Dear all. Have just sold a compact system camera and lenses on ebay and looking to reinvest in some different lenses. I currently have the 35mm, 50mm, 18-105mm (all nikon) and a d7100.
I've narrowed my choices down to a fast short telephoto, like the nikon 85mm 1.8g and a 70-300mm, nikon or tamron vc.
I wondered if anyone had experience with the 85mm on a dx camera. And also if anyone had experience/ opinions on the 70-300 options.
Or maybe you feel there are some better options out there for me, my budget is £700, and Id probably be looking at the second hand market. Weight is quite a big factor for me as I'm pretty slight.
I shoot landscapes, nature close ups ( but not really macro) and portraits.
@quixoticneophyte Thanks for replying. I thought long and hard about just opting for a fast telephoto but I think the weight is too big an issue. I realise that's going to limit me in terms of a lot of the premium optics but if I don't feel comfortable with it I won't use it much.
85mm is the king of portrait lenses, I have a Canon FD 85 which I love and I know the Canon EOS one, i use Nikon but only have that FL on a zoom 28-85 f2.8 and I never felt the need to buy the prime. Its a lovely length though. I use an 80-210 on my Pentax K and one on my Contax cameras and I find that to be very usable, the faster the better. I'd try and get both on eBay used, look into what manual focus Nikon lenses will fit your digital, AI, AIS, do Carl Zeiss make an 85mm for Nikon?
I use a Nikon system and have both the 85mm (mine is a 1.4) and the 70-300mm Nikon VR AF-S ED 4.5-5.6. I use both of these lenses quite a bit and couldn't be happier with them. I don't know anything about how they compare to tamron or sigma. I use the 85mm in low light settings for portraits and indoor events. It also works on photo walks instead of my 50mm depending on the circumstances (for me, I carry either the 50 or 85, but rarely both). The 70-300 is fantastic! It doesn't weigh much, is highly versatile, does great closeups, has worked well on my D90 for my moon shots, was great at the zoo, even does well with insects and flowers on days when using a macro would be too limiting.
I do have a 70-200 faster zoom lens but it is so heavy and awkward that I never take it with me and wish I'd never invested in it. It would be great under the right circumstances, but I don't need a telephoto long lens. Just something to think about, in terms of how and when you photograph things. I've only used it twice in two years.
On my D90, the 70-300 gives me the equivalent of over 400mm (great for moon shots). I recently upgraded to full frame and it's been great on that one as well.
@quixoticneophyte Lots of weight on that sigma f/2.8 70-200! 3 pounds plus as I remember when I took it out for a trial spin. The Nikon is heavier and even more expensive. But both deliver on quality for sure.
@cazla Cazla, if you are interested in lighter telephotos, look into the f/4 Nikon 70-200. Not an f/2.8, but tack sharp - I don't miss the extra stop on the f/2.8 end - high quality throughout the whole range and a lot lighter. Not at all inexpensive however. US$1,300, but it is my walk around, almost always on my D7100. I don't know what you can get it for in the UK.
The 70-300's, even the Nikon, are not grade A professional glass or constant aperture (the f/4 above is both), and I think your D7100 deserves better. But they have good reviews, and I must say I have not tried them. At least the Nikon, don't know about Sigma and Tamron, is a VR lens, very useful for hand held longer focal length shooting for sure.
I have only shot 3 or four frames with the 85 f/1.8, on my D7100 around the camera super store, and it is indeed a nice sharp accurate lens especially for the price. But it is not VR, its minimum AF distance is almost 3 feet and I wouldn't have found it useful with my f/4 70-200 already in the bag. I'm not sure how it would fit with your landscapes (I would think you would be happy with the 50) and not great for your close-ups of nature - the minimum AF distance is not close and the 85 length won't allow you to get too close from that 3 feet.
I'd suggest you look for something a little longer for something to complement your existing primes, if you want another prime. The Nikon f/2.8 105 micro (a macro by any other name) is really great, and I think would fit with your medium telephoto needs. It's just a stop slower than a f/1.8 and will give you a true macro (1:1) at close focus of 12 inches or less. As well as being VR. I just bought this for my birthday, and am just beginning to shoot 1:1 macro, but it can be of course more than that. The 105 Sigma macro is a very similar lens, I had rented that out for a weekend as well, good quality, and perhaps a little less expensive than the Nikon (but not much). I think either would fit into your budget. And if you ever get into portraits, I think you will find either stunning there as well.
Good luck! Try and rent before you buy if you can.
A lot of my work is with my busted 70-300mm Olympus lens. I love this lens and I've used it for macro shots, to landscapes and portraits. I can't vouch for your brands, but I love the range of this lens.
@taffy thanks taffy for the feedback, glad it sounds like I'm on the right lines and was pleased to hear that the nikon works well for you. I've seen a lot of your great shots on pp so if I manage anything close to that il be happy!! Thanks again for responding.
@frankhymus wow thanks frank for such a comprehensive reply. I hadn't heard about the f4 and have now looked at its specs and its actually only 100g heavier then the nikon. There doesn't appear to be any about second hand though and it's retailing for £1000 over here. Do you think if I eventually got this it would negate my need for the 85mm. I know the 105mm is a very nice lens but thought it would be better for macro rather then portrait? I like your idea about hiring, going to look into this as would def want to try the f4 before making such a big purchase.
@frankhymus I too use a 70-200 f4, but the canon non-IS (non VR in nikon terms) which is around £500. I don't know if Nikon have an equivalent offering, but its a great tack sharp lens, which i'm sure will be similar on the Nikon. One point to note though is I use mine with my 7D for sports in good light (since about 1/200 of a second or more is required for consistently tack sharp images at the long end).
You say you enjoy landscapes, which are generally shot in lower light, where IS would be beneficial (though a tripod is best). The IS vs Non IS debate is your decision to make, (assuming nikon have models equivalent to the canon's...) but it sounds like this is the best lens for you given the big weight benefits over the F2.8...
The Tamron VC 70-300 is a decent lens in terms of sharpness. I've borrowed one. But it does struggle with transmission. i.e. because there is so much glass, the amount of light that gets to the sensor is quite a bit lower than the fstop at which you're shooting, e.g. if you're shooting at 300mm f5.6 it's like shooting in f7 (this is where the more expensive lens glass /coatings are generally beneficial) The real world implications of this means you would see a slightly darker viewfinder and slower shutter speeds when hand held. (But it does have VC to compensate for this if you're shooting static objects) DXO labs is a good website which offers data on lens transmission.
I haven't used the 85 1.8, but I know its a great portrait lens. 1.8 to f4 is a lot more light, which will enable you to use a faster shutter speed for more consistently sharp shots if you're shooting moving kids etc (freezing the action), which is something IS (or VR in nikon terms) cannot always help you with.
I also agree that trying before you buy will help. Get to a shop and use them a bit to appreciate the limits/benefits... and go home to review those images before buying.
@cazla The f/4 works for me in place of an f/1.8, but I find I seldom if ever find need to shoot below f/4, and when I do the f/1.8 inexpensive Nikon works most of the time. Not telephoto of course. If I would have to shoot wider at low ISO on the f/4, I raise the ISO. The high(er) ISO performance of the D7100, I think you said that is your camera, is very, very good, and a touch work in ACR even at 6400 and above adds even more. Here's one shot at ISO 12800 (Hi 1) that worked well for me at f/5 with a little post processing. Working in Raw of course. http://365project.org/frankhymus/work-in-progres/2013-10-19
The f/4 is a new lens, so I doubt you'll find used copies on the market yet. A number of people I know have traded in the f/2.8 for it even and like me have not been disappointed.
@cazla The 105 macros are great portrait lenses I find, but I like to shoot portraits with a telephoto longer than 85 even on my APS-C camera where the full frame equivalent angle is 50% greater. But once again the f/4 70-200 is also stunning as a portrait lens. Here's a straitforward portrait with the Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro http://365project.org/frankhymus/365/2013-06-09, and here's the same model shot with my f/4 at 200! http://365project.org/frankhymus/work-in-progres/2013-06-10. Both on my older D5100.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Perfect to cover all sorts of usage and very high quality for your price range, if you look at buying second hand.
Unfortunately, with good quality lenses, better imagery equals weight!
I do have a 70-200 faster zoom lens but it is so heavy and awkward that I never take it with me and wish I'd never invested in it. It would be great under the right circumstances, but I don't need a telephoto long lens. Just something to think about, in terms of how and when you photograph things. I've only used it twice in two years.
On my D90, the 70-300 gives me the equivalent of over 400mm (great for moon shots). I recently upgraded to full frame and it's been great on that one as well.
@cazla Cazla, if you are interested in lighter telephotos, look into the f/4 Nikon 70-200. Not an f/2.8, but tack sharp - I don't miss the extra stop on the f/2.8 end - high quality throughout the whole range and a lot lighter. Not at all inexpensive however. US$1,300, but it is my walk around, almost always on my D7100. I don't know what you can get it for in the UK.
The 70-300's, even the Nikon, are not grade A professional glass or constant aperture (the f/4 above is both), and I think your D7100 deserves better. But they have good reviews, and I must say I have not tried them. At least the Nikon, don't know about Sigma and Tamron, is a VR lens, very useful for hand held longer focal length shooting for sure.
I have only shot 3 or four frames with the 85 f/1.8, on my D7100 around the camera super store, and it is indeed a nice sharp accurate lens especially for the price. But it is not VR, its minimum AF distance is almost 3 feet and I wouldn't have found it useful with my f/4 70-200 already in the bag. I'm not sure how it would fit with your landscapes (I would think you would be happy with the 50) and not great for your close-ups of nature - the minimum AF distance is not close and the 85 length won't allow you to get too close from that 3 feet.
I'd suggest you look for something a little longer for something to complement your existing primes, if you want another prime. The Nikon f/2.8 105 micro (a macro by any other name) is really great, and I think would fit with your medium telephoto needs. It's just a stop slower than a f/1.8 and will give you a true macro (1:1) at close focus of 12 inches or less. As well as being VR. I just bought this for my birthday, and am just beginning to shoot 1:1 macro, but it can be of course more than that. The 105 Sigma macro is a very similar lens, I had rented that out for a weekend as well, good quality, and perhaps a little less expensive than the Nikon (but not much). I think either would fit into your budget. And if you ever get into portraits, I think you will find either stunning there as well.
Good luck! Try and rent before you buy if you can.
You say you enjoy landscapes, which are generally shot in lower light, where IS would be beneficial (though a tripod is best). The IS vs Non IS debate is your decision to make, (assuming nikon have models equivalent to the canon's...) but it sounds like this is the best lens for you given the big weight benefits over the F2.8...
The Tamron VC 70-300 is a decent lens in terms of sharpness. I've borrowed one. But it does struggle with transmission. i.e. because there is so much glass, the amount of light that gets to the sensor is quite a bit lower than the fstop at which you're shooting, e.g. if you're shooting at 300mm f5.6 it's like shooting in f7 (this is where the more expensive lens glass /coatings are generally beneficial) The real world implications of this means you would see a slightly darker viewfinder and slower shutter speeds when hand held. (But it does have VC to compensate for this if you're shooting static objects) DXO labs is a good website which offers data on lens transmission.
I haven't used the 85 1.8, but I know its a great portrait lens. 1.8 to f4 is a lot more light, which will enable you to use a faster shutter speed for more consistently sharp shots if you're shooting moving kids etc (freezing the action), which is something IS (or VR in nikon terms) cannot always help you with.
I also agree that trying before you buy will help. Get to a shop and use them a bit to appreciate the limits/benefits... and go home to review those images before buying.
The f/4 is a new lens, so I doubt you'll find used copies on the market yet. A number of people I know have traded in the f/2.8 for it even and like me have not been disappointed.
All the best with whatever you decide on.