Wide to Standard focal lengths - Which would you choose?

I have a question on the best way I can setup my bag.So far, I have 80-200mm 2.8, 50mm 1.8 on my D90 and I'm looking for an efficient way to fill my bag. Here are my options:

1. Can get relatively quickly as it's the cheapest alternative. If I buy used, it can only ru me up to $900 CAD

- Nikkor 28mm 1.8G or 35mm 1.8G

- Tokina 11-16mm 2.8


2. I will have to wait a little bit longer (few months) to buy this due to other obligations. But overall cost used will be around $900 CAD mark. (Brand new over $1200). Haven't tried this yet, but it's an alternative to 24-70mm 2.8 (if you call it alternative)

- Nikkor 17-55mm 2.8 DX


3. I will definitely have to save several months to get this piece of glass. But I've shot with this lens and the quality, colour and sharpness were just on point. Biggest drawback is it's missing the wide end, which I would like to have.

- Nikkor 24-70mm 2.8



I figured each option has its pros and cons, and I'd rather shoot than hem and haw by looking at my bank account to have enough saved for the lens. But my question is, which option would you prefer and why?

Well, the D90 does not have the ability to drive the focus of lots of older lens, so limited to G versions of modern lens, where is your macro? hear the new 60mm macro is very fine, also, surprising, the 18-55 VR2 is pretty sharp and low cost, since you have a 50 mm, I would go with the 28 over the 35 for a bit more width.

If you upgrade from a D80 to say a D7000, than a whole wealth of Nikon lens open up, essentially 60 years of used lens, and you can really save money getting some of the old classics like 20-35 or the 35-70,etc.

Also, a really fun lens is the Sigma 10-20, nice quality, and gives you an effective 15 mm wide angle. very useful sometimes.

stmv said:

Well, the D90 does not have the ability to drive the focus of lots of older lens, so limited to G versions of modern lens, where is your macro? hear the new 60mm macro is very fine, also, surprising, the 18-55 VR2 is pretty sharp and low cost, since you have a 50 mm, I would go with the 28 over the 35 for a bit more width.

If you upgrade from a D80 to say a D7000, than a whole wealth of Nikon lens open up, essentially 60 years of used lens, and you can really save money getting some of the old classics like 20-35 or the 35-70,etc.

Also, a really fun lens is the Sigma 10-20, nice quality, and gives you an effective 15 mm wide angle. very useful sometimes.

Click to expand...

I have D90...which also has focusing motor. That's how I focus my 80-200mm 2.8D and 50mm 1.8D.

I've had Sigma 10-20mm and I wasn't overly impressed with how slow it was in lower light conditions, which is why I'm preferring 2.8 min aperature.

In terms of Macro, I will be getting extension tubes (cheap alternative) since it doesn't make much sense to have 50, then 60, then 80.

On your D90, the 17-55 is not and alternative to the 24-70, but it is the equivalent. If you don't plan on going FX, get the 17-55. If you do plan on getting FX, get a Tamron 15-50 2.8, less expensive and VERY sharp.

ah good,, well, than the world is yours, for the older D lens, I personally prefer the Macro over tubes, maybe consider the 105 then. and I considered the sigma a daylight lens, not a low light, so not that much of an issue, but you already tried one, most of my shots are in the 5.6-f11 range. Now for wide angle, I usually use a prime, like my 15mm.

stmv said:

Well, the D90 does not have the ability to drive the focus of lots of older lens, so limited to G versions of modern lens, where is your macro? hear the new 60mm macro is very fine, also, surprising, the 18-55 VR2 is pretty sharp and low cost, since you have a 50 mm, I would go with the 28 over the 35 for a bit more width.

If you upgrade from a D80 to say a D7000, than a whole wealth of Nikon lens open up, essentially 60 years of used lens, and you can really save money getting some of the old classics like 20-35 or the 35-70,etc.

Also, a really fun lens is the Sigma 10-20, nice quality, and gives you an effective 15 mm wide angle. very useful sometimes.

Click to expand...

Why would you say the D90 wont focus older lens????where did you get your information from?????

I don't understand why some one would write about stuff they obviously haven't a clue about!!!!

ah,, my mistake, sorry,,, remember now that the D90 crosses that boundary to keep that feature, but does not meter old glass.

stmv said:

ah,, my mistake, sorry,,, remember now that the D90 crosses that boundary to keep that feature, but does not meter old glass.

Click to expand...

How old are you talking...I have a lens that was first on the market in 1987 "300m AF F4" that AF s and meters on a D50 the predecessor to the D80 then D90...I didn't think the D90 was a lot different to it...

Marcel said:

On your D90, the 17-55 is not and alternative to the 24-70, but it is the equivalent. If you don't plan on going FX, get the 17-55. If you do plan on getting FX, get a Tamron 15-50 2.8, less expensive and VERY sharp.

Click to expand...

So I suppose you're saying that the zoom range of 17-55 or 17-50 is a better combination than 35mm 1.8 and 11-16mm 2.8 with my current 50mm 1.8?

aZuMi said:

So I suppose you're saying that the zoom range of 17-55 or 17-50 is a better combination than 35mm 1.8 and 11-16mm 2.8 with my current 50mm 1.8?

Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant was that a wide to normal range is 17-55 in DX mode were the 24-70 would not get you wide enough on DX. They both cover the same angle of view in their respective format DX vs FX.

Marcel said:

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant was that a wide to normal range is 17-55 in DX mode were the 24-70 would not get you wide enough on DX. They both cover the same angle of view in their respective format DX vs FX.

Click to expand...

Ohh i see. That's definitely part of the issue with 24-70mm. It will be 36-105mm on a DX camera and kinda defeats the purpose of getting wider lenses (since not wide enough).

The biggest drawback of 17-55mm is the DX format and it'll have pronounced vignette on the wide end.

The reason for this question is, would you prefer fairly faster primes 1.8 (1.4 is too expensive) and fairly fast UWA?

Or is the proven 24-70mm 2.8 the way to go while losing the wide end?

Or....the middle of the pack 17-55mm 2.8?

aZuMi said:

Ohh i see. That's definitely part of the issue with 24-70mm. It will be 36-105mm on a DX camera and kinda defeats the purpose of getting wider lenses (since not wide enough).

The biggest drawback of 17-55mm is the DX format and it'll have pronounced vignette on the wide end.

The reason for this question is, would you prefer fairly faster primes 1.8 (1.4 is too expensive) and fairly fast UWA?

Or is the proven 24-70mm 2.8 the way to go while losing the wide end?

Or....the middle of the pack 17-55mm 2.8?

Click to expand...

This is a straight jpeg just done with the 17-55 @ 17 2.8. I don't see a vignette, and if I did, the software can take good care of it.
You be the judge



You will be the one using the lens. My suggestion is that you rent both for a weekend at a time and then make your decision.

Marcel said:

This is a straight jpeg just done with the 17-55 @ 17 2.8. I don't see a vignette, and if I did, the software can take good care of it.
You be the judge

View attachment 13167

You will be the one using the lens. My suggestion is that you rent both for a weekend at a time and then make your decision.

Click to expand...

Apologies, I meant vignette if I upgrade to the FX format.

Thanks for the sample photo Marcel!

Vigneting happens when you use wider aperture, however when you shoot landscapes you never go wider than f/8 ( usually a sweet spot optically). So, if you want a UWA for landscape you don't need a f/2.8.

For macro, a 105mm AF-d is a good priced lens that offers best results than using tubes, there is the more expensive 105mm micro Vr but this lens is one of the best I ever shot with.

I strongly suggest you decide what kind of photos you like to take. If you love landscape you can go for a Sigma or a Tokina 12-24, both are FX lens, although e Sigma can't use filters. Nikon Fx UWA start at 16mm, which sucks for DX and won't justify the cost.

Bit the bullet and got the 28mm 1.8G. So far, it's been really great, especially when using indoors. All I can say is this lens has wonderful colours, negligible distortion, fast 1.8 and super sharp.

The reason for not opting to 35mm or 17-55mm is because I will be moving to FX camera once the D600 comes out.

I won't be getting the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 for now since I won't be able to use it in a FX body and I don't shoot much landscape photography, so I'd rather save for the D600.

Also, thanks for helping me make the right choice