Lens for D5100

[biostud]

I'm planning on buying a Nikon d5100 body and couple it with a good all round lens. Even though I know that's not the optimal route, I know I'm not going to walk around with several lenses. I've been reading a bit about lenses and the: Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF], seems to give a lot of value for the money.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/637-tamron175028d7000?start=2

Any other recommendations in same price category (max $500)?

 

[Paladin3]

If you want to be able to shoot just about anything you run into, you will need more than one lens. Super-zooms basically suck, unless you really prize portability over all else.

For under $500 the Tamron 17-50/2.8 you mentioned is the lens to get. If I could only carry a single lens that would be it, unless I had the cash to spring for the Nikon 17-55/2.8 at $1400.

Later on add in an 80-200/2.8 or 180/2.8 and you can shoot just about anything you run into with two lenses.

 

[blastingcap]

I've had the Tamron non-VC version, it's very sharp but not built that great... the front element actually TOUCHED one of the glass elements inside the lens when retracted. And it's noisy as hell which you might not appreciate now, but there are many times when you don't want to call attention to yourself and the Tamron will certainly call attention to you in quiet times. The VC version is actually less sharp and if you want optical stabilization try the Sigma 17-50 OS HSM instead. (I own one of those too... in fact, I replaced my Tamron 17-50 non-VC with it.) You can get one used for under $500. Even when purchased new, it's not THAT much more expensive than the Tamron non-VC, but it is about as sharp, gives you a couple of stops of stabilization, and is whisper-quiet.

 

[CuriousMike]

When I was looking for a zoom lens, the three I looked at were
1- Tamron 28-75 2.8
2- Tamron 17-50 2.8
3- Sigma 17-70 2.8 - 4.0

I went with the Sigma, and I'd have to say I'm only moderately impressed with it.
The zoom range is useful, but I have to stop it down a couple for it to get sharp, so I'd say it's more of a 4.0 - 5.6. I know this is typical of most lenses ( step down to improve sharpness ), but I think I would have rather gone with the 28-75 for the 2.8. I also tend to like more reach than wide.

 

[Paladin3]

Blastingcap is right, the Sigma is a great choice to for not much more money. Whichever one you get, check it focusing before you leave the shop with it. I've heard both can have issues with calibration from copy to copy.

VC may be a factor in your decision, but not so much for me. For VC to work you need a stationary subject, and I tend to shoot stuff that moves. If something isn't moving I bring a tripod. Plus I've heard that Tamron VC can sometimes take time to settle down and if you don't wait for it then the shot is blurry because it's still working.

Either lens is a great choice, unless you are a demanding pro and can afford the Nikon version.

 

[AkumaX]

Sigma 17-50 OS HSM instead. (I own one of those too... in fact, I replaced my Tamron 17-50 non-VC with it.) You can get one used for under $500.

I did the same thing. Although, on a Canon 60D

 

[gevorg]

The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a great bang for your buck. Also consider getting a prime lens at some point, Nikon makes an excellent 85/1.8G.

 

[biostud]

I don't think I will get the VC Version.

 

[Silenus]

The Tamron is certainly a good choice. I'd consider a prime as well. Obviously the Nikon 35/1.8 is a popular choice and is a tremendous bargain. You could go new Nikon 28/1.8, the new Sigma 30/1.4 (supposed to be very nice and I am thinking of trading my NIkon 35 for it, but waiting on some reviews). The suggestion of an 85/18 is also nice for moderate telephoto. You need to think more about what and if you need more telephoto. Perhaps you might be better off with the Tamron and a a decent flash unit. It all depends what you shoot.

 

[biostud]

My take is it's better to get a lens a can do some overall experimenting with first, and if I ever feel the need for specific lenses, I can go buy some. I don't think it would be a good idea to invest in a lot of lenses before I actually know more about taking good pictures.

 

[Silenus]

Yes...in fact that is exactly what you should do.

It's generally always better to shoot first, get experience, and find out what you like photographically. And that will naturally lead you to new lenses IF the need arises. You will also be better equipped to evaluate the characteristics you value in a potential lens (focal length, weight, zoom ability, aperture, bokeh quality ect) and thus make a more informed decision.

 

[irse]

I would see if I could spend a little more and get the Nikon 24-84 3.5-4.5 VR. I had the Tamron 28-75 and Nikon 16-85 and like the 24-85 much better.

 

[blastingcap]

I would see if I could spend a little more and get the Nikon 24-84 3.5-4.5 VR. I had the Tamron 28-75 and Nikon 16-85 and like the 24-85 much better.

He's using a d5100, I think 24 or 28mm may be too narrow on the wide end when you consider the 1.5x crop factor, for a lot of people.

 

[irse]

He's using a d5100, I think 24 or 28mm may be too narrow on the wide end when you consider the 1.5x crop factor, for a lot of people.

Depends on what he likes to shoot. I use a D300S and now a D7100 and thought I would miss the 16 but I usually shoot longer so I even rarely shoot at 24. My walk around lens is the 35 1.8 mainly because it's small.

 

[Indus]

Just go with an 18-105mm for daylight and a 35mm f/1.8 for low light/ indoors.

Both are light and offer great value for the money.

Before anyone disses the 18-105.. in daylight you shoot at f/8 - f/16. The lens will be super sharp and has a nice range with VR. And for low light you have the f/1.8 35mm prime.

 

[Silenus]

Depends on what he likes to shoot. I use a D300S and now a D7100 and thought I would miss the 16 but I usually shoot longer so I even rarely shoot at 24. My walk around lens is the 35 1.8 mainly because it's small.

Exactly. It depends on what he likes to shoot... which is what he needs to find out over time.

I was like you but ended up with an opposite conclusion. I tried all the various 18-xxx zooms including superzooms. Once I got the 16-85 I realized it was a good blend for me. I appreciate the extra width of the 16mm end more than I miss anything over the 85mm end. Having a zoom starting at 24 definitely wouldn't fly...but that was me.

I think one of the common walk around zooms is a good starting point at least. Honestly even the usual 18-55 VR kit is a perfectly reasonable starting point to figuring out what you like to shoot and what focal lengths you lean towards.

 

[biostud]

So, I've been researching a bit an found out that every photo site has their own recommendation on which lenses are the best for general purpose.

On one hand I don't like buying a kit lens if I'm going to replace it anyways, but if I start by buying the "wrong" lens, then I'll loose money too.

My next dilemma has been whether to buy my camera+lens in Denmark or US (since I'll be going there in the summer), and depending on body+lens combo my savings range from (-5%-30%) by buying in US.

By buying in Denmark I'll get better warranty and lower cost for service, but if I could save 20-30% in buying price that would be worth a consideration.

ATM I'm leaning towards getting a d5100 + 18-105 lens because it's the cheapest solution (~$750 total, lens $210) to start with and it's actually cheaper in Denmark than US. Then maybe adding a 35 f/1.8 down the road. Also the only dslr I've been using before are the d5000 and d5100, and I'm definitely still a beginner.

Does this sound like a good place to start?

Other lenses which have been considered:
nikon 16-85
nikon 24-85
nikon 18-200
tamron 17-50
Sigma 17-50

 

[Mgz]

I use a D5200 with Sigma 18-300 Macro OS for 329$ ... pretty happy for what I paid for that instead of 700$ +++ for the Nikon one

 

[Anteaus]

If you are planning on staying DX, then the 18-200mm is a solid all-arounder. If you're planning on upgrading to FX one day, I'd look at the 24-85mm. The 18-105 is a solid lens but for the money you're within reach or the more versatile 18-200mm. My 2 cents.

 

[biostud]

The 18-105 is $210 vs the 18-200 for $875 in Denmark, so that's quite a price jump.

 

[Silenus]

The 18-105 is decent lens. Good combo of zoom range, quality, and price. Like I said above..for me the best compromise of things was the 16-85 VR, because I really used the extra width more than the longer ends of the other zooms. There is nothing wrong with the super zooms as well...but you need to value the all-in-one cover every focal range very highly. Like all lenses they are a series of compromises. Realize too that the super zooms like the 18-200 lenses can be quite heavy compared to zooms with smaller range. This is not an insignificant difference and you should be aware of that since it will be the walk around 'always on' lens. Note the difference between the following:

1) 18-55 VR "kit" lens = 265 grams
2) 18-105 VR = 420 grams
3) 16-85 VR = 485 grams
4) (Nikon) 18-200 VR = 560 grams
5) (Sigma) 18-200 OS = 490 grams

 

[randomrogue]

I think you're doing yourself a disservice not having at least one fast lens. The 18-105 is 2-3.2 stops slower than the very affordable 35mm F1.8 lens. However as I've said in a couple threads around here you should pick one lens and then learn what you need from there. The 18-105 sounds like a good first choice. The 35mm is so cheap that it's a great option but you might find yourself getting the 28mm F1.8 instead which is a full frame lens and might last longer for you if you're going to go full frame. 35mm on DX is just a little bit too tight for my taste.

 

[Anteaus]

The 18-105 is $210 vs the 18-200 for $875 in Denmark, so that's quite a price jump.

Can always buy used.

 

[iGas]

18mm would be a great focal length to have for shooting in tight indoor situation. 16mm is a great focal length to have when you need the slight wider field for the landscape occasion or architectural.

55mm is a great focal length for many things, and specially portraits. 85mm is great to have for outdoor portraits and indoor sport, but it is not a deal breaker because you can always crop the image after when use 55mm.

105mm is an in between focal length that you rarely will use, unless you enjoy taking outdoor head shots. Or, crop heavily for outdoor sport photography.

200mm is another in between focal length for outdoor sport, wild animals, or birding, and it will require cropping for these type of photography.

Outdoor sport, wild animals, and birding tend to start at 266mm preferably 300mm or greater.

That said, for general shooting with out specialize in landscape, architectural, sports, or wild animals/birding, a 18-55mm will be the goto focal length for most people 90% of the time.

IMHO, it make perfect sense to get the 18-55mm + 35mm, or the Tamron 17-50mm + 35mm. The Tamron is the better choice since it give you a slightly wider field (you can always walk closer to the subject, but there are time you can't backup far enough to get everything in the frame).

 

[Syborg1211]

I think you're doing yourself a disservice not having at least one fast lens. The 18-105 is 2-3.2 stops slower than the very affordable 35mm F1.8 lens. However as I've said in a couple threads around here you should pick one lens and then learn what you need from there. The 18-105 sounds like a good first choice. The 35mm is so cheap that it's a great option but you might find yourself getting the 28mm F1.8 instead which is a full frame lens and might last longer for you if you're going to go full frame. 35mm on DX is just a little bit too tight for my taste.

^This guy knows what he's talking about. Agree on all his points.



I own both the Sigma 17-50 OS and the Nikon 16-85. I like both lenses a lot. The Nikon is a great walkaround lens and is the sharpest DX zoom made by Nikon other than the very pricey 17-55mm. My main issue with this lens is the aperture doesn't open up enough for me to like to use it indoors. I paired the 16-85 with a 35mm f/1.8, and I had a pretty good indoor/outdoor kit. The 35mm is a super sharp lens and gathers a ton of light indoors. I used this combo for a very long time and regret neither purchase. The 35mm is cheap and really a good second lens to have so you can play around with big aperture and bokeh (blurring background behind a subject).

Eventually though, I found my tastes were like randomrogue's, the 35mm was just a little too zoomed in for my tastes. So I picked up the Sigma because it is a very sharp lens, basically as sharp as the Nikon at matching apertures, and it can open up the aperture more at all focal lengths. This lens provides pretty good indoor performance due to the aperture and has a nice focal range. Plus, constant aperture zoom lenses are freaking awesome. I love being able to change the focal length and not have the aperture move around on me.

The only issue I have with the Sigma is the build quality. On the 3rd day I owned the lens, I had the lens inside a well-padded camera bag and the bag fell off of my chair onto the floor. The lens split open. It must have been the perfect angle of impact because it was really a short drop onto carpet. The lens was mounted to my d7000 so this probably put a lot of extra stress on the lens upon impact. I got to see the guts of the lens before I sent it in for a replacement. There seems to only be two very thin and long pieces of plastic holding the lens mount to the rest of the lens.

However, even knowing this design weakness, I still kept the lens because the performance was just too good to pass up. It's been a year and the replacement lens is still holding up well. I've just been a lot more careful about how I handle the lens. I don't keep the lens mounted to the camera in my bag for extended periods of time - meaning I don't mount the lens when I travel to a location, but then I leave it mounted for walkaround shooting once I get to the location. The zoom ring is not as smooth as it once was though so that's another problem. Despite these issues, I still love the lens, but I would caution people about the build quality (as everyone does when going third-party lenses versus Nikon/Canon made).