Shopping for a new lens.

DeborahL · August 19, 2014

Have a Nikon D5100 with kit lenses 55-200 and 18-55. I am considering one of the following three FX lenses. Yes, I know that mine is not a full frame camera; I have already resolved that questions and its issues. So, here are my options, all Nikkor:
1. AF-S 50 mm f 1.8G
2. AF-S 85 f1.8 G;
3. AF-S 50 mm f 1.4G.

Here are my goals: I want a faster lens and versatile lens. I know that the effective view will be 1.5 times greater in each case because I am putting an FX lens on a DX camera. I like to shoot when I travel (usually urban - architecture, architectural detail, street scenes) and to shoot indoors at my son's volleyball games and swim meets where I cannot get much closer than the stands (too dangerous in the case of volleyball, no parents allowed on deck in the case of the swim meets). My kit telephoto works pretty well for the sports, but I would like a faster lens that won't require as much of a boost in ISO. I am thinking that with the new lens, I can compensate for the more distant view by cropping in the darkroom (which I do anyway even at 200mm to get closeups of my son) and still have a less noisy result.

Thoughts?

Mitchell · August 19, 2014

What is your goal with your new lens? You mention architecture and travel (I think wide angle) and then you mention indoor sports (I think fast long lens).

The 85mm will be too short for most indoor sports. I doubt you be happy with heavy crops on your D5100. I like that lens as a portrait lens.

What's wrong with your current zooms for architecture and travel?

DeborahL · August 19, 2014

All good questions. From the bottom up, the problem with the current zooms for architecture and travel is that there are two of them. I don't like changing lenses on street corners, in the rain, wind, etc. I have considered the new 18-300 f3.5-6.3 as a replacement for both, but it is $900, slow, and therefore doesn't add much to the 55-200 for indoor sports or indoor architectural detail (dark churches, no flashes allowed, for example). Regarding indoor sports specifically, I can't afford a dedicated fast long lens, i.e. the 200 mm f 2.0 for FX would give me 300 mm, and would be awesome, for sure, but it is $6000 retail on Nikon site. I am sure I could shop it for less, but not THAT much less. The 105 mm f2.8 for FX would give me about the equivalent of 200 mm on the DX body, but it is $985 on the Nikon site. Again, I could shop it for less, but...

As to my happiness with heavy cropping with the D5100, I have standards, but they are not all that high. For an idea of what I will tolerate, you could look at my smug mug gallery if you want to: www.deborahtownelonergan.smugmug.com. Bear in mind that my goal, even though I have the purchase buttons activated, is capturing memories, not income. My thinking there? What the heck...I paid for the features and I made most of the site public...if someone stumbles upon something they want, why not make it easy for them to buy it?

All that said, I am inclined to go for the FX format whatever I do, because there could be a body upgrade in my future...but not anytime soon.

Thank you for your input Mitchell.

DeborahL · August 19, 2014

DeborahL wrote: »

All good questions. From the bottom up, the problem with the current zooms for architecture and travel is that there are two of them. I don't like changing lenses on street corners, in the rain, wind, etc. I have considered the new 18-300 f3.5-6.3 as a replacement for both, but it is $900, slow, and therefore doesn't add much to the 55-200 for indoor sports or indoor architectural detail (dark churches, no flashes allowed, for example). Regarding indoor sports specifically, I can't afford a dedicated fast long lens, i.e. the 200 mm f 2.0 for FX would give me 300 mm, and would be awesome, for sure, but it is $6000 retail on Nikon site. I am sure I could shop it for less, but not THAT much less. The 105 mm f2.8 for FX would give me about the equivalent of 200 mm on the DX body, but it is $985 on the Nikon site. Again, I could shop it for less, but...

As to my happiness with heavy cropping with the D5100, I have standards, but they are not all that high. For an idea of what I will tolerate, you could look at my smug mug gallery if you want to: www.deborahtownelonergan.smugmug.com. Bear in mind that my goal, even though I have the purchase buttons activated, is capturing memories, not income. My thinking there? What the heck...I paid for the features and I made most of the site public...if someone stumbles upon something they want, why not make it easy for them to buy it?

All that said, I am inclined to go for the FX format whatever I do, because there could be a body upgrade in my future...but not anytime soon.

Thank you for your input Mitchell.

Oy vey, fuzzy math - the 105 would give me 150 or so, not 200.

NikonsandVstroms · August 20, 2014

DeborahL wrote: »

All good questions. From the bottom up, the problem with the current zooms for architecture and travel is that there are two of them. I don't like changing lenses on street corners, in the rain, wind, etc. I have considered the new 18-300 f3.5-6.3 as a replacement for both, but it is $900, slow, and therefore doesn't add much to the 55-200 for indoor sports or indoor architectural detail (dark churches, no flashes allowed, for example). Regarding indoor sports specifically, I can't afford a dedicated fast long lens, i.e. the 200 mm f 2.0 for FX would give me 300 mm, and would be awesome, for sure, but it is $6000 retail on Nikon site. I am sure I could shop it for less, but not THAT much less. The 105 mm f2.8 for FX would give me about the equivalent of 200 mm on the DX body, but it is $985 on the Nikon site. Again, I could shop it for less, but...

As to my happiness with heavy cropping with the D5100, I have standards, but they are not all that high. For an idea of what I will tolerate, you could look at my smug mug gallery if you want to: www.deborahtownelonergan.smugmug.com. Bear in mind that my goal, even though I have the purchase buttons activated, is capturing memories, not income. My thinking there? What the heck...I paid for the features and I made most of the site public...if someone stumbles upon something they want, why not make it easy for them to buy it?

All that said, I am inclined to go for the FX format whatever I do, because there could be a body upgrade in my future...but not anytime soon.

Thank you for your input Mitchell.

What about a Sigma 50-150 F2.8?

The new OS version is ~1,000 but the older non OS is ~500 used from a reputable place like KEH and I

over that lens. Also I shoot fast movement in situations where ISO 6400/12800 are needed at F2.8 and the AF tracks well combined with my D7100.

DeborahL · August 20, 2014

NikonsandVstroms wrote: »

What about a Sigma 50-150 F2.8?

The new OS version is ~1,000 but the older non OS is ~500 used from a reputable place like KEH and I over that lens. Also I shoot fast movement in situations where ISO 6400/12800 are needed at F2.8 and the AF tracks well combined with my D7100.

Thank you! I will check that out...

perroneford · August 20, 2014

Not to be disrespectful here, but if spending $1k on lenses constitutes a burden that you aren't willing to take on, you're probably not a good candidate at this time for shooting indoor sports. At least not at a good level. I do this work every week, and even the folks who aren't getting paid to be there have $3k-$5k in lens and body. Those of us who are paid to be there have MUCH more invested to get quality photos. There is no cheap way in.

As for not wanting to change lenses in harsh conditions, I can certainly understand that. This is why photojournalists have carried multiple cameras since the SLR was invented. Putting a slow super-zoom on the camera is not a viable solution if you are looking for high quality photos. Far too many compromises with image quality.

DeborahL wrote: »

All good questions. From the bottom up, the problem with the current zooms for architecture and travel is that there are two of them. I don't like changing lenses on street corners, in the rain, wind, etc. I have considered the new 18-300 f3.5-6.3 as a replacement for both, but it is $900, slow, and therefore doesn't add much to the 55-200 for indoor sports or indoor architectural detail (dark churches, no flashes allowed, for example). Regarding indoor sports specifically, I can't afford a dedicated fast long lens, i.e. the 200 mm f 2.0 for FX would give me 300 mm, and would be awesome, for sure, but it is $6000 retail on Nikon site. I am sure I could shop it for less, but not THAT much less. The 105 mm f2.8 for FX would give me about the equivalent of 200 mm on the DX body, but it is $985 on the Nikon site. Again, I could shop it for less, but...

NikonsandVstroms · August 20, 2014

DeborahL wrote: »

Thank you! I will check that out...

NP, oh and just a note that's a DX only lens so if you plan to go to FX you'll need to upgrade. But buying used you wouldn't take as big of a hit turning it around.

time2smile · August 20, 2014

Kids grow quickly, get what you can for what you have. I mean don't pass up a good DX deal because you thinking about the future. if you wait to get a FX cause you may upgrade, then they will probably come out with HX and we are all back to square one. Nikon shooter enjoy the fact that you can mount a DX on a FX body, so its not that bad...
and the kids will all be grown....

IMO i'll go with your #1 choice the 50 1.8

DeborahL · August 20, 2014

perroneford wrote: »

Not to be disrespectful here, but if spending $1k on lenses constitutes a burden that you aren't willing to take on, you're probably not a good candidate at this time for shooting indoor sports. At least not at a good level. I do this work every week, and even the folks who aren't getting paid to be there have $3k-$5k in lens and body. Those of us who are paid to be there have MUCH more invested to get quality photos. There is no cheap way in.

As for not wanting to change lenses in harsh conditions, I can certainly understand that. This is why photojournalists have carried multiple cameras since the SLR was invented. Putting a slow super-zoom on the camera is not a viable solution if you are looking for high quality photos. Far too many compromises with image quality.[/QUOTE

Thank you, perroneford. First, a clarification. I am willing to spend $1000 for a new lens, but not for very little improvement over of what I have. The 18-300 f3.5-6.3 offers very little over what I have in terms of speed: the 55-200 that I own is an f4.0-5.6. The 18-55 mm is an f3.5-5.6. I am not seeing $1000 worth of improvement in speed of 18-300 over the two that I have. Convenience yes, speed no.

If you know of a 200mm equivalent or better FAST lens (f2.8 or less), either fixed focal length or zoom, that retails for $1000.000, please share your source.

DeborahL · August 20, 2014

NikonsandVstroms wrote: »

NP, oh and just a note that's a DX only lens so if you plan to go to FX you'll need to upgrade. But buying used you wouldn't take as big of a hit turning it around.

Hi, Nikon and ...

I looked at the Sigma. I am not sure that it is compatible with the Nikon D5100 from an auto-focus standpoint. I really need the autofocus, although others in this thread might disagree and deem me unworthy or lazy for requiring it. Whatever. Price is definitely right if it will meet my needs. Thank you for sharing.

DeborahL · August 20, 2014

time2smile wrote: »

Kids grow quickly, get what you can for what you have. I mean don't pass up a good DX deal because you thinking about the future. if you wait to get a FX cause you may upgrade, then they will probably come out with HX and we are all back to square one. Nikon shooter enjoy the fact that you can mount a DX on a FX body, so its not that bad...
and the kids will all be grown....

IMO i'll go with your #1 choice the 50 1.8

Thank you, time2smile. Very sensible about the kids growing up. My only, at 16, is most of the way out the door already. I would post a very nice volleyball action shot of him taken with my D5100, 55-200 f4.0-5.6 heavily cropped, but for whatever reason, even though my gallery settings allow it, I can't seem to get the photo link to work to past it here. Ugh. www.deborahtownelonergan.smugmug.com. It is the only picture at the moment in the sports:volleyball gallery. So, Yes, I like your thinking re: the 50 1.8 although I am trying to talk myself into the 85 1.4/1.8, whichever it was.

time2smile · August 21, 2014

Sigma with HSM (high speed motor) will auto focus on your D5100
My Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 is the sharpest lens I have, except for my Nikon primes...
I have the older 85 F1.8 to be honest I never use it, I use my Tokina 100 micro instead.

Photo is a good family pic...I think you cant post because it is protected, can someone confirm the posting issue....

thanks

DeborahL · August 21, 2014

time2smile wrote: »

Sigma with HSM (high speed motor) will auto focus on your D5100
My Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 is the sharpest lens I have, except for my Nikon primes...
I have the older 85 F1.8 to be honest I never use it, I use my Tokina 100 micro instead.

Photo is a good family pic...I think you cant post because it is protected, can someone confirm the posting issue....

thanks

Thank you for the info and for looking at volleyball shot: "good family pic" was/is my goal; nice to know from an objective source that I got there :-) I found the Sigma at Adorama for $995 new. Have not located one used - KEH did not have one when I checked on line. Will call and see if perhaps their online inventory lags.

NikonsandVstroms · August 21, 2014

DeborahL wrote: »

Thank you for the info and for looking at volleyball shot: "good family pic" was/is my goal; nice to know from an objective source that I got there :-) I found the Sigma at Adorama for $995 new. Have not located one used - KEH did not have one when I checked on line. Will call and see if perhaps their online inventory lags.

They to randomly show up in bunches, also B&H and Adorama are both good sources in my experience for used gear. B&H has one but it's not in great condition, it would be a usable lens but it's the "II" model which is slightly better but it's likely only 50-75 more to get one in great shape, or the original model which I have in great shape for the same price.

The new version has OS but it's also almost the size of a 70-200 2.8, the nice thing about the non-OS lens is it's closer in size to the 70-200 F4 and that smaller size should feel like a nice package on the D5100. It's almost perfect with the D7100.

perroneford · August 21, 2014

DeborahL wrote: »

[
Thank you, perroneford. First, a clarification. I am willing to spend $1000 for a new lens, but not for very little improvement over of what I have. The 18-300 f3.5-6.3 offers very little over what I have in terms of speed: the 55-200 that I own is an f4.0-5.6. The 18-55 mm is an f3.5-5.6. I am not seeing $1000 worth of improvement in speed of 18-300 over the two that I have. Convenience yes, speed no.

If you know of a 200mm equivalent or better FAST lens (f2.8 or less), either fixed focal length or zoom, that retails for $1000.000, please share your source.

My VERY strong suggestion to you is that you dump that 5100 and move to a D7000 or D7100 if you can swing it. Right now, and going forward, your 5100 is going to hamstring you into buying FAR more expensive lenses because you HAVE to buy lenses with focus motors. Selling off the 5100 and buying a used 7000 might put you in for an even trade or very close to it.

Once that is done, Nikon's entire catalog of AF lenses comes available to you. I would then suggest pursuing the excellent 80-200/F2.8 lens. This is my backup to my 70-200/2.8, is built like a tank, and the optics are excellent., and it's typically available in the $800-$1k range. My intern is shooting with that lens now on my old D7000 and has been published with that combo. There is also an AF-S version of this lens that would work on your current camera and it hovers around the $1k mark.

https://www.keh.com/246720/nikon-80-200mm-f-2-8-d-ed-if-af-s-autofocus-lens-77

I would then look to pursue something like the 17-35 or similar which gives a nice midrange on a DX camera.

DeborahL · August 21, 2014

perroneford wrote: »

My VERY strong suggestion to you is that you dump that 5100 and move to a D7000 or D7100 if you can swing it. Right now, and going forward, your 5100 is going to hamstring you into buying FAR more expensive lenses because you HAVE to buy lenses with focus motors. Selling off the 5100 and buying a used 7000 might put you in for an even trade or very close to it.

Once that is done, Nikon's entire catalog of AF lenses comes available to you. I would then suggest pursuing the excellent 80-200/F2.8 lens. This is my backup to my 70-200/2.8, is built like a tank, and the optics are excellent., and it's typically available in the $800-$1k range. My intern is shooting with that lens now on my old D7000 and has been published with that combo. There is also an AF-S version of this lens that would work on your current camera and it hovers around the $1k mark.

https://www.keh.com/246720/nikon-80-200mm-f-2-8-d-ed-if-af-s-autofocus-lens-77

I would then look to pursue something like the 17-35 or similar which gives a nice midrange on a DX camera.

For sure I am perceiving a pattern re: the AF-S lenses limiting selection and increasing the cost. The idea of abandoning the D5100 and opening up the option of putting those AF-S dollars into optics has a tremendous amount of appeal. I'll do the math on that one, but at the moment I am not inclined to make the switch; that said, I am still leaning toward the FX lenses. Just for kicks I went to my son's volleyball practice today and took some shots at ISO 800 with my slowish 55-200mm. I haven't looked at them yet outside of the camera, but the histogram is pretty good, so we shall see... Last season, when I was a fresh out of the box newbie at this, I think I shot everything in full automatic, so I have come a long way! Pics were not prize winners or publishable, but definitely good enough family photos. I will look at the 17-35: I assume you mean a full frame 17-35mm, not one designed for the DX, yes? The effective range would then be 35.5mm- 52.5mm, correct? You seem to favor zooms over fixed lenses? Not a challenge, just curious...

Thank you for following up.

DeborahL · August 21, 2014

perroneford wrote: »

My VERY strong suggestion to you is that you dump that 5100 and move to a D7000 or D7100 if you can swing it. Right now, and going forward, your 5100 is going to hamstring you into buying FAR more expensive lenses because you HAVE to buy lenses with focus motors. Selling off the 5100 and buying a used 7000 might put you in for an even trade or very close to it.

Once that is done, Nikon's entire catalog of AF lenses comes available to you. I would then suggest pursuing the excellent 80-200/F2.8 lens. This is my backup to my 70-200/2.8, is built like a tank, and the optics are excellent., and it's typically available in the $800-$1k range. My intern is shooting with that lens now on my old D7000 and has been published with that combo. There is also an AF-S version of this lens that would work on your current camera and it hovers around the $1k mark.

https://www.keh.com/246720/nikon-80-200mm-f-2-8-d-ed-if-af-s-autofocus-lens-77

I would then look to pursue something like the 17-35 or similar which gives a nice midrange on a DX camera.

Hi, Perroneford...I already replied once...this is a PS: congratulations to your intern on being published! Well done!

Shopping for a new lens.

Comments