Lens advice

Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
3,809
Location
Massachusetts
Real Name
David
That 17-55, as I remember, is a tank. Someone once told me they kept it just in case someone tried to mug them- a seriously solid lens.
It is, had one for years. It was my standard pro event lens.
This is what I would do, sell the 24-70, why the big FX lens? 24 isn’t wide enough on DX IMO. And probably sell the 17-55 also. It’s easy to sell lenses and you get good money for them.

When we got kids I got into primes cause the subject isolation makes such beautiful pics. I hardly ever shoot the kids with zoom lenses. I love the 85 F1/1.8 for kids, it gives that look like you’re seeing them off in their own world. It can be hard to use and you probably don’t want to be too far from a 2 year old but some of my favorite shots are with that lens. I used a 50mm prime also - that’s more useful for a 2-3 year old.

There’s the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, some love it but I haven’t had good luck with it, and the AF was horrible on my D7000. Low light, moving kids, everything was out of focus. And it is big and heavy. I’m going to sell mine.
I shoot m4/3 now and (much like when I shot DX) I find f/2.8 not really fast enough when I want fast. But f/2.8-4.0 is great for kids action (and events) where it's nice to have more of your subject actually in focus.

One reason I say the 16-80 over the others is I have more images from zoom lenses pegged at the wide end than at the long end.

When my kids were younger my family travel lens on my DX bodies was an 18-200mm, VRI. Sure I had better glass, but when I was at Disney World or some other family destination for the day, that lens was easy to grab and provided a great range. I was happy to not have to haul around a bunch of different lenses and still get decent shots to keep as great memories. If I thought about it, I would sometimes throw a 50mm, f1.4 in my bag for some low light shots.

1. D200
View attachment 1686443

2. D200
View attachment 1686444

3. D200
View attachment 1686445
Well those are blasts from the past.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
Messages
1,023
Location
SF Bay Area, California, USA
The 18-140mm would be my choice for a travel lens. When you compare it with an 18-200mm the difference at the tele end is quite small. I is a good weight and balance on a crop sensor.
When it comes to sharpness compared to the 16-80 nobody will be able to tell the difference in a real situation.

I was quite happy with my 18-140, until I got the 70-200/4.
That was when I realized that I did not have to upgrade to FX for better IQ, I just needed better optics.
But unless I do an A/B comparison, I don't really notice it.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
1,070
Location
MN, USA
I was quite happy with my 18-140, until I got the 70-200/4.
That was when I realized that I did not have to upgrade to FX for better IQ, I just needed better optics.
But unless I do an A/B comparison, I don't really notice it.
Nothing beats good glass, good technique, and proper exposure.
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom