Narrowing down to some lens choices

Bullet

Senior Member
Hi all, I just recently switched from Pentax K1 to a D500 so I can do some birding. I bought the Nikon 200-500mm in the same purchase. Now I need to add some lenses without breaking the bank. With my previous FF I had a 28mm, 40mm, and a 100mm Macro. I always wanted more reach and also a wider angle. Reach is taken care of.

I am considering the Tamron 35mm f1.8 and the Tokina 14-20 f2.0. I am thinking the 35mm can replace my 40mm for normal photography, though with a narrower field of view on the D500. The Tokina can be my go to for landscape, storms/clouds, and Milky Way pictures. 1200.00 dollars for both is within my budget. I like they are not extremely heavy despite their fast apertures. Any thoughts on these two lenses or alternatives is appreciated.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
I would suggest the Tamron 17-50 2.8. It's a great and sharp lens and it won't break the bank. I think that 35mm on a cropped sensor is not wide enough (for me anyway). Then if you could get your hands on a pre-owned Sigma 105 2.8 macro you'd have a great combo. The non VR version of this lens can usually be found for a bargain.
 

Prefrosh01

Senior Member
I had the Nikon 16-80 2.8-4 on my D7100 and loved it. It offered great range for everyday shooting.

This lens new is expensive, but you can find some really good deals on the used market.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I have no direct experience with either of the lenses you name, but I think I would choose more versatile lenses. The 17-50mm Tamron that Marcel mentioned is my go to lens in the "normal" focal range. It's light, relatively fast at f/2.8, and I get very sharp results from this lens.

Naturally, this is a personal matter, and there are tons of "right" choices and very few "wrong" ones. :)

BTW, the f/2.0 Tokina 14-20 , with it's big max aperture, sounds like a great choice for astro.
 

Bullet

Senior Member
I appreciate all the input. The hardest choice is the 35mm over a mid-range zoom; but so far I like its wide open aperture best and it is just a shade over a 50mm. The 40mm was my 1st Pentax lens and it is the one I used the most. I am very use to zooming with my feet. Two things I failed to mention: I might buy another full frame late next year once I have some decent lenses, so full frame compatibility is something I am trying to achieve with most of my lens purchases. #2 is I am not giving up shooting macro. Flowers are one of my favorite subjects but that is a lens that can wait until spring. Thanks for the input on the Sigma 105 2.8 macro.

I have not decided and will place an order on Friday so it is delivered Monday or Tuesday while I am off work. As Horoscope Fish said, there is no bad choices. That makes it a hard decision but at the same time a happy one. Thanks again for the input.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
If all you want are FX lenses, then my suggestion of the 11-20mm lens is not appropriate. However, keep in mind that your 14-20mm lens will only give you a 21mm lens on the D500, which is not really that wide.
 

Bullet

Senior Member
I just ordered the Sigma 17-50mm at a last minute price on B&H, $299.95. I could not pass it up as a reasonable weight walking around lens. I still have to decide on a super wide for astro; and will probably pull the trigger on it right after Christmas. I enjoyed my Pentax cameras but the lens choices are like night and day now that I am in the Nikon system.

Next up lens choices:
Super Wide
Macro
Fisheye ( always wanted one )
 

Bullet

Senior Member
If all you want are FX lenses, then my suggestion of the 11-20mm lens is not appropriate. However, keep in mind that your 14-20mm lens will only give you a 21mm lens on the D500, which is not really that wide.
My choices do not have to be full frame. If half of my lenses end up being full frame compatible, I will consider that a good start should I buy a D750 later on.
 

Chris@sabor

Senior Member
I spent over $500 on the Tokina 11-20 2.8. Really sharp, a little slow to focus but extremely well made. Here's the thing, I almost never use it. I have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 also. This is the lens I use for landscapes and astro. My advice would be, shoot for a while with the Sigma. If you are really needing the superwide, get it. I found it to be very limited, as anything, even at medium distance appear very, very small and a great foreground is almost mandatory.
 

Bengan

Senior Member
I have the Sigma 8-16 mm / f4.5-5.6, which is a great super wide lens. The only drawback is that it's not particularly fast. @16mm it even works with FF cameras.
 

Bullet

Senior Member
I spent over $500 on the Tokina 11-20 2.8. Really sharp, a little slow to focus but extremely well made. Here's the thing, I almost never use it. I have the Sigma 17-50 2.8 also. This is the lens I use for landscapes and astro. My advice would be, shoot for a while with the Sigma. If you are really needing the superwide, get it. I found it to be very limited, as anything, even at medium distance appear very, very small and a great foreground is almost mandatory.
Thanks for the input. I used a Sigma 28mm on a full frame so I agree that 24mm will be fine for now. I also looked at the wide options from Rokinon/Samyang and Venus before selling my Pentax gear. I have some choices left to make and I will shoot a good bit with the 17-50 before purchasing my next one. I still cannot get over the price.
 

Bullet

Senior Member
I have the Sigma 8-16 mm / f4.5-5.6, which is a great super wide lens. The only drawback is that it's not particularly fast. @16mm it even works with FF cameras.
Interesting. I just looked this lens up, its slow but reviews say it is pretty sharp.
 

Bengan

Senior Member
Interesting. I just looked this lens up, its slow but reviews say it is pretty sharp.

Yes, sharpness is very good. Here's an example taken with Pentax K-1 @16mm.
 

Attachments

  • K1-0210.jpg
    K1-0210.jpg
    142.3 KB · Views: 67
Top