1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Advice for the lovelorn

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Palouse, Jul 4, 2007.

  1. I shoot a wide variety of landscapes and scenics on a D100 and a D2x (and very, very occasionally an N80).
    My current arsenal includes:
    Nikon 20 f2.8; sigma 12-24; nikon 50 f1.8; nikon 24-85, f2.8-4; sigma 105 (edited--make that a TOKINA), f2.8 macro (the older version) and Nikon 80-200 AFS w/ 1.4 & 2.0). Considerable overlap to be sure. I use the 24-85 a lot, it has scratched front element which does not seem to affect picture quality (and my daughter is ready to inherit it!). I lust for a 200-400, but know that unless I can mortgage off a kid or 2, or the wife, it will remain an illusive dream for a while. I lust too for 85 1.8 or 1.4, 17-35 or 17-55, 28-70, or perhaps either the sigma or Nikon 105 macro, among others.
    Given all your experience (and biases--which we all have :smile: )what should I, A) keep/sell/trade ,and B) buy? And why?
    Happy 4th all.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 5, 2007
  2. Nick, given that your main focus is Landscape, I would sell the 20, 12-24 (maybe), and 24-85 and get a 17-35 2.8. I have the 17-55and like the range better but the 17-35 has less flare and will work with your film body. With the 17-35, your 50, and the 80-200 you will have most of it covered. You'll probably use the 17-35 50% of the time though. I would keep the macro unless you want to upgrade the 105VR later. Just my humble opinion of course.
  3. I think I'm with you on the 20 and 24-85. I'm tending towards keeping the 12-24, and yes the 17-35 is less flare-prone than its longer brother. I used to use the 20 a lot when I shot film, but the 12-24 has taken its place, albeit with more weight!
  4. I've recently purchased a Tokina 12-24 and love it. I really haven't had the chance to put it to the test, but the few shots I've taken have been really good ones. I've never shot with the Sigma version, but I'm assuming that it's a quality lens. With this in mind, I think about your original post. You said that you shoot landscapes. This tells me that you need to keep your 12-24. Also, getting rid of an 80-200 AF-S is heresy. So this one is definitely a keeper as well. I'm currently considering a macro lens - probably in the 90-105 focal length range. You have one of those, so you should probably keep it if it produces sharp images. That just leaves the 24-80mm range. It seems that the 28-70 would be a perfect fit for you. It fills the void, and produces stunning images. It works well in low light, and in emergency situations, will serve as a boat anchor.:biggrin: It will also work on your N80. You'll still have the 20 2.8 to go wider in low light if needed. The Sigma will be there for truly wide angle shots (Who really needs 2.8 for landscapes anyway?)

    Of course, I'm partial to this setup, so just consider my ramblings with a grain of salt.
  5. weiran


    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    If you still intend to shoot film then keep the 20mm as its a fantastic lens on film, on a DX digital body its not so good though. The Nikon or Tokina 12-24mm are great landscape lenses, and defiantly worth a look if you're going to sell the Sigma 12-24.

    Personally I'd keep everything you have if you're happy with it, especially the Sigma 12-24 considering its width on film.
  6. If you don't mind the Sigma 12-24's flare characteristics, I don't think that replacing it with one of the other similar lenses is going to make any major improvement. Certainly the Sigma 10-20 is not significantly better, and from this I conclude that neither are the Tokina or Nikkor. Selling the 12-24 would net you about the amount you need for the Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24, so I don't particularly see the point in trading... And as others have pointed out, if you're into landscapes, it's hard to see how you'd do without this focal range. The 17-35/f2.8, while clearly better at its intended job than any of the above, is simply not the same tool or for the same job.
  7. Good comments all--though I must admit to a temporary "brain-freeze": I have the Tokina 12-24, NOT a Sigma!
    Yes, the 20 was great on the N80, but I find that I use it very rarely now.
    The big question it seems is what to replace the 24-85 with--- a 28-70 or 17-55. Or 85 either 1.4 or 1.8, perhaps, though less versatile.
    I can wait on a macro replacement, the Sigma 105 is not a great lens in my experience, and I tend to use it more for the infrequent portrait shot than for any real macro work. Perhaps a Nikon 105 or Sigma 150, someday!
    But my real need is the "walkabout/everyday" lens to take the place of the 24-85.

    I do love the 80-200 and the 50 1.8!
    Oh, and I do have a birthday soon!!!:biggrin:
  8. weiran


    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    Try the new Sigma 70 or Tamron 90, both incredibly sharp lenses.

    If you do landscapes then you'll probably find the focal length of the 17-55 more useful than the 28-70 (the wide end on a DX crop camera is 45mm equivlent which is a bit long IMO). Or the 17-35 which is well regarded as a landscape lens due to its resisitance to flair, sharpness when stopped down and that you can use it as an ultra-wide on your N80.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.