Author |
Message |
paulzolo
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm Posts: 12251
|
Does it have to be a Nikon lens? If the Nikon is too rich for your blood, then you will find other lenses with similar specifications for much less money. A Tokina 12-24 will set you back a shave under £500 for example: http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-tok ... t/p1030873The best thing to do is take your camera into an independent camera shop, try a few of the lenses in the range you are looking at, fire off some shots and take the camera home and check the images to see what you get.
|
Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:02 pm |
|
 |
dogbert10
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:23 pm Posts: 638 Location: 3959 miles from the centre of the Earth - give or take a bit
|
So far I've been very impressed with Tamron lenses - I find that what goes on inside the camera seems to make more difference to the final image than the lens does. I guess at the end of the day it depends what you do with the images.
_________________ i7 860 @ 3.5GHz, GTX275, 4GB DDR3
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:45 am |
|
 |
brataccas
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:14 pm Posts: 5664 Location: Scotland
|
that ones an F4, I think I need at least F2.8 for indoor usage 
_________________
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 5:04 pm |
|
 |
paulzolo
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:27 pm Posts: 12251
|
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 7:46 pm |
|
 |
dogbert10
Doesn't have much of a life
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:23 pm Posts: 638 Location: 3959 miles from the centre of the Earth - give or take a bit
|
_________________ i7 860 @ 3.5GHz, GTX275, 4GB DDR3
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:02 pm |
|
 |
brataccas
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:14 pm Posts: 5664 Location: Scotland
|
really not sure if it would be good image output(?), have you used that actual lens?? I have a 70-300mm TAMRON f4 and its horrible, I think I chucked that one in the bin too 
_________________
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:12 pm |
|
 |
belchingmatt
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am Posts: 6146 Location: Middle Earth
|
Next time you want to bin a lens can I offer to pay for postage to myself? Thanks in advance. 
_________________ Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!
><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º> •.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:21 pm |
|
 |
brataccas
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:14 pm Posts: 5664 Location: Scotland
|
yep I think I may buy that tamron one, liking the reviews etc  and I do have tripod ye but the top bits missing so I cant use it
_________________
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:27 pm |
|
 |
HeatherKay
Moderator
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:13 pm Posts: 7262 Location: Here, but not all there.
|
Duct tape and bungee straps. Necessity is the mother of invention.
_________________My Flickr | Snaptophobic BloggageHeather Kay: modelling details that matter. "Let my windows be open to receive new ideas but let me also be strong enough not to be blown away by them." - Mahatma Gandhi.
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 8:48 pm |
|
 |
belchingmatt
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am Posts: 6146 Location: Middle Earth
|
I recently built a box to attach a camera to a telescope out of wood, electrical tape and a few nails. I then found the photo tube that came with the telescope but which still requires a make specific adaptor, so I used more electrical tape. Both work perfectly, it is the tripod system that lets the whole thing down now. Telescope and camera tripods working together with a large off-centre mass create a bit of a wobble. I've already thought of how I can eliminate a few of the surplus parts that requires, yes you got it, wood and electical tape. 
_________________ Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!
><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º> •.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.
|
Sun Feb 14, 2010 9:02 pm |
|
 |
veato
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 7:17 am Posts: 5550 Location: Nottingham
|

To be fair the Tamron 70-300 is a really cheap lens (I know, I have one  ) that for most just adds a bit of extra zoom to the camera bag. I'm sure its never intended to match the optics of something a lot pricier. Personally I dont like to use it much past 200mm otherwise it goes softer than Mr Softs soft bits. But... that doesnt mean all Tamron lenses are rubbish. Like I said the 17-50 f2.8 has some very favourable reviews and is seen as a great 'kit lens' replacement. Likewise the 18-250 (or is it 18-270) is really useful as a 'one lens' solution. These are still under £500 though so again dont expect £1000+ Nikon optics. Looking at the original post the two lenses you were looking at were a wide angle (14-24) and a standard zoom (17-55). Personally I would first look at which lens would be the better option as they offer different things in terms of focal lengths. Once I'd decided if I was more interested in the wide or standard zoom option then I'd set a budget. I know the Nikon glass is very appealing but £1000+ is a lot to spend when you dont have the cash. I dont know if you are a pro, semi, amateur photographer and/or sell your pictures but if you dont stand to make money from the investment I'd stick with the cheaper brands. Its only my opinion mind you, its up to you what you do with your cash (or credit). I find a £1000 lens a bit overdoing it for a hobby. Looking at the wide and standard zoom options then I can see: Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.0 OS HSM £379 Sigma 10-20 f3.5 EX DC HSM £499 Sigma 12-24 f4.5-5.6 EX DG £687 Tamron 10-24 f3.5-4.5 Di II LD AF SD £384 Tamron 17-50 f2.8 XR Di II VC £529 Have a look around at some reviews. You'll see these aren't lenses to be chucked in the bin. There some good value-quality glass out there.
_________________Twitter Blogflickr
|
Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:51 am |
|
 |
nvj1662
Occasionally has a life
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:15 pm Posts: 175
|
For what you'd pay for a 14-24 f:2.8 you could buy a prime 24/2.8 and a new tripod and have change left over.
|
Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:27 pm |
|
 |
timark_uk
Moderator
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:11 pm Posts: 12143 Location: Belfast
|
That's quite possibly very true, but then you don't get the 14mm goodness of that lens. For all the money saving advice that's so far been given in this thread, that Nikon 14-24mm lens is worth every single penny. Don't underestimate just how bloody good a lens it is. (8+) Mark
|
Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:31 pm |
|
 |
brataccas
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:14 pm Posts: 5664 Location: Scotland
|
I will be creating a website soon to sell my best photos only, but I take pictures as a hobby mostly, and im not professional no (never will be) just below amateur hobbyist id say 
_________________
|
Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:12 pm |
|
 |
brataccas
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:14 pm Posts: 5664 Location: Scotland
|
does it work on the D80? 
_________________
|
Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:12 pm |
|
|