[nis]

Hi all, as new member on this site, greeting!

 

I am an enthusiast photographer that mostly shoot street/travel/documentary

 

right now my equipment is D7000 + kit lens 18-105 + 35mm f/1.8

 

Focal lenght that I use curently:

 

24-80 FL, about 70%

18-24, about 20%

rest 10% is above 80

 

I have plan to buy 24-70 anytime soon, but by using this fl I will lose my wide angle, though I don't use it so much still valuable to keep, I don't mind loosing telephoto end

 

which wide angle zoom that you recommend, currently I have some in my mind

 

Tokina 12-24 f/4, 11-16 seems to strict in range

Tamron 10-24

Sigma 10-20

Sigma 12-24

 

Nikkor lenses are out of my budget for now, so I have to refer to third party

 

what I am loking for in this wide angle lens is, focus speed, focus accuracy,sharpness in central and some border, not necessary extreme border

 

thank you

 

Nis 

[Guest]

Hm  can you briefly explain why you want to use a 24-70 on Aps-C?

 

 Nikon has a very nice 16-85 which will cover 90% of your shooting and give you more wide angle coverage than your current lens. For low light /shallow dof you have the 35mm 1.8.

 A 24-70 will be big and heavy and due to its  narrow zoom range a lot less flexible than your 18-105 or the 16-85. A 24-70 makes  only sense on Aps-C if you absolutly positively need f/2.8 in a zoom. ( But then also condsider Nikons 17-55 unless you want to go full frame soon).

 

As far as real low light work and shallow dof goes your 35mm or a 50mm or 85mm fix focal length f/1.8 is usally much more useful than a 24-70 f/2.8 zoom.

 

 Dont be fooled into believing that a 24-70 will get you (visibly!) higher image quality on Aps-c. It wont. It will only vignett  less than a dedicated aps-c lens. Anything else will hardly be visible in practice.

[nis]

Hm  can you briefly explain why you want to use a 24-70 on Aps-C?

16-85 will indeed put my FL in one lens, but I found out that IQ more or less is the same with my current lens at the cost of $200++, I don't think it worth it

 

I want to choose 24-70 since this FL is my shooting range, as stated on my original post, and yes.. I don't want to buy Nikon's well known 24-70, I will go maybe either Tamron/Sigma **budget limitation**

 

17-55 will lose so much of my shooting range (55~70) which is may come in handy if I can't move forward quickly enough to take the shoot

 

another question though:

 

how big is the differences of focus speed and accuracy between 18-105 and Tamron 24-70/Sigma 24-70/Nikkor 24-70...

 

for me focus accuracy and speed is critical..

 

Thanks

Nis

[JJ_SO]

focus accuracy and speed is not only determined by the lens but also by the camera. No offense, but don't expect miracles from your D7000.

 

I was going to suggest a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4, that's the one of the new Contemporary line. There's a dock connector available from Sigma to adjust speed, accuracy (meaning, find a good compromise between those parameters) and also adjust focus. Also, expect no miracles - this device will get the last 2-5% of accuracy but doesn't upgrade a comparably cheap lens into an optical phenomena.

 

From the ww lenses I only know the Sigma 10-20/3.5, used that on Pentax quite a while and found it great. And it's fixed aperture and still 1/4 lower in price than Nikon 10-24/3.5-4.5

[nis]

focus accuracy and speed is not only determined by the lens but also by the camera. No offense, but don't expect miracles from your D7000.

Thank you for remind me this

I was going to suggest a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4, that's the one of the new Contemporary line.

Actually I was thinking the same thing... but many review show that this lens show bad focusing ability as well accuracy, I have to look elsewhere, I am ok to invest in FF lens, since maybe in future I will move to FF, but definitely not now, I need to justify my Return On Investment

From the ww lenses I only know the Sigma 10-20/3.5, used that on Pentax quite a while and found it great. And it's fixed aperture and still 1/4 lower in price than Nikon 10-24/3.5-4.5

thanks for this info

[Guest]

16-85 will indeed put my FL in one lens, but I found out that IQ more or less is the same with my current lens at the cost of $200++, I don't think it worth it

Hm, as I said IQ-wise you will gain hardly anything apart from less vignetting  with a 24-70 over your 18-105 which is quite a sharp lens. The Sigma will probably even be worse than your 18-105 while the Tamron will be more or less be the same (may be a tad sharper, but hardly anything you will notice in practice). You dont sound like you need the f/2.8 aperture either, so I would recommend you stick with your current setup. It is very good.

[JJ_SO]

then you could still explore the wonders of ww, nis, and get a 10-20/24 or whatever. If possible, rent before you buy. 10mm are really awesome 

[Rover]

A 24-70 zoom meshes well with something that ends at 24mm, like a Tokina 12-24/4 or Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6. I've hardly ever seen anyone who is content with having 24mm as their widest even on FF, but they buy a 16/17-35 lens which has a lot of overlap. So if you're going to have a dedicated wide anyways, a 24-70 makes perfect sense on APS-C as well, unless you need to shoot a lot around the 24mm mark and end up switching lenses all the time. Personally I don't understand the "24-70 doesn't cut on APS-C" notion... it just becomes a strictly standard zoom. After all, nobody blasts the 70-200 for not being something it is not, like a standard zoom to cover all bases.

 

OTT, I liked the Tokina 12-24/4 when I had it, but others have reported that it is suffering from an inherent design problem that is going to cause malfunction sooner or later. I don't remember what it was though. Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 was also a decent lens (including usage on APS-H for fun), but probably rather slow by the standards of today's APS-C UWA zooms.

[nis]

A 24-70 zoom meshes well with something that ends at 24mm, like a Tokina 12-24/4 or Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6. I've hardly ever seen anyone who is content with having 24mm as their widest even on FF, but they buy a 16/17-35 lens which has a lot of overlap. So if you're going to have a dedicated wide anyways, a 24-70 makes perfect sense on APS-C as well, unless you need to shoot a lot around the 24mm mark and end up switching lenses all the time. Personally I don't understand the "24-70 doesn't cut on APS-C" notion... it just becomes a strictly standard zoom. After all, nobody blasts the 70-200 for not being something it is not, like a standard zoom to cover all bases.

 

I plan to use 24-70 as my walk around lens.. since my shooting range mostly here... but I also need and WA, I have D5100 and D7000 but use D7000 mostly, and my plan to use D5100 on WA and D7000 for walk around camera

 

 

OTT, I liked the Tokina 12-24/4 when I had it, but others have reported that it is suffering from an inherent design problem that is going to cause malfunction sooner or later. I don't remember what it was though. Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 was also a decent lens (including usage on APS-H for fun), but probably rather slow by the standards of today's APS-C UWA zooms.

 

ah thank you for telling me this (Tokina 12-24) could you please send me the link regarding this issue.. will look around

[nis]

Hm, as I said IQ-wise you will gain hardly anything apart from less vignetting  with a 24-70 over your 18-105 which is quite a sharp lens. The Sigma will probably even be worse than your 18-105 while the Tamron will be more or less be the same (may be a tad sharper, but hardly anything you will notice in practice). You dont sound like you need the f/2.8 aperture either, so I would recommend you stick with your current setup. It is very good.

Yes.. I'm pretty satisfy with my kit lens, sharp enough for me.. but sometime their autofocus just miss to nail critical moment... actually you're right, I don't use wide aperture so often... most of the time I use some where between 5.6 to 8... I only use 3.5 (maximum aperture on kit lens at 18mm) when things getting to dark, and pumping ISO reaching the barrier of 3200