Originally Posted by GoneTomorrow
I've seen/known people who use Tamron lenses, but I've never heard of Tokina (and that by no means indicates that it's not a significant brand name).
I understand the need for wide angle (my next purchase for sure), but you seem to be lacking in the telephoto department. There are great telephoto lenses out there that go pretty wide and still have a decent telephoto (the range on my zoom is perfect IMO - 28mm - 135mm). You might say that you do landscapes primarily and have no need for telephoto, but I definitely appreciate having a decent zoom even for those kinds of shots.
Lenses are things you buy for the long run - something to consider if buying third party. They may be perfectly ok for all I know, but if you have qualms, why not buy one good Nikkor lens and save for others?
Yeah, I thought of just getting one really good Nikkor. I was going to get the Nikkor 16-85mm
, but although it's wicked-sharp, it's f3.5-5.6 and it's boke is supposed to be undesirable.
I also looked at the popular Nikkor 18-200mm
, but again, it's f3.5-5.6 and it's distortions (although well controlled for such a large zoom range) are quite prominent, especially so at the short end, where I'd use it most.
In addition, I thought of foregoing almost all of the extras (like Capture NX2, and every filter) and just getting a single lens in the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8
, but the truth is, that based on what I've read, the slightly shorter 17-50mm f2.8 Tamron is sharper throughout the zoom range and with RAW editing (that I'd be doing anyway) the little extra distortions and CAs compared to the Nikkor can be fixed easily. One thing you can't fix with software though, is increasing the detail captured in an image, that needs to be done with the hardware and the Tamron is better at it than the Nikkor based on everything I've read. Also as I said, Tamron are offering (at least in the USA) a 6 year standard warranty, which says to me that they're confident their lens will last.
I've spent about two weeks reading (into the small hours) reviews, user feedback and looking at photos taken with various lenses on the D300 and I've tried various permutations of lens purchase within my budget and the two lenses I've listed fit best for what I shoot most (currently) and the money I've got to spend initially.
I figure that in six months to a year's time, I'll be able to get more and potentially better lenses, but if I'm going to get the D300 (which I am) for the mean-time I'm going to have to make some compromises in terms of how many lenses I can get, for what price.
Later on, I intend to get the Nikkor 70-300mm VR, which, although it's only got apertures of f4.5-5.6, is supposed to be very good for the money and on a crop frame sensor gives a 35mm equiv. of 105-450mm, which will be more than adequate for me as I'm not into wildlife photography much and rarely need to zoom past 135mm (around 200mm @ 35mm equiv.). The Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR is also a contender
The only other lenses I plan to get would be a prime lens (perhaps the Nikkor 50mm f1.4) and a macro lens, which currently I plan to be the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VRII Micro, unless a better, equivalently priced alternative shows up in the lens market. This will leave a gap between 50mm and 70mm, but I'll probably fill it as time progresses.
Thanks for taking the time to read my posts! They're fairly long and I was a bit concerned nobody would read them and comment!
Further comments are welcome!
Highly-AnnoyedEdited by Highly-Annoyed - 6/22/08 at 12:42am