Cheap(ish) fast zooms for a Nikon

[Gad-Westy]

In terms of walk about lenses (and indeed wide ish angle for landscapes) I currently have a 18-55 AF-s VR and an 18-135 AF-S. I'm thinking about trading both of them for something a little faster. There isn't much wrong with the 18-55 other than it feeling a little toy like. Image quality has always struck me as being very good. I bought the 18-135 as it was a going for a very low price on ebay and I liked the idea of having a little extra reach. The lens is very good for many things but at it's widest end it distorts significantly. Consequently I shy away from using it for landscapey stuff.

I'm considering chopping them both in to buy a faster sharper lens. Budget probably around £200 give or take a little and I'll almost certainly buy used. I'm less bothered about having a big range than I used to be.

So far, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 Di II seems the favourite. I'd be interested to hear if anybody has good things or bad things to say about this lens. I think there may be a VR version as well.

Also interested to hear of recommended alternatives bearing in mind that I would need a built in focus motor for my D5000. Constant 2.8 appeals but something very sharp would be a good start.

[Gad-Westy]

Any opinions on the 18-50 Sigma 2.8 HSM?

[Simpo Two]

Gad-Westy said:

Constant 2.8 appeals but something very sharp would be a good start.

Note that fast lenses are rarely at their sharpest wide open. You won't get the same performance at f2.8 as you will at f8, especially with a 'budget' fast lens.

[andy-xr]

Gad-Westy said:

Any opinions on the 18-50 Sigma 2.8 HSM?

Have and use, it's a nice lens, sharp all the way through. I bought mine used for £150 a year or so ago, it developed a fault and Sigma were good about fixing it on the cheap

[Gad-Westy]

Simpo Two said:

Note that fast lenses are rarely at their sharpest wide open. You won't get the same performance at f2.8 as you will at f8, especially with a 'budget' fast lens.

Cheers, understood about loss of sharpness wide open. This does seem to apply to most lenses though so I assume this would be sharper at say, F4 than either of my nikon kit lenses? Sharper at F8-F11 range would be nice too if that is the case.

[Gad-Westy]

andy-xr said:

Have and use, it's a nice lens, sharp all the way through. I bought mine used for £150 a year or so ago, it developed a fault and Sigma were good about fixing it on the cheap

Thanks for the info. I'm starting to lean towards this more than the Tamron. It looks a higher quality item and though this shouldn't matter too much, I like a quality look and feel to a lens. It seems to have a good min focusing distance as well for those impromptu semi-macro shots. All good on that front, I just want reassurance that it'll be a decent step up from my current pair of nikons (albeit without the range of the 135).

[andy-xr]

If it's the same 18-55 that was included with the D40, it's actually a really good lens. Better colours than the Sigma anyway, just not particularly quick and a bit plasticky. I've never used that Tamron though sorry

[Gad-Westy]

andy-xr said:

If it's the same 18-55 that was included with the D40, it's actually a really good lens. Better colours than the Sigma anyway, just not particularly quick and a bit plasticky. I've never used that Tamron though sorry

It's probably the same one albeit with vr which I rarely use on this lens. It does take decent pictures I must admit. The build has always annoyed me though, particularly the focusing ring and it's annoying that the front element rotates so I can't use a polariser on it.

[Simpo Two]

Gad-Westy said:

Cheers, understood about loss of sharpness wide open. This does seem to apply to most lenses though so I assume this would be sharper at say, F4 than either of my nikon kit lenses?

I wouldn't like to guess. There are probably graphs of sharpness for each lens somewhere on the net, but generally the more you spend the better it will be. So if the Sigma is £250 and the equivalent Nikon is £1000, don't expect miracles from the Sigma. It will probably be better 'value' but won't be as 'good'. So you can choose between Value and Good - and that depends not only on your wallet but how demanding/fussy you are.



I didn't help did I?



NB For 'macro' it's not minimum focusing distance you should judge by but magnification. 10cm at 18mm gives a very different magnification from 10cm at 50mm!

Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 7th March 17:33

[Gad-Westy]

Simpo Two said:

I didn't help did I?

Well you certainly weren't unhelpful!

Advice much appreciated. To be honest £1000+ lenses are miles off my radar to the extent that I don't even factor them in. I realise there are some pretty sexy nikon lenses that would blow what I'm talking about into the weeds but I'm not going to be buying any of them any time soon. What I do have at the moment is a pair of lenses for more or less the same purpose, neither of which are wholly satisfying. I just think I may as well consolidate them and buy the best lens I can to do that job. It seems the Tamron and Sigma are roughly where I should be aiming the credit card but it's always nice to seek reassurance.

The focal distance thing, I'd already factored in. I was taking care not to call this a macro lens (despite what sigma call it) as clearly it will not produce 1:1 magnification but it does have a useful 1:3 which would be quite nice for when I don't have a proper macro lens with me (I have a sigma 180mm, it's a bit of a heavy beast!).

Cheers for the advice.

[Lucas CAV]

The old 18-70mm does for me.

It doesn't have the focus motor though.

It is sharp enough for most of my magazine work - (enthusiast and trade publications - not high end fashion!)

Maybe upgrading your body to one which will accept a greater range of lens - then you have access to all those lovely cheaper 2nd hand ones on Ebay.....

[Simpo Two]

Lucas CAV said:

The old 18-70mm does for me. It doesn't have the focus motor though.

I take it you mean non-Nikon? - 'cos the Nikon 18-70 is AF-S.


Going back to the first post, you say that the main issue you have with your current lenses, other than cosmetic, is that the 18-135 distorts at the wide end. Well if you have PS CS2 or above, you have lens correction filters that allow you to dial out pincushion and barrel distortion...

So would the best answer be to look at software rather than spend hundreds on a low-end fast zoom that may not satisfy? You didn't quote any need for the extra speed...

[Gad-Westy]

Simpo Two said:

I take it you mean non-Nikon? - 'cos the Nikon 18-70 is AF-S.


Going back to the first post, you say that the main issue you have with your current lenses, other than cosmetic, is that the 18-135 distorts at the wide end. Well if you have PS CS2 or above, you have lens correction filters that allow you to dial out pincushion and barrel distortion...

So would the best answer be to look at software rather than spend hundreds on a low-end fast zoom that may not satisfy? You didn't quote any need for the extra speed...

There is an 18-70 AF-s though I've seen nothing conclusive to suggest it offers much over my current zooms.

I hadn't really thought about the PP element. I will have a play with this though I don't particularly enjoy doing loads of PP if I can avoid it. The extra speed would be nice, particularly at the longer end but it's not essential.

I was watching a Sigma 18-50 2.8 on ebay tonight that finished at £126. If I can find something similar once I've sold the other two I could end up making a small profit. Still tempted.

I should add, part of this is almost certainly a desire to have a new toy to play with!

Edited by Gad-Westy on Monday 7th March 21:27

[Simpo Two]

Gad-Westy said:

I should add, part of this is almost certainly a desire to have a new toy to play with!

That is usually an element!

A bit of distortion may not be such a big issue with landscapes - it only really shows up when you have vertical/horizontal elements like buildings. I mostly use a Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 and that gives barrel distortion when wide - but it only looks obvious in a few photos and only perhaps 1-2% need correcting. So unless you feel distortion is ruining your photos I'd leave it. I don't think a budget fast wide is going to tick many boxes for you.