Need advice on a new lens? ASK HERE!

[TeriyakiSawce]

Hey guys i've been using my D90 with a 18-105 since i got it last summer. I've been wanting to get a 35mm as a standard crop lens for sometime now. Which is the better buy, the Nikon 35 1.8G or the Tokina 35 2.8? I've been looking at the Tokina and it seems to have better build quality as well as better bokeh than the Nikon. However, it is about 100 dollars more than the Nikon and is not as wide. I really do appreciate opinions which lenses to buy. Thanks.

[LiquidTurbo]

^ I've had both. I'd probably recommend the Nikon 35mm because of the f1.8 aperture.

Even though the Tokina has macro ability, it isn't particularly useful since it's fairly wide. If you do get close, then what happens it that you often end up blocking light because you have to get close to it.

The Nikon 35mm is consistently good and I believe a little cheaper. If you don't think you'll need the macro the Nikon version is better.

Here's a mini pinecone I took with the Tokina 35mm.

[ddr]

Originally Posted by m3thods

In case anyone is shopping around for a UWA (like I was )

830 tax in for a Canon 10-22. Local (Best Buy). Only 3 left online (with stock in Langley and Abbotsford)

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens : Wide-Angle Lenses - Best Buy Canada

869 at MemX. pricebeat for $7xx!

[m3thods]

Originally Posted by ddr

869 at MemX. pricebeat for $7xx!

I thought about doing that, but I don't really have time to head out to Richmond, plus the extra hassle to save 18 dollars wasn't worth it imo. Best Buy also has a better return policy should you need it.


If you're in Richmond though, can't beat that deal!

[TeriyakiSawce]

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo

^ I've had both. I'd probably recommend the Nikon 35mm because of the f1.8 aperture.

Even though the Tokina has macro ability, it isn't particularly useful since it's fairly wide. If you do get close, then what happens it that you often end up blocking light because you have to get close to it.

The Nikon 35mm is consistently good and I believe a little cheaper. If you don't think you'll need the macro the Nikon version is better.

Here's a mini pinecone I took with the Tokina 35mm.

How are is the bokeh compared to the Tokina and Nikon? I was primarily worried about the bad bokeh on the nikon from what I heard.

[Volvoman]

This is taken with the 35mm with a D90 at f1.8



Bokeh isn't that bad, unless you are looking for the smooth bokeh of a 50mm. For the price, it can't be beat.

[LiquidTurbo]

Originally Posted by TeriyakiSawce

How are is the bokeh compared to the Tokina and Nikon? I was primarily worried about the bad bokeh on the nikon from what I heard.

Bokeh is subjective. I would say probably the Tokina has better bokeh, but that's at 2.8. The Tokina doesn't go down to f1.8.

If you're after bokeh, focus length has a bigger effect. Go for a nice 50mm for that.

Overall, I'd still say the Nikon is probably the more desirable lens. You really can't go wrong unless you really need the macro ability.

[mb_]

Sigma 10-20mm (F3.5 or 4.5-5) or Tokina 11-16mm F2.8?

Gonna grab one in the future with my tax return (woot!), will be my "daily lens". Personally I'm leaning towards the Tokina since the focal lengths aren't too different and it has a faster aperture.

[Volvoman]

Tokina.

When you are indoors and dark trying to take a wide shot, you'll kick yourself in the ass wishing you had the f2.8 to capture it.

[hellyeah08]

Originally Posted by Volvoman

Tokina.

When you are indoors and dark trying to take a wide shot, you'll kick yourself in the ass wishing you had the f2.8 to capture it.

exactly how I felt after buying nikon 12-24 F4
and it goes that extra 1mm which I sometimes feel not wide enough

[mb_]

How about a telephoto/zoom lens for around $500? (used)

[ForbiddenX]

Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 telephoto lens?

I'm looking at getting a telephoto and it's either the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I or the 80-200mm f/2.8

The only downside I see with the 80-200 is that there is no VR and at those focal lengths VR would come in real handy.

[RCubed]

the 80-200 is REALLY heavy

[insomniac]

i have the 80-200. you can pm me and i can let you test it out! yes its indeed heavy. its sharp and gives off pretty nice bokeh. i have no problems with it. but when i first started to use it my arm wasnt used to the weight of it and i did get a few shaky pics
but then again i havent really experienced the 70-200 so i cant give a good critique

[Senna4ever]

Originally Posted by ForbiddenX

Does anyone have any experience with the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 telephoto lens?

I'm looking at getting a telephoto and it's either the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I or the 80-200mm f/2.8

The only downside I see with the 80-200 is that there is no VR and at those focal lengths VR would come in real handy.

Which version of the 80-200mm f2.8 are you talking about? There is the AF-S version and the older ED one. The AF-S version is a pig - big & heavy, but the ED version is smaller, lighter and can be pretty sharp, too. I've seen a greater variation in sharpness between individual lenses with the ED one though.

[ForbiddenX]

Originally Posted by insomniac

i have the 80-200. you can pm me and i can let you test it out! yes its indeed heavy. its sharp and gives off pretty nice bokeh. i have no problems with it. but when i first started to use it my arm wasnt used to the weight of it and i did get a few shaky pics
but then again i havent really experienced the 70-200 so i cant give a good critique

Awesome, thanks for the offer and the input. I'll send ya a PM some time soon my schedule is kind of lame on the weekdays lol.

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

Which version of the 80-200mm f2.8 are you talking about? There is the AF-S version and the older ED one. The AF-S version is a pig - big & heavy, but the ED version is smaller, lighter and can be pretty sharp, too. I've seen a greater variation in sharpness between individual lenses with the ED one though.

I'm looking at getting the older ED version of the 80-200mm. Should I be wary of buying used since there is a big variation of sharpness?

[Senna4ever]

If you're buying used, you should test it thoroughly for sticking aperture blades and AF issues - the usual. Nikon does still make them so you can buy them new too.

[!MiKrofT]

Hmm. Thinking of replacing my 70-200 f4 l with something faster. Can't afford the 2.8l is so thinking of either a sigma hsm 2.8 or the 2.8 l. Any thoughts on the sigma? Seems to get a decent rating on fredmiranda.

[insomniac]

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

Which version of the 80-200mm f2.8 are you talking about? There is the AF-S version and the older ED one. The AF-S version is a pig - big & heavy, but the ED version is smaller, lighter and can be pretty sharp, too. I've seen a greater variation in sharpness between individual lenses with the ED one though.

lol i cant imagine how heavy the AF-S version is since my ED is pretty damn heavy.

[insomniac]

hello again.

im in the market for a macro lens. tired of using a macro extender ring thingy with my 50mm and do want a new portrait lens. im going to use this lens mainly for portraits and macro work but a little more on the portrait side.

really liked playing with Matsuda's 90mm tamron. hands needed to be really steady and af was kinda slow. BUT i really liked the bokeh it gave off when i was shooting people with it.

which one should i get though? most likely getting a used one. another question is whats a good portrait lens that gives off a lot of blur?

1) Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 (new or old?)
2) Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG MACRO
3) Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro

4) Nikon 85mm f/1.8 (yes i do realize it doesnt have macro but will be shooting portraits most of the time.)

[m3thods]

When I was doing research for the Sigma (the newer OS one), it seemed to get fairly good reviews. However where it did poorest was at 2.8 @ 70 and 200mm (kind of expected). However it did match or exceed the original Canon IS mk1.

If you're looking at the Sigma HSM (non-OS) version- compared to the Canon 2.8, I believe it was inferior in pretty much every situation except price. Since you said you wanted to get faster, I'm assuming you'd be using 2.8 quite often, so keep that in mind.

IMO, if you can find a similarly priced Canon 2.8 or IS mk1, I'd go that route. Or save up to get the Canons, or the Sigma OS version.

Oh and don't try the Canon mk2- trust me once you try it you'll probably try everything in your power to get it. I did, and I won't look back

Originally Posted by !MiKrofT

Hmm. Thinking of replacing my 70-200 f4 l with something faster. Can't afford the 2.8l is so thinking of either a sigma hsm 2.8 or the 2.8 l. Any thoughts on the sigma? Seems to get a decent rating on fredmiranda.

I can vouch for the Tamron. My 90mm is so damn sharp, and for the price you can find them used, they're a steal! Just keep in mind- if you're doing macro at that focal length, you almost certainly need a remote shutter release and a tripod. And the AF is really slow, but you'll find yourself using the wonderful MF ring way more often.

As for portait lenses, any longer big aperture lenses will do (85 1.8, 70-200 2.8, etc). Even the macro would do if you're really on a budget.

Originally Posted by insomniac

hello again.

im in the market for a macro lens. tired of using a macro extender ring thingy with my 50mm and do want a new portrait lens. im going to use this lens mainly for portraits and macro work but a little more on the portrait side.

really liked playing with Matsuda's 90mm tamron. hands needed to be really steady and af was kinda slow. BUT i really liked the bokeh it gave off when i was shooting people with it.

which one should i get though? most likely getting a used one. another question is whats a good portrait lens that gives off a lot of blur?

1) Tamron SP AF 90mm f/2.8 (new or old?)
2) Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG MACRO
3) Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro

4) Nikon 85mm f/1.8 (yes i do realize it doesnt have macro but will be shooting portraits most of the time.)

[!MiKrofT]

Looks like I may be holding onto my F4L for awhile longer then. Thanks.

Originally Posted by m3thods

When I was doing research for the Sigma (the newer OS one), it seemed to get fairly good reviews. However where it did poorest was at 2.8 @ 70 and 200mm (kind of expected). However it did match or exceed the original Canon IS mk1.

If you're looking at the Sigma HSM (non-OS) version- compared to the Canon 2.8, I believe it was inferior in pretty much every situation except price. Since you said you wanted to get faster, I'm assuming you'd be using 2.8 quite often, so keep that in mind.

IMO, if you can find a similarly priced Canon 2.8 or IS mk1, I'd go that route. Or save up to get the Canons, or the Sigma OS version.

Oh and don't try the Canon mk2- trust me once you try it you'll probably try everything in your power to get it. I did, and I won't look back

[insomniac]

Originally Posted by m3thods

I can vouch for the Tamron. My 90mm is so damn sharp, and for the price you can find them used, they're a steal! Just keep in mind- if you're doing macro at that focal length, you almost certainly need a remote shutter release and a tripod. And the AF is really slow, but you'll find yourself using the wonderful MF ring way more often.

As for portait lenses, any longer big aperture lenses will do (85 1.8, 70-200 2.8, etc). Even the macro would do if you're really on a budget.

sigh too bad they are so hard to come by. i looked on craigslist and there was only 1 ad. thanks a lot for the advice though! Matsuda said he tried to sell his for $200 and thats a hella cheap lens for what you can do with it!

i have a 80-200 but i dont like lugging it around cause its so damn heavy so im looking for a smaller lens seems like the 90mm gives off a bit more blur too when shooting people!

[604778]

I think its time for a new lens. Not sure what I should go for though.

I currently have:
1) Tamron 17-50mm AF F/2.8
2) Nikon 35mm AF-S F/1.8G
3) Sigma 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5 (Don't use that much)

I haven't been up to date with lens lately. I use a Nikon D90.

[Matsuda]

what do you like to shoot mostly? I think adding a telephoto to your gear may come in handy