Currently, I am using a Nikon D40, which is a 6 megapixel 3/4 sensor, and standard kit type lenses, 18-55 mm Nikkor and a 55-200 mm Nikkor. While I am very happy with the results I have achieved, I would like to take things up a notch. I shoot 99% of the time tripod mounted, rarely below f/8, and typically print no larger than 5x7, though I do some 8x10 images. My question is what would provide a better starting point for a budget of up to $1k, a 12 mp Nikon (D90 or D5000), or a higher end zoom lens. I like the idea of 12 mp images to allow a quality crop of a smaller area. Also, the 12's offer better ISO range, metering and auto bracketing, all of which I would find helpful. Thanks for your thoughts.
We're long-time Nikon users though it might just as well have been Canon, so my comments are more about the long look at photo gear than brand. Over those 40 years I can't tell you how many bodies have come and gone, yet I still have and use lenses I bought in the 1970's. In a nutshell, good glass is going to have a long life, while bodies are virtually "expendable" in comparison. If your current D40 is producing the image quality you want and need, then by all means focus on your lens needs. The only real reason I could see for you to go to more mp's is for making larger prints. If you need better high ISO performance for low light shooting (though it doesn't sound as though you do, considering your f/8, tripod. landscape tendencies), that might be justification for the new body. And auto-bracketing in my experience is more a convenience feature, and frankly much more useful for action or wildlife shooting than landscape.
If I can elaborate on the lens question, my wife and I have both fallen into roughly the same focal length range you are using as our day-in day-out "carry" equipment. Between us we have dozens of lenses, but only carry them in that range for regular use. If we need more reach or some other specific function we'll add a lens to our bag for the shoot, then put it back on the shelf to collect dust till the next use arrises.
The only difference in our focal length selection and yours comes at the low end. We find frequent uses for lenses wider than 18mm with DX bodies, to the point that they live in our bags. Based on a couple of years of comparison in actual use and image sales, I heartily recommend the Sigma 10-20mm instead of the Nikkor 12-24mm. Even at half the price the Sigma gives much better performance. You could pick one up for not much over $500 and greatly impact your shooting while saving the difference in your $1k budget toward the next big gear decision. And rest assured, there will be more decisions in your future!
Posted by Greg Maklae on July 25, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Hank,
Thanks for your input, this is the direction I am semi leaning. Other than a wider aperature, which I am afraid will produce too shallow a DOF for landscape shots, what makes an f/2.x lens better than an f/5.6?
Hi there I just purchased a D90 and was advised by someone on the inside not to buy the
D5000 WHICH I HEAR HAS A RECALL AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE OF A PROBLEM WITH EITHER THE ON/OFF SWITCH OR RELEASE BUTTON.
I am very very happy with the D90 by the way I also shoot with a D300
HANK HAS A POINT I use the Tamron 11-18 which is far superior to the Sigma and is very sharp.
Good Luck
AVI
As an overall difference, the f/2.8 zooms are usually pro-grade glass with some improvements in image quality at the wider apertures, but often little difference at smaller apertures. I'm more interested though, in another difference: The f/2.8 glass is usually more stoutly built, standing up better to abuse than others of similar focal range, but lower price. On the plus side for the less expensive versions, they're usually lots lighter, which can make a big difference in your chiropractic care regimen when you pack a bag full of gear all day.
That's good to know about the Tamron Avi. I've debated dumping the Nikon in favor of another Sigma, so I'll take a closer look. Of course, if I keep "borrowing" my wife's Sigma, perhaps she'll be inspired to buy me the Tamron!
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 25, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Hank--
I've been finding the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 to be outstanding. As a night shooter, I do need the f2.8. Anyway, for OP, you have to ask yourself what your current stuff doesn't do that you want it to. I have three pro f2.8 zooms and use those quite a bit. Do keep in mind I do a signifcant amount of night photos though, and shutter speed is far more important to me than DOF. Recently I just bought the Nikon 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR to use on my semi-retired D80. I use this as my compact travel kit, and it does about 90% of what I want. For you, if you don't have an ultrawide zoom, you might consider one IF you often find yourself frustrated because your current lens won't go wider than 18mm. Another thought is to buy some software, such as Photoshop Elements 7.0 or something basic and useful. I've come to think that software has become as important as photo gear.
That's useful feedback too, Kent. Thanks. Sorry to hijack your thread Greg, but I hope the exchange about wide zooms in addition to the other comments have been useful. As you can see, there are a number of us here who get a lot of use from ours.
If you're wondering about my pan of the 12-24mm Nikkor, it's not that it's a "bad" lens by any means. It's sharp and quick and functions well. But shooting side by side with the Sigma, the colors and contrast of the Nikkor seem really muted in comparison. We're using them professionally, and we've come to accept that if images from both are to be used in a submission, we have to boost both the saturation and contrast of the Nikkor images to match those from the Sigma. The distinction is that marked, and we can't have both side by side in front of a client.
Discussion
6 repliesIf I can elaborate on the lens question, my wife and I have both fallen into roughly the same focal length range you are using as our day-in day-out "carry" equipment. Between us we have dozens of lenses, but only carry them in that range for regular use. If we need more reach or some other specific function we'll add a lens to our bag for the shoot, then put it back on the shelf to collect dust till the next use arrises.
The only difference in our focal length selection and yours comes at the low end. We find frequent uses for lenses wider than 18mm with DX bodies, to the point that they live in our bags. Based on a couple of years of comparison in actual use and image sales, I heartily recommend the Sigma 10-20mm instead of the Nikkor 12-24mm. Even at half the price the Sigma gives much better performance. You could pick one up for not much over $500 and greatly impact your shooting while saving the difference in your $1k budget toward the next big gear decision. And rest assured, there will be more decisions in your future!
Thanks for your input, this is the direction I am semi leaning. Other than a wider aperature, which I am afraid will produce too shallow a DOF for landscape shots, what makes an f/2.x lens better than an f/5.6?
D5000 WHICH I HEAR HAS A RECALL AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE OF A PROBLEM WITH EITHER THE ON/OFF SWITCH OR RELEASE BUTTON.
I am very very happy with the D90 by the way I also shoot with a D300
HANK HAS A POINT I use the Tamron 11-18 which is far superior to the Sigma and is very sharp.
Good Luck
AVI
As an overall difference, the f/2.8 zooms are usually pro-grade glass with some improvements in image quality at the wider apertures, but often little difference at smaller apertures. I'm more interested though, in another difference: The f/2.8 glass is usually more stoutly built, standing up better to abuse than others of similar focal range, but lower price. On the plus side for the less expensive versions, they're usually lots lighter, which can make a big difference in your chiropractic care regimen when you pack a bag full of gear all day.
That's good to know about the Tamron Avi. I've debated dumping the Nikon in favor of another Sigma, so I'll take a closer look. Of course, if I keep "borrowing" my wife's Sigma, perhaps she'll be inspired to buy me the Tamron!
I've been finding the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 to be outstanding. As a night shooter, I do need the f2.8. Anyway, for OP, you have to ask yourself what your current stuff doesn't do that you want it to. I have three pro f2.8 zooms and use those quite a bit. Do keep in mind I do a signifcant amount of night photos though, and shutter speed is far more important to me than DOF. Recently I just bought the Nikon 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR to use on my semi-retired D80. I use this as my compact travel kit, and it does about 90% of what I want. For you, if you don't have an ultrawide zoom, you might consider one IF you often find yourself frustrated because your current lens won't go wider than 18mm. Another thought is to buy some software, such as Photoshop Elements 7.0 or something basic and useful. I've come to think that software has become as important as photo gear.
Kent in SD
If you're wondering about my pan of the 12-24mm Nikkor, it's not that it's a "bad" lens by any means. It's sharp and quick and functions well. But shooting side by side with the Sigma, the colors and contrast of the Nikkor seem really muted in comparison. We're using them professionally, and we've come to accept that if images from both are to be used in a submission, we have to boost both the saturation and contrast of the Nikkor images to match those from the Sigma. The distinction is that marked, and we can't have both side by side in front of a client.