npinks wrote:

Going to start carrying the bag, see how that goes for the time been

David Beckham has been doing that for years  Another member of the failed FL2 clutch/DMF club, twice.

Been have a closer look at your picture Nick, I would be really happy with the sharpness of that lens you have.
You just need to find a mid range one, don't be hasty there are bargains to be had, just have a little patience, never forget to look in charity shops, not that I'm a fan of the places but you will be amazed at what turns up, the lasses from the WI simply think its an "old lens" it may be a real treat.

Click image to enlarge

keeping on look, but sticking with the two i have unless a bargain is to be had in the charity shop called eBay

Played round a bit more, with a different crop and black and white


B&W Grey Seal, Filey by npinks, on Flickr

Taz is quite right. I got a Nikkor 28-100 lens from a car boot sale for 20 quid and used it on my D90. I was taken by suprise how good it was athough the build quality was a bit plasticky.
Some old Nikon lens are a real steal providing you don't need VR and even better if your camera body has the A/F servo. Another member of the failed FL2 clutch/DMF club, twice.

Been looking up 35mm f/1.8 lenses today, seem great value and picture quality is great

The Nikkor 35mm 1.8 will give a focal length of 52.5mm when mounted to a DX body like your camera.

Not so long ago, before DSLR, 50mm prime was the de riguer prime focal length lens when using film. The focal length is similar to the human eye.

With film, I used nothing but prime lens, they don't suffer with barrel distortion like a zoom/telephoto. However, I don't use prime anymore as distortion can be corrected with software.
Having said that, many people swear by prime lens today. Whether some of it is a legacy from film days, I dunno.
They generally are very sharp.
Certainly, the 35/1.8 should have hardly any distortion and the 1.8 is great for low light. And a great focal length.

But I do worry what you're after, yesterday it was 18-200 and today a prime? Another member of the failed FL2 clutch/DMF club, twice.

Last edited by Pegleg on 23rd Aug 2012 9:12 pm. Edited 1 time in total

Just pondering, but a few can be found quite cheap (£140) so not too bad outlay if I don't like prime shooting

Quote:

The Nikkor 35mm 1.8 will give a focal length of 52.5mm when mounted to a DX body like your camera.

35mm focal length will always be 35mm

Being pedantic, I know, equivalent fov of a 52.5 lens.

I agree with Greg though regarding your choices, your like a kid in a sweet shop, put the pennies back in your pocket and keep using what you have, keep a record of when you feel you needed something different, then you can make an informed choice.

Keep up the good work though, see your pics on TP too

I like sweets, but taking my time reading opinions and see what I like to shoot, at he moment it's my kids and what they get up too, and interesting stuff I see out and about, be that landscapes or buildings

Had to buy the wife some diamonds and gold last week, to keep her happy so my lens budget is down at the moment

Kid in a sweet shop? Wish someone would let me off the lead in a brewery
We'll be getting thrown off the site by admin at this rate

Okay, 35mm is always 35mm,
but isn't quite!

Looked at Nicks shots on Flickr; most impressed with the shot of the Robin, sharp too.
I agree with you. There doesn't seem a lot wrong with either lens. Another member of the failed FL2 clutch/DMF club, twice.

Photography is my main hobby so maybe I can help. For that longer reach I use my Nikon 70-300 VR lens, a little trick I use for more reach is to use a Sigma tele converter 1.4. Yes I know everywhere says it can't be used BUT IT CAN(see photo below). That particular lens has enough room for the inside barrel not to hit the TC. The reason why its not recommended is because it depends on the f stop as to it being used on manual focus or not strange as it may seem. it does allow that combo to go from 70mm right up to 410mm, it does work.

Ok with that out the way before going on any shoot think of the distance your going to work at, for portrait I tend to use my Nikon 50mm f1.4 mm G lens
walkabout = 24-120mm
distance 70-300mm VR+1.4 Tele Converter if necessary
fast moving subject 24-70mm or 70-200mm or 12 -24 mm f2.8 lenses
macro Tamron 90 mm lens
Camera Nikon D300 with battery grip for up to 7/8 frames a second and better balance.

One of the arts of photography is making the best guess as to what your likely to take in the way of subject matter. If the subject is going to be a wide angle shot-distance shot-portrait shot- night scene etc etc and using a flash gun if necessary.

if you read the review on the 24-120mm VR f3.5-5.6 its made out to be terrible, but its my favourite lens,I may be lucky and have a sharp copy.

That Tamron lens your considering does have some drawbacks, like pin cushioning at the long end and edges out of focus at the other. Something to be aware of according to writeups.

If i were you i would seriously look at the 70-300 VR lens (I originally had the non VR version and struggled with keeping the rig still at the 300mm + range) and for extra range the Sigma 1.4TC which doesn't restrict the light to the sensor too much, a 2x Tc does. Cost of both total around £600 if purchased in this country but I do tend to buy lenses from Hong Kong and had no problems , they are the same lenses but even with import duty (if you have to pay) they are a load cheaper. I have never paid duty yet on any lens

[/img]

Click image to enlarge

I have recently purchased the tamron 18-270mm as a walkabout lens for my canon 400d. In terms of sharpness it will never match the canon L series lenses that some of you have. Its not quite as sharp as the canon 55-250 but it does give that bit extra range if you are on a day out were minimum kit can be taken and maximum range is needed.

This was taken with it

Project 366 2012 - Day 236 - 23/08/12 by RichardHow, on Flickr

and so was this


Project 366 2012 - Day 234 - 21/08/12 by RichardHow, on Flickr

so it is fairly versatile and at £400 gives a lot of range for your money. Just don't expect pin sharp images like the High end lenses but bear in mind to cover the focal range of 18 - 270 with canon L lenses would cost over £2500

Great pics guys!!

I have Canon L series lenses, also have a Tamrom 17-50 that I bought as faulty, gave £50 for it, works perfectly after a minor adjustment and is as sharp as the canon lenses. This was taken with the Tamron.

Click image to enlarge

This was with my 18-250, I really don't think there is a need for any other lens for me ATM!

Click image to enlarge

Admin note: this post has had its images recovered from a money grabbing photo hosting site and reinstated

i was watching a 18-250 lens on eBay, sold for £187, which compared to used camera sales places is about £100 cheaper, but the seller was only offering standard 2nd class post, described badly so i didn't bother bidding

Im watching another sigma lens, but the seller couldn't answer which camera it was for, apart from it doesn't fit cannon, and said he would find out when he got home, does the lens say? or box etc?