Advice on zoom lens purchase

[nickj]

Hi,
I need some advice about buying a new standard zoom for landscapes. Ive currently got a Nikon 5100 and will get a 7100 in the next year so no immediate plans to buy a full frame sensor just yet.


I like the look of the following two lenses (around the £400 mark):

1. Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS HSM
2. Nikon AF-S DX 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

But I love the look of this one (£1200 mark):

Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

The cost is the main thing. The optics are great apparently, pro level. Its big and heavy and no stabilisation but I'll be using it with a tripod.

Question is are the two DX lenses sufficient and will the FX lens be a complete waste of extra cash (until I decide to get an full frame camera that is)

thanks for all advice

Nick

[shreds]

A number of questions there, Nick.

The two DX lenses you have selected are 16/17mm widest angle. (Obviously on DX these will be x1.5). Price wise they are well matched to compare. I have not used either, so perhaps someone else here would care to comment, although despite being a Nikon man, I think the Sigma might have the edge on paper with a wider aperture.

If you are currently running a D5100 and are planning to go to a D7100. Nikon will continue to bring out new bodies if past performance is anything to go by, (as with virtually every other manufacturer), but lenses tend to have a longer shelf life. So you might find something else desirable appears by the time you are ready…typical!

I was taught something very important by my father years ago. Upgrade what you can afford, but only to the point where you cannot see the difference. So take a card into a retailer, ask them if you can shoot on both bodies with all three lenses and see what you make of them at home, at 100%, not in the camera shop, where there is always sales pressure.

Can YOU see any difference? Lots of magazines run tests against test cards etc, but there is nothing better than looking at a picture of your own under controlled conditions (calibrated monitor etc), ideally of a subject that you were in control of.

The Nikon 24-70mm is a beautiful lens, I have one in my Peli case most days I am out on shoots, but look at the price. I would hope it is NOT comparable to the other two. Does the difference to you relate to the extra cash you are going to shell out for this. It may at this stage be a step too far, or will it lead to a yearning for a cameras to suit?

It is heavy, bomb proof and a good all rounder that should be good for ten years +(?).

But I am biased and my needs and experience are different.

Ultimately try and consider what suits your eye and wallet before buying.

[nickj]

Hi Ian,
thanks for the advice., I'm basically trying to justify spending on the more expensive Nikon lens. I know it'll last and I will one day want a full frame Nikon body. Just wanted to know whether I was justifying it for the right reasons. Your advice is great thank you again

[PhotomanJohn]

Nick - I have the Nikkor 16-85mm DX lens and it has been a very good lens on my D7000 and I would recommend it if you are going to stay with DX bodies. The 24-70mm is a step up in optical quality but as you say is expensive, large and heavy. Also it won't provide the wide end that you may want. It is much better suited for full-frame.

If you do decide to buy a 24-70mm in preparation for going full-frame one day, then I would strongly suggest you look at the Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD lens. All the tests I have read about it say it is on par optically with the Nikkor plus it adds a very effective VR and has good build quality and is shorter. I am about to move on to a D800 and plan to buy this lens. In my nearly 50 years of serious 35mm and medium format photography, this will be the first lens I have ever purchased that is made by other than the camera manufacturer. That lens appears to be a real winner.

John

[benm]

There is a huge difference between 24 mm and 16/17 mm. Are you sure you won't miss that range if you get the 24-70?

[Polar01]

Nick: I shoot with the D7000 and a D600, I have the 16-85mm which I have found to be a great lens. Now the 24-70mm that is a great piece of glass, yes it is expensive however it will last and will be a work horse for years to come. Now to do a Top Gear I would buy the 16-85mm, now here is the reason. I was like you with the DX camera, the 16-85mm is equal to approx. 24-130mm on a FX camera now the 24-70mm on a DX is equal to 36-105mm, now landscapers like the bottom end wide angle with the 24-70 you are at the top end of wide.
I would suggest that you think about this, as something for the future, this is how I thought it through, bottom end 10-20mm Sigma not fast but I use a tripod 90% of the time, small over lap with 16-85mm Nikon, at top end 70-300mm Nikon for the reach. If you went with the 24-70 and then upped to a FX camera you will have a hole at the bottom end that is costly to fill $1,400.00 or $2,000.00 CDN. I know as I had to fill that hole as I shoot more in the wide to ultra wide range, however I am missing the middle range 24-70 now, and we know how much that will cost as a 50mm just does not cut it, The reason I went to FX is I like to shoot in churches where the benefit of the larger sensor comes in.
Hope this was of some help.

Cheers: Allan

[NorthernFocus]

I shoot a 7100 with the 16-85 Nikkor. I've had the lens for a while and used it with D300, D7000, and now the D7100. I was pretty content with it previously but not so thrilled with it with the D7100. But I can be guilty of pixel peeping and there's a lot more of them to peep at with the 7100. The Nikkor 24-70 2.8 tests well and everyone I know who has one swears by it. But it is huge and is due for an update to a VR version. I also shoot FX and have been holding off upgrading hoping for an upgrade to that lens.

I don't know if you pay any attention to DxoMark or not. With their test protocols the 16-85 falls pretty far down on the list when tested with the 7100. And it's not a cheap lens. You may want to check out this article.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-...-for-the-D7100

[davidedric]

I have the earlier version of the Sigma lens, albeit on a Canon body. I am very happy with it. It does have a reputation for front focusing, but I have never noticed, which may be because I use it mostly for landscape and walking about. Obviously, it is for APS-C cameras, so wouldn't be any use for full frame.

Which brings me to a question. What do you want to get from a full frame that a D7100 wouldn't get you?

[Manfred M]

I had the f2.8 24-70mm lens about 2 years before I moved to a full frame camera and did a lot of shooting with it on my D90. It was my "go to" lens most of the time, just because, even with the crop factor, it covered focal lengths from moderate wide angle to moderate zoom. This is a focal length range I shoot with a lot.

That being said, I bought it and the f/2.8 70-200mm based on the assumption that I would eventually move to a full-frame camera. I had other lenses that covered the focal length wider than 24mm (Tokina f.2.8 11-16mm). I tend to shoot wide open or stopped down no more than a couple of stops.

Would I have bought that particular lens had I not been thinking about going full frame in the future? Probably not. It is a large and expensive lens.

[Black Pearl]

In terms of long term investment the 24-70mm f2.8 is a great buy but you are going to need another lens to go with it to get your wide angle back. That will probably mean you will want the 14-24mm f2.8 so now we're taking about some serious cash outlay. I would almost say they are a combined purchase as the missing lower millimetres will bite as soon as you lose them.

If you are wanting to keep the costs to the realms of sensible then I like many others above have been shooting with the AF-S 16-85mm VR for quite some time and I have to say it is a brilliant lens. Compact, very sharp, the VR is great when you need to shoot in very low light and it seems well made - I'm pretty rough with my kit.
Would I swap it for a 14-24/24-70mm combo?
Yes
Would I get murderised by the missus?
Hell yes.

One other think to think about is weight/convenience. Are you will to carry two heavy lenses in place of one?

[dje]

Hi Nick

I mainly shoot landscapes with my Sigma 17-70 on a Canon body and have been very happy with it. I would certainly miss the widest end of 17mm if I moved to a 24mm wide end. But I suppose it depends a bit on your style of shooting.

You don't say what lens you have now but if it's a 18-55mm kit lens, I suggest you have a look at your photos and see what typical focal lengths you have been using. In particular, how much you use the wide end of 18mm.

Constant maximum aperture across the zoom range is probably not so important for landscape work with a tripod. Typically I wouldn't normally use an aperture greater than about f/8 for this anyway to get good DOF.

Dave