Looking to extend my glass collection

[Plamadude30k]

So I just graduated today and my relatives all gave me checks, which I completely didn’t expect. Long story short, I’ll probably be ordering the new camera in this coming week. After reading all the suggestions in this thread and thinking it over, the lenses I’m considering for my new kit are:
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro
Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
18-105mm D7000 kit lens

Now I have to decide between the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and a used version of the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 which would cost about the same. They both overlap my focal range coverage and add new capabilities-I’m just having a LOT of trouble deciding which would be more useful. Does anybody have preferences specifically between the two?

[Farktographer]

Sounds about the same as where my kit collection is going. With the D7000 i have the 18-105mm kit lens (great lens, btw), the manual 50mm f/1.4, and the next one I have my eye set on is the tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro – great minds thing alike 😆

I’m not as experienced when it comes to lenses as some of these other people, but your kit 18-105 is going to be able to go down to f/3.5, so the Tokina is only going to really be novel for very wide-angle shots from 12-17mm. The 70-300mm, on the other hand, would bring the 106-300mm focal range into your grasp. Personally, I’d go for that one. I’m seeing myself in a zoo or something, and with a 300mm you’d be able to get up-close with the animals without actually being up close. Seems to me (again, the more inexperienced person) that with the 12mm, all you’d have to do to accomplish the same picture is set your kit to 18mm and take a couple steps back.

[Plamadude30k]

Those are pretty good points, I have to admit. Also, the 70-300 is an FX format lens, meaning that with the DX format D7000, it has an effective focal length range of somewhere around 110-450mm, which is awesome-I could finally do wildlife, sports, etc. like I want. Almost seems obvious now.

[sleeping]

Seems to me (again, the more inexperienced person) that with the 12mm, all you’d have to do to accomplish the same picture is set your kit to 18mm and take a couple steps back.

Sorry, but I’d have to disagree. Ultrawides are a different world altogether than a “normal” wide angle. Using one effectively generally means stepping *closer*, not back, and there’s no way to replicate that with anything else (however, you can come much closer to approximating a longer FL by cropping)

Also, percentage-wise 12-18mm is the same as 200-300mm.

[orionid]

Seems to me (again, the more inexperienced person) that with the 12mm, all you’d have to do to accomplish the same picture is set your kit to 18mm and take a couple steps back.

Sorry, but I’d have to disagree. Ultrawides are a different world altogether than a “normal” wide angle. Using one effectively generally means stepping *closer*, not back, and there’s no way to replicate that with anything else (however, you can come much closer to approximating a longer FL by cropping)

Also, percentage-wise 12-18mm is the same as 200-300mm.

I have the 70-300 and the 18-105. 24 prime is my normal walkaround, but I swap around a lot. There are times with the 70-300 that I think a little more focal length would be nice. But I find myself wishing to go wider than 18 almost all the time.

I say go with the 12-24.

[CauseISaidSo]

I think it depends on what kind of shots you want to take with the new lens that you can’t now. For example, you mentioned wildlife and sports. If those are more important than sweeping landscapes, the 70-300 might be your better option.

I’ve got a 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, a 24-70 f/2.8 (my primary walking around lens), and a 70-200 f/2.8. I use the 70-200 with a 1.4x tele-extender to shoot my son’s football games. With the extender that’s 280mm and with the crop factor it’s equivalent to about 450mm full-frame. And I find that more reach would be handy a lot of times.

Another consideration if sports is important – a lot of sports need really fast glass due to low lighting conditions and the faster shutter speed you want to use to capture the action. I don’t know Nikon’s lens catalogue, but if there’s a faster lens in that zoom range then maybe it’s better to hold off and either save up for that or just satisfy your lens craving for now with the wide angle.

[ravnostic]

I’ve got a 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, a 24-70 f/2.8 (my primary walking around lens), and a 70-200 f/2.8. I use the 70-200 with a 1.4x tele-extender to shoot my son’s football games. With the extender that’s 280mm and with the crop factor it’s equivalent to about 450mm full-frame. And I find that more reach would be handy a lot of times.

Another consideration if sports is important – a lot of sports need really fast glass due to low lighting conditions and the faster shutter speed you want to use to capture the action. I don’t know Nikon’s lens catalogue, but if there’s a faster lens in that zoom range then maybe it’s better to hold off and either save up for that or just satisfy your lens craving for now with the wide angle.

Not to digress, but how exactly does the whole 280/450mm thing play out? I have a Rebel, so I know there’s a 1.6 number in there somewhere, and that my f1.8 50mm is equivalent to about an 85mm. It doesn’t affect my focal range; I’m sure it affects my field of view; but how duz i doo da mathz? Does it change the technical f/1.8 to something better or worse? Is it merely a field of view thing? What about lens distortion? If the image uses more of the center of the lens configuration, is it bettar? Warse?

[chupathingie]

f-ratio stays the same… effective focal length is multiplied by 1.6 on the Rebel. Assuming EF lens, EFS lenses are marked with a focal length appropriate for the smaller sensors.

[Plamadude30k]

All good advice, which leads me to the conclusion that I should eventually get both. At this point, it’s just a matter of which I want to get first, and given that I found a great deal on the 70-300, I think that’s the one I’ll be going with right now. I’ll let you guys know how it all goes!

[sleeping]

Does it change the technical f/1.8 to something better or worse? Is it merely a field of view thing? What about lens distortion? If the image uses more of the center of the lens configuration, is it bettar? Warse?

When people talk about Focal length changing, they’re really using it as a shorthand for field of view. The focal length doesn’t change at all when you use a smaller sensor, but the field of view approximates that of a longer lens.

Because the true focal length doesn’t change, the F-stop is the same as well, so for exposure purposes that’s not affected. However, if you’re comparing output of the same dimensions a smaller sensor image is enlarged more to make the final image, meaning the DOF is not the same (for an equivalent field of view and F-Stop, DOF is a bit deeper on a small sensor camera than on full frame)

[CauseISaidSo]

rav, pretty much what sleeping and chup said. To get the figures I used, I started with 200mm max zoom of the lens, multipled by 1.4 for the TE to get 280, and multipled by 1.6 to get 448, which I rounded up to 450mm. Crop factor doesn’t affect the speed of the lens (although the TE does). Think of it this way: If you take a picture of an object that fills the frame on your Rebel or my 30D and it takes 200mm of zoom to do so, to duplicate that photo on a full-frame sensor would require a zoom length of 320mm (200×1.6).

As to affecting distortion or CA, I don’t think it changes anything, but I really don’t know for sure.

[Plamadude30k]

As to affecting distortion or CA, I don’t think it changes anything, but I really don’t know for sure.

A larger crop factor (meaning smaller sensor) *might* mean less distortion or CA-these are typically off axis effects, and a smaller FoV should mean that these effects are less pronounced-you can think of it as if you’re only using the center of the lens which is typically better optically. A lens with edge defects can just be stopped down and be used as a smaller aperture lens.

/Three classes in advanced optics causes rambling.

[ravnostic]

/Three classes in advanced optics causes rambling.

Perhaps, but it’s invited. Share, and may you never thirst. 😀

[caradoc]

/Three classes in advanced optics causes rambling.

Perhaps, but it’s invited. Share, and may you never thirst. 😀

We grok. 😉

[Plamadude30k]

Just got the new camera and the 18-105mm lens. It’s pretty wonderful. More reports and perhaps a small gallery once I’ve had some time to get to know the new kit.

[Author]

Posts