Help with finding a lens

[Chad and Belinda]

I was browsing photos on another site that others have taken and there are some amazing shots. I saw a picture that someone took from their balcony while in Paris...it captured the city perfectly and was breath taking. He has a canon and the lens he used is a sigma 17-70 f3.5-4.5. I would love to find a lens comparable to that one. I am also looking for a nice macro lens.

I have a Nikon D40x. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

[+dapettit]

Sigma makes great lenses and they can be order with a Nikon mount.

You can find them here:

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 Lens for Nikon Digital Cameras This lens is a little faster than one used.

I would try to find it locally as well, to get feel for the lens. You need to multiple the focal length by 1.5 since the Nikon D40 is not a true 1:1 ratio.

Did he mention the camera model he used?

[chrisfowler99]

Sigma actually makes a very similar lens for the Nikon:

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-17-70mm-2-8-4-5-Macro-Nikon/dp/B000UC26CS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1266506105&sr=8-4

My favorite "walk around" Nikon lens is my Nikon 18-200 VR.

As for a Macro, I'm still looking too. I think I'm gonna end up with one of the old Macro lenses (20+ years old) as the price is much nicer and I don't care about autofocus when taking macro shots. I just need to keep my eyes open on craigslist, I guess.

[+dapettit]

As for a Macro, I'm still looking too. I think I'm gonna end up with one of the old Macro lenses (20+ years old) as the price is much nicer and I don't care about autofocus when taking macro shots. I just need to keep my eyes open on craigslist, I guess.

I too have a 55mm macro that's 20+ years old. Sigma also make a great 105 macro cost is around $490 cheap compared to the Nikkor. I was fortunate enough to have to privilege of test driving one:

Test driving a Sigma 105 f/2.8 Macro

Sorry didn't mean to hijack!

[Chad and Belinda]

Sigma makes great lenses and they can be order with a Nikon mount.

You can find them here:

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 Lens for Nikon Digital Cameras This lens is a little faster than one used.

I would try to find it locally as well, to get feel for the lens. You need to multiple the focal length by 1.5 since the Nikon D40 is not a true 1:1 ratio.

Did he mention the camera model he used?

He was using a canon 40D. I am open to the older lenses as well, and I don't mind manual.

[Chad and Belinda]

Here is the picture I was talking about...

[Mike M.]

If you are wanting this focal range and speed or don't mind a slightly slower lens, the 18-200mm Nikon is my favorite for versatility when traveling. One lens does it all. Here's a link and remember the focal length is comparable to what you found was used to take the Paris photo, but you will also have the telephoto capability. This is a great lens for a D40 and I love to use it on my D2x when I am out doing people/event photography. No lens changes. Portraits at 120-200mm and wide angle at 18mm. Doesn't vignette or bend the image so processing is a snap with no Aperature time or photoshop time needed to correct aberration. Check it out:

Nikon 18-200 review

Best regards,

Mike

PS. You can see what a 70-200mm f2.8 can do at Mighty Dog PHoto

[Mike M.]

Oh, I have also used this same lens to grab frag snapshots for posting here in the classifieds. It is very versatile and makes for a macro lens in a pinch.

[Mike M.]

One criticism of the 17-70mm focal length...It really is only productive in the 17-30 and 60-70mm zones. Photos taken between 35-60mm of focal length with a 1.5x crop/magnification tend to produce "boring" perspectives. A 17-70 does not provide much versatility. It, in my opinion, is just a fancy zoom wide angle lens. That is why I would take a look at the 18-200mm nikon or similar Sigma, because this stuff is expensive and with DSLRs, we don't need a lens bag full of lenses. I have one and I use two lenses for event and travel photography out of it if I don't go the lazy route and just carry the 18-200mm. Those lenses would be the 12-24mm wide angle and the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom. These two lenses do it all when it comes to traveling and event photography. So, unless you just like collecting lenses, give some thought to the versatility that the 18-200 offers.

Mike

[Mike M.]

For fist tank macro, the 105mm Nikon without the VR is a great way to go. Tack sharp! The non VR models are available all over because of the new 105mm VR model introduced last year. I use one diving and for dental photography in my office here in Austin. Fantastic lens! Going with the older Non-VR model is a good way to save some bucks. Slap that rig on a tripod and blow your friends minds with your tank macro work.

[Chad and Belinda]

BTW...I just recently bought a lens, and have only tested indoors a couple of times.

AF-S DX Nikkor - Nikon

ED 55-200mm 1:4-5.6G

Any thoughts?

[Mike M.]

I'd either sell the 55-200 and get an 18-200 or just add the fancy wide angle zoom that you originally posted. I used to like having a bag full of lenses. I don't any longer. I would sell and consolidate to one lens. Less stuff to keep up with and easier to get around and shoot whatever you want. Neither lens will do all you want with regards to the reef tank though. I personally use a Nikon 70-180mm MACRO lens for diving and tank photography as my goto lens. It is no longer in production, but used ones are available on ebay.

[Robb in Austin]

The 55-200 is a nice consumer grade lens. I got one with my D40 kit, and while it would be nice to have some pro grade glass, I haven't exceeded the limits of the kit lenses yet.

The kit 18-55 is a nice lens too. If you already have that one, I see no reason to upgrade. The only real reason for upgrading from either of these lenses is for the larger apertures available, which you can somewhat compensate for with flash and/or higher ISO, or convenience as Mike mentioned.

The macro advice above is good info.

[Chad and Belinda]

I'd either sell the 55-200 and get an 18-200 or just add the fancy wide angle zoom that you originally posted. I used to like having a bag full of lenses. I don't any longer. I would sell and consolidate to one lens. Less stuff to keep up with and easier to get around and shoot whatever you want. Neither lens will do all you want with regards to the reef tank though. I personally use a Nikon 70-180mm MACRO lens for diving and tank photography as my goto lens. It is no longer in production, but used ones are available on ebay.

What's the biggest difference between the 55-200 and the 18-200? Also, what wide angle zoom are you referring to?

[Robb in Austin]

Zoom range and cost. If you have the 18-55 already, the difference would be one lens vs two that you have to switch between to cover the same area.

Image wise, probably not too much difference.

Mike was referring to the 17-70.

[Chad and Belinda]

Zoom range and cost. If you have the 18-55 already, the difference would be one lens vs two that you have to switch between to cover the same area.

Image wise, probably not too much difference.

Mike was referring to the 17-70.

Cool.

I really appreciate all the help.

[Robb in Austin]

If you haven't yet, look at joining Nikon Cafe. Great info and pics.

Glad to help!

[chrisfowler99]

Zoom range and cost. If you have the 18-55 already, the difference would be one lens vs two that you have to switch between to cover the same area.

Image wise, probably not too much difference.

It would depend greatly on whether or not the 18-55 and 55-200 are VR lenses. The older kit lenses weren't. I believe the newer ones are.

The Nikon 18-200 is a VR lens.

[Mike M.]

Range and price. Yes, those are the major differences and yes, the fancy wide angle zoom is the 17-70. When considering a lens purchase, I read dpreview and evaluations by Ken Rockwell. THose are great places to see if the lens offers anything over what you may currently have.

I have used the "kit" lenses. They are okay, but I prefer my "pro glass" for that extra degree of sharpness and flat field. Focus out to the corners. Now this is getting really picky and the minute the cost side of the argument gets thrown in, its hard to make any head way. I'll just add this, when I need to take a photo on commnad, need it to be tack sharp, I don't use the kit lenses in our collection. I use the Nikon 12-24, 28-70, or 70-200mm f 2.8. These lenses ALWAYS produce for me. The wide angle 12-24's chip set renders fantastic color and the 70-200 f2.8 is rocket fast and tack sharp.

I never use the 18-200mm for anything in motion. Still photography only. At f4.5-5.6, it is not capable of freezing action in low and medium light. These four lenses I have mentioned are not $300 glass like the kit lenses, but they do hold their resale value and anyone considering glass for a Canon or Nikon can rest easy knowing that if they buy new, use of the lens will usually only cost them about 20-25% of retail when they go to resale. "Pro" glass from either company will usually resale at about 80% of new. So that being said, it isn't such a disaster to buy pro glass.

Salient to this discussion is the convenience of the 18-200. Click it onto the d40's bayonet mount and leave it. No lens changes. Just go and have fun with your camera and a huge CF card. Switching between lenses means carrying a lens bag. Its just a monkey on your back. I hate carrying a lens bag when out at an event or traveling. So the argument for selling the 18-55 and purchasing the 18-200 can only be made from a convenience stand point. If cost is the determining factor, you'll need to stay with the consumer grade kit lenses.

[Robb in Austin]

Great points Mike.

I only wish I could afford the "Trinity" that you have.

[Mike M.]

Had to do it over, I would only purchase the 12-24 and the 70-200. The 28-70, although a sharp shooter, renders very boring photos. Its perspective is too close to our eyes perspective and what you get are just dumb old snapshots. I did a portrait last night of a gal and her two retrievers that won two stakes in a field trial last week and I used one lens-12-24mm. Good depth of field at f8 and technicolor color rendition that made me look pretty good in low light/bad conditions. Here is a photo taken after 6:00pm, strobe on a strobe frame, with the 12-24mm: 12-24 Girl and Dog Portrait

I don't have many photos, if memory serves on my Mighty Dog site that were taken with the 28-70. I tend to use that for photos of stuff for ebay and craigslist. Ridiculously expensive lens for ebaying stuff. All of my outdoor action photography is with the 70-200 f2.8 and if I could only have one lens in the world, that would be it.

Okay, so this has gotten way off of the original question, but it has been good entertainment through a day when my schedule has not been too thick at the office and some nut decided to run a plane into an office building because he hates the government. Thanks for playing photography with me!

Mike

[Robb in Austin]

Nice captures!

I've always lusted over the 24-70. Never considered the angel of view though, thanks for making me think!

What body are you using?

[Mike M.]

I use a D2x for action and have a D70 with the 18-200 for groups, stills, and knocking around.

[Robb in Austin]

Nice.

Would love to get a D90, but with SWMBO freaking out over $200 iPhone, don't think a $900 camera would go over too well.

[Mike M.]

Robb,

If you are using a D40, I believe the only thing of true value you gain in moving to the D90 is:

Depth of Field Preview

Slightly better/clearer viewfinder.

I really don't think you should pine for this. Not worth the bucks IMHO to upgrade. Making the jump to a D300(yes, I know, big bucks) would be a worthy jump though. That D40 is A-okay. I use one in my dental office and once you get used to the stupid menu drive aperature and shutter speed controls, they do a great job!

Mike

Edited February 18, 2010 by Mike M.