Help: I'm upgrading my kit/lenses

[teylward]

Hi everyone,

I have been thinking about having an upgrade of my whole kit for a while now. I feel I may need some better quality lenses to go further in my photography.

I currently own a Nikon D5000 which I bought a few years ago with the twin lens kit(18-55mm + 55-200mm) The 55-200mm zoom has had a focus motor failure, but can still be used with manual focus. The 18-55mm has been overseas with me twice now and is beginning to show it's age as well as a loose rattle type noise inside. It has on occasion missed the mark when focusing and lacks the sharpness I want in certain photos.
I also have my 90mm Tamron, which is doing just fine.

I thought about upgrading my camera to the D7100, but I thought I would get some decent lenses for the D5000 first before spending more money.

I have done a bit of research and looked at what I want. My initial thought was to get 2 Tamron lenses. A 17-50mm F2.8 VC and a 70-300mm F4-5.6 VC USD. Then I began looking at 3 Nikon lenses. A 10-24mm F3.5-4.5G ED, a 35mm 1.8G prime and a 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 ED VR.

Can anyone help, have an opinion on any of these lenses or can recommend any other lenses. The three Nikon lenses cover some good uses and don't cost much more than the 2 Tamrons.

Cheers,

Travis

[teylward]

Anyone?

[deef]

Hi Travis.

I only have experience with the 35mm f1.8g and I'm very pleased with its output.

Some examples from this lens are in this post. http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?132415-Contemplating-the-day

[Glenda]

I own both the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Nikon 10-24 f3.5-4.5 and both are excellent lenses. It really depends on what you want it for. I really like the ultra wide for both architecture and landscapes but both are very sharp and had no problems with either. For a walkaround lens the 17-50 is excellent and does have a bit more reach.

[danny]

Hi Travis,
There are so many choices and different people will have different opinions on what is best. So, instead I'll offer what I did when I was in your boat.

I've got the 17-50mm Tamron. Like you I bought it when I wanted something better than the kit lenses I had at the time. It was/is a great lens for the money. I went for the 50mm not the 35mm, but honestly I think I would have been just as happy with either of these two. Having a fast, little prime enables you to do so much.You can shoot in low light, as well as get creative with DOF. I found that these two lenses alone were enough for my needs. Of course I wanted more, but I could do what I wanted/needed with the 17-50mm plus the 50mm. After a while I found that I needed a lens with more reach and had capabilities of working in low light because my wife and daughter are both dances (i.e. performed on stages at the other end of a hall in bad light :) ). So I got the Tamron 70-200 2.8. Now with the three lenses, I was able to handle most things. But, obviously new lenses are coming out all the time and things change. There are now lenses like the Sigma ART 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM which I probably would have considered instead of the 70-200mm.

If I can offer a little more advise… zoom ranges get confusing when you are considering a range of lenses with different lengths. especially if you are interested in a zoom but am unsure if it is wide enough for your needs. What I used to do was grab a lens and set it to the mm that I was looking at and walk around a room taking a few shots. You'll soon see if it is wide enough for what you want. and if you can "live" with it.

Hope this helps in some way.

(if not feel free to ignore all :D )

[ameerat42]

Fairly good advice so far, Travis, but may I ask, what in particular did you find wanting in the quality of your kit lenses?
What would you like to be able to do with "better quality" lenses?

This is just to get a better "focus" on the discussion, otherwise you'll end up sifting through 100s of opinions and ideas.

Am.

[teylward]

I should have said sooner. My bad. hehehe.

I love shooting nearly everything, so would like a good variety of lenses in my kit. My kit lens is starting to limit what I want out of it. It's lacking the sharpness I want even with the aperture opened up. So, I would like to replace that one. I'm also not sure how long it is going to last with the rattle it's got going on.

I like to shoot everything from landscape, night, sports and some macro.
I've got my macro lens. I wanted a wide-angle zoom for a range of things for convenience. I'd like the prime for night shots, long exposure and low light. The tele zoom would mainly be used for sports shooting (Ice hockey, football)

Any recommendations welcome.

[MissionMan]

My first question is what is your maximum budget?

[teylward]

I'm looking around the $1000 and below for the lot. I have been looking through eBay, eGlobal and DWI.

[MissionMan]

There are a couple of things I would consider with this budget:

1. Do you intend upgrading to full frame in future? (the lenses you buy now may need to be replaced if you do)
2. What is your most commonly used lens?

From there, I would invest the most in the lens you are most likely to use and get a cheaper lens for the one you are less likely to use. The reason for this is as you grow in photography, you want to try invest in lenses you won't be forced to replace. To get two mediocre lenses now might result in you replacing both, whereas buy one cheap lens now and an expensive lens will result in you only replacing one.

For example, you could get a Tamron 24-70 or a Sigma 24-105 ART lens which will give you phenomenal quality photos and get a cheap kit telephoto lens, then when you have budget to upgrade the telephoto, get something like a tamron 70-200 and you would have lost very little on the replacement of the cheap lens, but replacing 2 $500 lenses may mean you're stuck with a bigger loss and two more lenses to buy which will be an expensive upgrade again.

One of the interesting things about photography is you can often work within the confines of the lens and focus on genre's that use it more.

[teylward]

Thanks. I didn't think about that. I know that I will stay on DX for a while, not sure about going full frame just yet. I was looking into a Nikon D610 for a bit, but it is a lot of money to spend right now. Do you think it would be better to buy into full frame lenses so if I upgrade to full frame later, I don't have to buy more replacements? Just use the FX lens on my D5000 until I upgrade.

At the moment I mainly use the 18-55mm kit lens.

[MissionMan]

A good set of lenses can last 10 years. I'd be inclined to say get a decent 24-70 (like the Tamron) now and then wait until you have a bigger budget for your longer lens. If you need to go wider than 24 (i.e. 18) you can always pull out your 18-55 but you'll find yourself working around the constraint because most of the time you won't want to change a lens if you don't have to. I carry a 70-200 on my body 80% of the time and I work around that so the difference between 24 and 18 is definitely workable. If you have a good 24-70, you'll find it unlikely you will use a prime often because the flexibility and quality of the 24-70 will offer you a lot while you are learning. If you need something for low light, get an external flash because that is also something you will use long term or consider it once you can afford the Sigma 35 ART which is one of the best lenses in it's class.

Personally, with a $1K budget, I'd consider the Tamron 24-70 (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/astore/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Lenses.aspx?afid=7&gclid=CMXQ5bHzy8ACFdclvQodq30AWQ#) and save the left over money towards your next lens which you could invest in a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 would allow for the addition of a 1.4x converter which would extend it to a 98-280 f/4 or you could push it longer with a 1.7 or 2x but you lose a substantial amount of quality with the latter. The advantage of having a 70-200 f/2.8 over a longer lens is it's an incredible portrait lens but also works well for things like sports.

If you know someone with a 24-70 f/2.8 (nikon or other brand), try it on your camera and you'll see the difference a good lens makes. It's honestly surprising how much sharper your photos are.

[ROA44]

Hi Travis, I've not been around for awhile for various reasons but I also have a D5000 and just recently bought the Nikon 24-70 and am more than happy with it I was going to get the Tamron however they didn't have one available so got the Nikon. I have the 35mm 1.8 but hardly use it now but wont get rid of it but sometimes think I should have bought the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4. But the lenses I get now are going to be in consideration of a full frame in mind so good luck with your hunting and if you can hold out a bit longer to get the better quality lens then it is worth it.

Cheers for now.

Milton

[arthurking83]

To get you started .. how's this for a 'plan'

Start off with a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 for your UWA needs. Note that there is an f/3.5 version of this lens too .. you don't need it. Keep it cheap!

For your longer focal lens needs, you have a few options and the trick here is as MissionMan implied .. the desire to go to Fx later in life, and the associated problem of having to replace your lenses again down the track.
Think of it from this perspective(rather than the current situation). If Nikon introduced an Fx frame camera in the sub $1000 mark in the next few years .. would you be interested in such a camera!
Think of a D5000 type camera with a 24Mp sensor that could cost under $1K .. maybe even under $800 or so.

The point is, don't look at it from the perspective that the D610 costs $XXXX.XX now .. do you think you may ever want to get an Fx frame camera .. full stop!
If no, then stick with what will serve you best with those needs.

If you have the desire to go to an Fx camera if they become a viable financial proposition .. then seriously factor that into the next step of decisions you make.

I have a regular selection of 13-14 lenses that I like to use .. only two of them are Dx only types.
All the others are Fx lenses.
My major gap was in the UWA side of the focal length line up.
When I got my Fx camera, I had no issues shooting it at Dx crop mode with my Sigma 10-20mm while I considered all options for an Fx replacement(for about a year or so). I shot it in both Dx and Fx modes on the camera as I saw fit. Because the lens was wide enough even in Dx mode, I felt I lost nothing.
Because I had an Fx type 28-75mm lens .. having my other Dx only lens(Tammy 17-50) wasn't a hindrance. But I know if I didn't have the 28-75 lens for the Fx camera .. I'd have got frustrated with it.

So, if you pre plan that your longer lenses will be Fx capable lenses, you won't ever need to worry about updating to Fx at any point later in life.

Sigma 24-105/4 is a good longer lens to strive for, as would be the Nikon 24-120/4 too.

Wanting the prime lens for low light, or night shots makes sense .. but note that for the purpose of long exposures it doesn't! You don't want a fast lens for long exposures .. it's wasted in that respect. Even with that in mind, for the price, it's a great lens.

For a semi decent longer tele Fx capable lens .. the Tammy 70-300VC is quite OK, but I suspect that if you ever upgrade to an Fx system, you may feel it's not quite as good as you once thought.


.. anyhow .. if we ever get around to arranging another Melbourne get together soon, there would be enough gear to play with to give you a better idea of what's good and what's important to you.

[teylward]

Thanks heaps guys. You have put it all in perspective for me. I think I have a better way of dealing with it now. You have saved me money and time buying new replacements for my replacements.

Cheers

[danny]

A good set of lenses can last 10 years. I'd be inclined to say get a decent 24-70 (like the Tamron) now and then wait until you have a bigger budget for your longer lens. If you need to go wider than 24 (i.e. 18) you can always pull out your 18-55 but you'll find yourself working around the constraint because most of the time you won't want to change a lens if you don't have to. I carry a 70-200 on my body 80% of the time and I work around that so the difference between 24 and 18 is definitely workable. If you have a good 24-70, you'll find it unlikely you will use a prime often because the flexibility and quality of the 24-70 will offer you a lot while you are learning. If you need something for low light, get an external flash because that is also something you will use long term or consider it once you can afford the Sigma 35 ART which is one of the best lenses in it's class.

Personally, with a $1K budget, I'd consider the Tamron 24-70 (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/astore/Tamron-SP-24-70mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Lenses.aspx?afid=7&gclid=CMXQ5bHzy8ACFdclvQodq30AWQ#) and save the left over money towards your next lens which you could invest in a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. The 70-200 would allow for the addition of a 1.4x converter which would extend it to a 98-280 f/4 or you could push it longer with a 1.7 or 2x but you lose a substantial amount of quality with the latter. The advantage of having a 70-200 f/2.8 over a longer lens is it's an incredible portrait lens but also works well for things like sports.

If you know someone with a 24-70 f/2.8 (nikon or other brand), try it on your camera and you'll see the difference a good lens makes. It's honestly surprising how much sharper your photos are.

+1

And you can buy the Tamron 24-70 for sub $1K domestically (i.e. non-grey market) if you ask for their best price.

[glennb]

I also recommend the Tamron 24-70 and think its even a better all-rounder on a cropped body. I use it on my 5100 and d610. As a zoom with a 2.8 around the 1k mark I would recommend the Tamron 70-200mm vc , I just got a deal $1189 local shop. But will not be getting it for a week or so, so I am only referring it from the good reviews I have read.

[ROA44]

I think DWI one of the site sponsers have the Tam 24-70 f/2.8 under $950

- - - Updated - - -

I think DWI one of the site sponsers have the Tam 24-70 f/2.8 under $950

[teylward]

So, I ordered my Tamron 24-70mm yesterday from site sponsor eGlobal for $925 (includes shipping). It was the lowest I had seen the lens after watching the site for the last week or so. It's on it's way soon. Can't wait to have a play with it.

Thanks for everyones advice. It has been great and money saving

[arthurking83]

Good work.

it's a great lens, and on the D5000 you'll love it's IQ.

First thing you will notice is how big it is!
On the D800 it feels just about right(but big) .. on the D300 it just feels big!

Have fun.

[teylward]

Hahaha. I can't wait to give it a go. I ordered it Sunday and it's already in Melbourne. Should be in my hands tomorrow hopefully.

[robmj65]

I've got a Tamron F2.8 17-50mm lenses and find it very good, its probably my stock lenses for landscapes and general use.

The Tamron 18-270 is also worth considering for a general purpose or holiday lenses where you don't want to take too much. The model with VC is good and sharpest at F8.