Uncharted Waters?

[Sutton Warrior]

OK, I'v been doing a lot of thinking recently, shoot in RAW? get a new computer? upgrad the Nikon D80, get a fast new piece of glass?

 

The new computer, that was a no brainer, the old one was on its last legs.

 

Shoot in RAW, thats still, work in progress? but curently one is still 60/40 in favour of JPG

 

A new camera body, curently on a D80, only bought it 9 months ago, the D90 has the CMOS sensor, but, another £350 + my almost new D80?

 

And finaly, new glass, thats the item in any decent kit that can make or break a picture, IMHO. Curent lenses, kit 18-70, Sigma 70-300 and a Nikon 18-200VR, all 3.5 + apature!

All three lenses are capable in there field, all be it budget, I would even float the speculative; 'best in their respective use/price bracket'? Personaly I find the 18-200VR, the dogs swingers, with the VR function allowing 3 to 4 stop better shooting leaway!!! I have heard that some find the 18-200VR a little lacking in sharpness at some focal lengths, something I have not been aware of personaly, althought, I use a tad of 'in camera sharpening'.

 

My budget would be £300-£400 tops . . . new computer has drained the coffers. Been looking at f2.8 lenses, Sigma and Tamrom both do somthing in the 18-50mm bracket the obvious choice is Nikons own f2.8 17-55mm . . . with a price tag of double my budget = a lump!

 

Dilema, stay as I am, pocket the money and enjoy the VR 18-200, or seriously consider the Sigma 18-50mm -- Tamron 17-50mm fast glass options, for both of which I have filters. 'Amatuer Photographer' gave them both a good 88% review rating compared with the Nikon in the same, multie side by side rewiew, it receiving 89%. One plus on the Sigma, 1.3 macro?? 1.3 is that macro, is it a plus?

 

What is holding me is the fact that I am repeating the focal length with the 18-200VR and the kit lens, but not the lower 'f' setting?? Final alternative is a Sigma 10-20EX 4-5.6, never use a wide angle like this before so a bit . . . 'where will it fit in my collection' . . . . . . . . earing towards the Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 as the compromise, which has just that tad more angle at its widest, am I choking over a nat? In un charted waters here.

 

SW

[Westie]

OK, I'v been doing a lot of thinking recently, shoot in RAW? get a new computer? upgrad the Nikon D80, get a fast new piece of glass?

 

The new computer, that was a no brainer, the old one was on its last legs.

 

Shoot in RAW, thats still, work in progress? but curently one is still 60/40 in favour of JPG

 

A new camera body, curently on a D80, only bought it 9 months ago, the D90 has the CMOS sensor, but, another £350 + my almost new D80?

 

And finaly, new glass, thats the item in any decent kit that can make or break a picture, IMHO. Curent lenses, kit 18-70, Sigma 70-300 and a Nikon 18-200VR, all 3.5 + apature!

All three lenses are capable in there field, all be it budget, I would even float the speculative; 'best in their respective use/price bracket'? Personaly I find the 18-200VR, the dogs swingers, with the VR function allowing 3 to 4 stop better shooting leaway!!! I have heard that some find the 18-200VR a little lacking in sharpness at some focal lengths, something I have not been aware of personaly, althought, I use a tad of 'in camera sharpening'.

 

My budget would be £300-£400 tops . . . new computer has drained the coffers. Been looking at f2.8 lenses, Sigma and Tamrom both do somthing in the 18-50mm bracket the obvious choice is Nikons own f2.8 17-55mm . . . with a price tag of double my budget = a lump!

 

Dilema, stay as I am, pocket the money and enjoy the VR 18-200, or seriously consider the Sigma 18-50mm -- Tamron 17-50mm fast glass options, for both of which I have filters. 'Amatuer Photographer' gave them both a good 88% review rating compared with the Nikon in the same, multie side by side rewiew, it receiving 89%. One plus on the Sigma, 1.3 macro?? 1.3 is that macro, is it a plus?

 

What is holding me is the fact that I am repeating the focal length with the 18-200VR and the kit lens, but not the lower 'f' setting?? Final alternative is a Sigma 10-20EX 4-5.6, never use a wide angle like this before so a bit . . . 'where will it fit in my collection' . . . . . . . . earing towards the Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 as the compromise, which has just that tad more angle at its widest, am I choking over a nat? In un charted waters here.

 

SW

 

Hi SW

 

I suffer from NAS (Nikon Aquisition Syndrome) and it's a sod. As you know, I've bough a nice lens recently... LOL

 

I went for f2.8 over VR in the end, as you know, but a great deal depends on what you shoot. I do a lot of portrait stuff with my wee girl and having the ability to shoot sharp shots at f2.8 is something that I would not give up now. The little critter runs around so fast that it helps with indoor shots where I don't want to use flash. VR would not help me unless I was taking pics of stationary objects.

 

Every lens is a compromise to some degree. There is no right answer, unfortunately. For landscapes, where you tend to stop down to f11-13 to get greatest depth of field, the likelihood is that I wouldn't see any difference between my 17-55 f2.8 and my kit 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 lens, unless you pixel peeped at 100% (and no-one does that for stuff we print out for home use). The Nikon 17-55 gets slated for corner sharpness and weird handling for landscape shots focussed at infinity. That made me nervous of buying it. In real terms - not an issue. If I was looking at 100% crops of extreme corner frame sharpness, then yes - centre sharpness is better than corners. But I don't see that in prints. I'm never going to print billboard size. That issue has now evaporated as far as I am concerned. I tend to use the lens most between f2.8-f8 where it excels. It's no slouch at landscapes at f11-13 either, but in terms of comparable improvement in this latter range, I'd be hard pushed to see it between that and my kit lens. The contrast and resolution do seem better, but how much of that is placebo effect? (New lens = better quality!!)

 

I understand the Tamron has almost equal ratings as the Nikon in that range. The only thing that steered me away from that was an apparent comms breakdown between lens/camera when using flash. Deal breaker for me, as I do use flash a reasonable amount.

 

The reports that I read seem to say that the D300/D90 make lenses like 18-200 'sing'. You've been taking some cracking pics with that lens, so why change? Pot/kettle/black from me probably, but I really wanted an f2.8 for DOF stuff. My kit lens didn't get sharp at 18mm until f5.6 or above. This lens is sharp at f2.8 and crazy sharp by f4. That's what I wanted for my use. For landscape, it matters not a jot and in fact my kit may do a better job!

 

You've got a good lens already. It's clearly taking good pictures. Another thought - why not get a circular polariser and maybe also a filter holder and some filters and get to grips with those. I've just got a CP filter and it's great fun. Hankering after some graduated filters now, so that I can keep sky and foreground properly exposed. Alternatively, try the Sigma wide angle for a complete rewiring on perspective.

 

If you like the idea of f2.8 for specific purposes (e.g. portraiture, where you're looking for shallow DOF), then all I can say is I'm a convert. Horses for courses and I guess it depends on what you mostly take pictures of.

 

Sorry if this is a bit contradictory and on the fence, but I guess I just confirmed my own belief that every lens has a degree of compromise in it!

 

And just my 2 penneth, as I'm no expert, to say the least.

 

Andy.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Westie

[Sutton Warrior]

Hi SW

 

I suffer from NAS (Nikon Aquisition Syndrome) and it's a sod. As you know, I've bough a nice lens recently... LOL

 

I went for f2.8 over VR in the end, as you know, but a great deal depends on what you shoot. I do a lot of portrait stuff with my wee girl and having the ability to shoot sharp shots at f2.8 is something that I would not give up now. The little critter runs around so fast that it helps with indoor shots where I don't want to use flash. VR would not help me unless I was taking pics of stationary objects.

 

Every lens is a compromise to some degree. There is no right answer, unfortunately. For landscapes, where you tend to stop down to f11-13 to get greatest depth of field, the likelihood is that I wouldn't see any difference between my 17-55 f2.8 and my kit 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 lens, unless you pixel peeped at 100% (and no-one does that for stuff we print out for home use). The Nikon 17-55 gets slated for corner sharpness and weird handling for landscape shots focussed at infinity. That made me nervous of buying it. In real terms - not an issue. If I was looking at 100% crops of extreme corner frame sharpness, then yes - centre sharpness is better than corners. But I don't see that in prints. I'm never going to print billboard size. That issue has now evaporated as far as I am concerned. I tend to use the lens most between f2.8-f8 where it excels. It's no slouch at landscapes at f11-13 either, but in terms of comparable improvement in this latter range, I'd be hard pushed to see it between that and my kit lens. The contrast and resolution do seem better, but how much of that is placebo effect? (New lens = better quality!!)

 

I understand the Tamron has almost equal ratings as the Nikon in that range. The only thing that steered me away from that was an apparent comms breakdown between lens/camera when using flash. Deal breaker for me, as I do use flash a reasonable amount.

 

The reports that I read seem to say that the D300/D90 make lenses like 18-200 'sing'. You've been taking some cracking pics with that lens, so why change? Pot/kettle/black from me probably, but I really wanted an f2.8 for DOF stuff. My kit lens didn't get sharp at 18mm until f5.6 or above. This lens is sharp at f2.8 and crazy sharp by f4. That's what I wanted for my use. For landscape, it matters not a jot and in fact my kit may do a better job!

 

You've got a good lens already. It's clearly taking good pictures. Another thought - why not get a circular polariser and maybe also a filter holder and some filters and get to grips with those. I've just got a CP filter and it's great fun. Hankering after some graduated filters now, so that I can keep sky and foreground properly exposed. Alternatively, try the Sigma wide angle for a complete rewiring on perspective.

 

If you like the idea of f2.8 for specific purposes (e.g. portraiture, where you're looking for shallow DOF), then all I can say is I'm a convert. Horses for courses and I guess it depends on what you mostly take pictures of.

 

Sorry if this is a bit contradictory and on the fence, but I guess I just confirmed my own belief that every lens has a degree of compromise in it!

 

And just my 2 penneth, as I'm no expert, to say the least.

 

Andy.

 

 

Westie, thanks mate, I was hoping you would put your £1's worth in, cos it worth it to me. I have always had the hankering for wiiiide angle, I take very little, indoor stuff. As you say, my 18-200VR is doing a good job, I dont need to duplicate the focal length. One also has the 18-70 kit lens that I have always rated, its on Hazels D40 at the moment.

 

I have been poeking around on the nett this evening, and am reading good things on the 10-20 Sigma, for me, I think 'WA' is the way to go? More thought no rush, you never know, a good second hand deal might jump up and bite me???? Just like when I bought the D40 for a steal.

 

SW