't have the reach the others do, but it has the quality the others dont, for a price not easily competed with. That'll be my next purchase for suuuuure.. Don't pick up prime/macro lenses right now as you don't really need that kind've thing for travel photographs - that's more a specialty lens and you'll get more shots with a super wide or a super telephoto than you will with a macro on your average vacation.

Hope I helped a bit, let us know what you considered and post some of your pics when you get back!

[Trini]

you guys recommend purchasing online e.g. B&H Photo or locally in store?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Trini
you guys recommend purchasing online e.g. B&H Photo or locally in store?

Locally. The Camera Store is your one stop shop.

[ex1z7]

I recommend shopping online, I've never had a problem with bhphoto - but I only recommend that because I'm a 25 minute drive from minnesota where we have a border store that accepts packages.. so i save on shipping.. And the only camera stores we have in town are future shop and Blacks, both are retardedly expensive and uneducated about the equipment they sell.

And nobody stocks a lot of Nikon gear.

[quazimoto]

The one important note about buying lenses online and this is just a suggestion. Not all copies of a lens are going to be equally as good or bad. I've always had the ones I buy from adorama calibrated by Canon to make sure they are going to work well.

Some copies though have a larger variation than others. Buying lenses locally is usually a better idea since you can physically try them out in the store ahead of time.

When I purchased my first 16-35mm 2.8L online it arrived and was not very sharp at all.