Lens Suggestions?

[DolphinOps]

Hey, So in case you couldn't tell by the title I'm looking for lens suggestions for my Nikon d5500 I bought recently. I currently only have the 18-55mm vrII kit lens but I find it rather limiting due to its variable aperture. Does anyone has any suggestions for a good standard zoom lens for a nikon aps-c body? 

[spartaman64]

<<--- zeiss fanboy

[DolphinOps]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

<<--- zeiss fanboy

ziess lenses are mad expensive tho....

[dobo2001]

 

26 minutes ago, DolphinOps said:

Hey, So in case you couldn't tell by the title I'm looking for lens suggestions for my Nikon d5500 I bought recently. I currently only have the 18-55mm vrII kit lens but I find it rather limiting due to its variable aperture. Does anyone has any suggestions for a good standard zoom lens for a nikon aps-c body? 

 

Nikon DX Dream Team- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm

[DolphinOps]

1 minute ago, dobo2001 said:

 

 

Nikon DX Dream Team- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm

Thanks, but the lenses listed in that article don't really solve my problem. the reason I'm looking for a new lens is because I find the 18-55mm lens that came with my camera limiting thanks to its variable aperture.

[spellmanuk]

tameron do some good lenses for the price 

 

maybe check this one out? 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Cameras/dp/B004FLJVYQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476734301&sr=8-1&keywords=Tamron+AF+18-270mm+f%2F3.5-6.3+Di+VC+PZD+AF+Lens+for+Nikon

[DolphinOps]

1 minute ago, peej said:

tameron do some good lenses for the price 

 

maybe check this one out? 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Cameras/dp/B004FLJVYQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1476734301&sr=8-1&keywords=Tamron+AF+18-270mm+f%2F3.5-6.3+Di+VC+PZD+AF+Lens+for+Nikon

Thanks but I'm really not looking for something with a massive zoom range. The range provided by the kit lens is perfectly fine but I dislike the fact that every time I zoom it my aperture changes.

[DolphinOps]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003A6NU3U/ref=pd_sbs_421_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=4Z9K16ER92H0R7AW4J72&th=1 Are these reasonably fast sigma zooms worth it?

[dobo2001]

1 hour ago, DolphinOps said:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003A6NU3U/ref=pd_sbs_421_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=4Z9K16ER92H0R7AW4J72&th=1 Are these reasonably fast sigma zooms worth it?

I actually have this exact lens and I really like it. However, I bought mine used at a local camera store for $240. If all you're trying to get is a lens that doesn't change aperture when you zoom, then I'd just stick with the kit lens. Maybe turn up the ISO a little bit or reduce the shutter speed and it's all the same.

[DolphinOps]

1 minute ago, dobo2001 said:

I actually have this exact lens and I really like it. However, I bought mine used at a local camera store for $240. If all you're trying to get is a lens that doesn't change aperture when you zoom, then I'd just stick with the kit lens. Maybe turn up the ISO a little bit or reduce the shutter speed and it's all the same.

its infuriating to continually have to adjust my camera settings just because i zoomed in.

[dobo2001]

3 minutes ago, DolphinOps said:

its infuriating to continually have to adjust my camera settings just because i zoomed in.

Where are you trying to shoot? Usually lenses are sharpest not at their lowest apertures. I know that my Sigma and Nikon 50mm look the best a f/8.0 and that's where I leave them when I'm outside in good light. At low light, yeah, maybe you have to adjust the settings, but turning a dial a couple times vs. $400...

 

What camera are you shooting on? What's your usual subject and lighting?

[DolphinOps]

2 minutes ago, dobo2001 said:

Where are you trying to shoot? Usually lenses are sharpest not at their lowest apertures. I know that my Sigma and Nikon 50mm look the best a f/8.0 and that's where I leave them when I'm outside in good light. At low light, yeah, maybe you have to adjust the settings, but turning a dial a couple times vs. $400...

 

What camera are you shooting on? What's your usual subject and lighting?

I have a Nikon d5500. As far as what I shoot it varies a lot but I do rather frequently shoot sports and moving subjects sometimes in rather dismal lighting, example last week I shot a cross country meet which was at night and even with the bright lights they had set up I still had to crank my camera to ISO 12800 in order to get a decent exposure. If I had a faster lens I could've dropped the ISO by a stop or two and gotten back some detail in my shots.

[dobo2001]

1 minute ago, DolphinOps said:

I have a Nikon d5500. As far as what I shoot it varies a lot but I do rather frequently shoot sports and moving subjects sometimes in rather dismal lighting, example last week I shot a cross country meet which was at night and even with the bright lights they had set up I still had to crank my camera to ISO 12800 in order to get a decent exposure. If I had a faster lens I could've dropped the ISO by a stop or two and gotten back some detail in my shots.

If you're shooting sports in the dark and you really want something that'll give you the best, a 70-200 f/2.8 is the way to go. These are $1200. Other than that for sports, there's the semi pro Nikon 70-300. If you want something with a similar focal length to the kit lens, then stick with the kit lens. I'm just not seeing the justification for buying a lens that isn't really for what you're trying to shoot. I do get that you want something with a lower aperture, but this isn't going to magically drop the ISO down to 1600. If you want something to really turn down the ISO, go buy a 50 or a 35mm f/1.8 and just move closer or farther away from your subject. Normally, sports are shot with tele lenses. And if you want to cover everything, here's the do-all lens- https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002JCSV8A/?tag=kenrockwellcom. This will cover all the focal lengths, but again, as with almost every lens, the aperture will change as you focus with this one as well. I'd go back and look through your shots. What was the most frequent settings/focal length they were shot at? If you were always up at the top of the zoom range, then going for something like the 70-300 or a 55-200 (a cheaper alternative, albeit with slower AF), might be something that you want. If you're really varying between all of the ranges, and you have some money burning a hole in your pocket, then go for it. 

[DolphinOps]

1 minute ago, dobo2001 said:

If you're shooting sports in the dark and you really want something that'll give you the best, a 70-200 f/2.8 is the way to go. These are $1200. Other than that for sports, there's the semi pro Nikon 70-300. If you want something with a similar focal length to the kit lens, then stick with the kit lens. I'm just not seeing the justification for buying a lens that isn't really for what you're trying to shoot. I do get that you want something with a lower aperture, but this isn't going to magically drop the ISO down to 1600. If you want something to really turn down the ISO, go buy a 50 or a 35mm f/1.8 and just move closer or farther away from your subject. Normally, sports are shot with tele lenses. And if you want to cover everything, here's the do-all lens- https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002JCSV8A/?tag=kenrockwellcom. This will cover all the focal lengths, but again, as with almost every lens, the aperture will change as you focus with this one as well. I'd go back and look through your shots. What was the most frequent settings/focal length they were shot at? If you were always up at the top of the zoom range, then going for something like the 70-300 or a 55-200 (a cheaper alternative, albeit with slower AF), might be something that you want. If you're really varying between all of the ranges, and you have some money burning a hole in your pocket, then go for it. 

I don't need a tele lens for the sports I shoot because I can get very close to the subjects I'm shooting. a faster lens would very nice for my use case because I do quite frequently shoot at the longer end of my kit lens which drops me down to f/5.6. In most cases that's fine but when I try and shoot sports its rather detrimental because I lose like two stops of light and I can't slow down my shutter speed.

[dobo2001]

Just now, DolphinOps said:

I don't need a tele lens for the sports I shoot because I can get very close to the subjects I'm shooting. a faster lens would very nice for my use case because I do quite frequently shoot at the longer end of my kit lens which drops me down to f/5.6. In most cases that's fine but when I try and shoot sports its rather detrimental because I lose like two stops of light and I can't slow down my shutter speed.

If you can get close to the subjects, and you're shooting at the top of the zoom range, go get a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D for $100 and go shoot. Tack sharp, low aperture, and because it can't zoom, the aperture is always the same! Most people, myself included, walk around with a "nifty fifty" on the body. Keep the kit for other situations. 

[DolphinOps]

1 minute ago, dobo2001 said:

If you can get close to the subjects, and you're shooting at the top of the zoom range, go get a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D for $100 and go shoot. Tack sharp, low aperture, and because it can't zoom, the aperture is always the same! Most people, myself included, walk around with a "nifty fifty" on the body. Keep the kit for other situations. 

I'll look into that, I have heard a ton of nice things about the "nifty fifty" but I like the convenience of having a zoom lens.

[dobo2001]

Just now, DolphinOps said:

I'll look into that, I have heard a ton of nice things about the "nifty fifty" but I like the convenience of having a zoom lens.

Fifties are cheap, good quality, and give amazing photo sharpness and quality. Photography isn't a "convenience" kind of thing. It's all about placing yourself to get the best photos, doesn't matter how you do it. And because they're so cheap, you'll be able to keep your kit lens for the zoom.

[DolphinOps]

Just now, dobo2001 said:

Fifties are cheap, good quality, and give amazing photo sharpness and quality. Photography isn't a "convenience" kind of thing. It's all about placing yourself to get the best photos, doesn't matter how you do it. And because they're so cheap, you'll be able to keep your kit lens for the zoom.

Well arguments of convenience aside I could buy the sigma 17-50 f/2.8 used for not significantly more than the 50mm prime. That being said according to dxomark the 50mm prime isnt that much sharper than the sigma 17-50mm if its on an aps-c body.

[dobo2001]

1 minute ago, DolphinOps said:

Well arguments of convenience aside I could buy the sigma 17-50 f/2.8 used for not significantly more than the 50mm prime. That being said according to dxomark the 50mm prime isnt that much sharper than the sigma 17-50mm if its on an aps-c body.

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4- $130, currently out of stock, but you can find them everywhere, check your local camera store. Much less expensive than the sigma. Don't get me wrong, I have the Sigma and I love it, I just don't think that you will benefit that much from it.

[DolphinOps]

1 minute ago, dobo2001 said:

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-50mm-Focus-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4- $130, currently out of stock, but you can find them everywhere, check your local camera store. Much less expensive than the sigma. Don't get me wrong, I have the Sigma and I love it, I just don't think that you will benefit that much from it.

That lens wouldn't work with my camera. The d5500 lacks an internal focus motor so I need af-s lenses. I could mount that on my camera but It would be manual focus only. The newer version is $216. Also the 50mm prime is an fx lens so I'm paying for extra glass I cant use on my dx body.

[dobo2001]

1 minute ago, DolphinOps said:

That lens wouldn't work with my camera. The d5500 lacks an internal focus motor so I need af-s lenses. I could mount that on my camera but It would be manual focus only. The newer version is $216. Also the 50mm prime is an fx lens so I'm paying for extra glass I cant use on my dx body.

Ahh, forgot about that, I'm loving it on my D7000. Still though, the new version is almost $200 cheaper than the Sigma, and FX vs. DX doesn't really matter, if anything, IIRC, it will let even more light through.

[DolphinOps]

1 minute ago, dobo2001 said:

Ahh, forgot about that, I'm loving it on my D7000. Still though, the new version is almost $200 cheaper than the Sigma, and FX vs. DX doesn't really matter, if anything, IIRC, it will let even more light through.

I almost got a d7100 but I couldn't really justify the extra cost. As for fx vs dx the fx lens isn't nearly as sharp on a dx body and according to dxomark I'd be looking at nearly identical sharpness on the 17-50.

[dobo2001]

48 minutes ago, DolphinOps said:

I almost got a d7100 but I couldn't really justify the extra cost. As for fx vs dx the fx lens isn't nearly as sharp on a dx body and according to dxomark I'd be looking at nearly identical sharpness on the 17-50.

Should have tried to get a used D7000 like me. There's basically no difference between the D7000 and the D7100. I only paid $400 with a 18-105 lens. You'd get identical sharpness, but you were talking about having a low aperture and the 50mm gives you that, a full stop over the 17-50. The 50 is also much lighter, that Sigma is extremely heavy.

[DolphinOps]

9 minutes ago, dobo2001 said:

Should have tried to get a used D7000 like me. There's basically no difference between the D7000 and the D7100. I only paid $400 with a 18-105 lens. You'd get identical sharpness, but you were talking about having a low aperture and the 50mm gives you that, a full stop over the 17-50. The 50 is also much lighter, that Sigma is extremely heavy.

The d7100 has a higher resolution sensor and faster autofocus than the d7000. IIRC the d5500 shares the same autofocus system as the d7000 but with the same sensor as the d7100. As far as the lens yes I would have a full stop of light over the sigma with the prime but only at the 50mm focal length and I'd be reduced to f/3.5 at best for any other focal length I'd want to use.

[AkiraDaarkst]

3 hours ago, dobo2001 said:

 

 

3 hours ago, DolphinOps said:

 

You can pretty much ignore 99% of whatever Ken Rockwell has to say.  You buy a lens based on what you need and what you want to do, not because someone recommends it.

 

So what exactly do you need?  A very fast fixed focal length lens, a constant aperture zoom?  Choose the focal length and zoom based on the coverage you need.  Something like a 50mm f/1.8 might be a great lens, but if it doesn't provide the coverage you need then forget it.  You don't have to buy a lens because someone tells you to.

 

The Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 lens is a good lens, and of course you have the option to get the newer and faster 18-35 f/1.8 lens if you so desire.  There is also the option to get the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 which is another fantastic DX lens but I believe would cost more.

 

Lights may appear bright to our eyes, but our eyes are very good at adapting to different brightness conditions.  Camera sensors are not, so what appears bright to our eyes will not necessarily be bright enough to the camera.  If raising the ISO and lowering the f-stop isn't enough, get a speedlight or set up some strobes.