DSLR Photography Forum

SLR users aren't limited to buying lenses made by the same company - there are "third party" offerings as well from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina (to name a few) which are compatible with most bodies.

Which ones have you used / are your favourite? I'm interested to see what peoples' experiences have been with them...

good question ST... I'm keen on this answer as well... my dream is sports photography (yes, it's a dream)... so those big bugger gun lenses I wouldn't mind finding out about either.

G.

I am seriously thinking about buying the Tamron 90mm F2.8 Di macro lens. It is getting superb reviews - but I have not decided yet - either that or the Nikon 105mm F2.8 macro (significantly more expensive).

One of the reasons that I bought a Nikon in the first place is the quality of their lenses, however, so I feel a little funny about buying a 3rd party lens.

GD: if you are shooting with a D70 and want to do sports photography, you should seriously consider the Nikkor 80-200 ED F2.8 zoom - it is the finest lens of its kind - and isn't too expensive for a top quality pro grade lens - approx $800 US.

On your D70 - that will be a 128-320mm zoom - that can stay at F2.8 across its whole range - great for fast action.

yeah... I'm slowly understanding the fx.x rating on the lens (in terms of what it means to what I can shoot)... I bought a 70-300 f3.5-f4.5 when I got the camera cos I liked the idea of zooming and the 300 has proven itself a couple of times... but am starting to realise that the real end of the game is allowing me to be at 2.8 or so.

I'm getting some good action shots out of the 70-300... so when the grand prix is in town in March, I will check out the action with that one... but 300 (450) at 4.5 is I think, limited in what it can achieve.

perhaps it's time to hit E-Bay to sell the 70-300 and upgrade

Thanks Toad

btw, I thought the D70 was a 1.5, rather than a 1.6x

Maybe it is 1.5 - I assumed that it was the same as the Canon 300D.

I looked at the 70-300 as well - it is a pretty nice range in a small package, but I shoot mostly ISO 50 Velvia slide film - so it is just too slow for me for anything but scenics on tripods. Depends what you shoot and at what ISOs, I guess. For sports - you need speed.

I tried getting slide film in to my camera damn near exploded the CF card

yeah I like my 70-300.. it's got me by in a couple of nice shots including masquerading as a macro lens on occasion

what impact would it have given that the D70's lowest ISO is 200... especially with respect to the 70-300 f3.5-f4.5 or the 80-200 f2.8... I imagine I would notice a difference with respect to the amount of light I can get into the shot which the film speed would show up... but what would be the thing I would notice most?

*I'm just noticing how people sigh when I say that ISO 200 is the fastest*

I guess it might cross some things off the list?

i.e. in people's opinions is it better to be a low f-rating than zoom rating given that the diff between 200 and 300 (or more) really won't show itself in too many sports action shots.

*maybe a seperate thread from this in the discussion of f-rating versus zoom....

* I agree with Toad... I chose Nikon because a) I believed the D70 to be ok... but also because I have used their stuff with other people and trusted it as a pretty good set up. So to answer ST's question... I think I'd stay proprietary until the cost for it didn't justify the benefit of usage.

Usually the tradeoff against a lower F-stop rating is in size and weight.

At ISO 200 - you are less limited by shutter speed than at ISO 50 - so you may be able to buy a slower lens and still get great sports shots - faster is always better - it lets you get a faster shutter speed on a grey day or in shade. At ISO 200 - you already have a 2 F-stop advantage on ISO 50, however.

Having said that - there are a lot more things to look at in a lens than just speed - the quality of the optics is pretty significant as well. One reviewer that is pretty savvy on Nikon gear and Nikon lenses is Ken Rockwell at www.kenrockwell.com - also www.nikonians.com has some fairly knowledgable guys on their forums.

that's awesome.. thanks for the great links, they are bookmarked in my puter now!

perhaps on this seperate thread you or others can explain the faster lens scenario (I assume it means more light allowing a faster shutter speed). (once I start the thread that is.. I'm exceptionally lazy! )

I'm doing some simple photography theory courses at the mo and I'm hoping they get into the types of topics this thread touches on.. so I can only hope!

ok ok ok I've hijacked this thread enough

The fstop speed thing is very confusing - particlarly because the scales are not linear. For example F4 will only allow half as much light to reach the film plane as F2.8 at the same shutter speed (1 stop difference). F5.6 will allow 1/4 as much light as F2.8 at same shutter speed (2 stops).

For every stop that you go up - you lose half your light. This is all very confusing because some cameras use half stops such as F3.5 as well. Also the higher the number the smaller the aperature - F22 being a tiny opening and F2.8 being large.

Another rule of thumb - as you double the ISO rating - you gain one stop back.

Confused yet??

So - all things being equal (and my math may be dead wrong) - at ISO 200 @ F5.6 - you should be getting the same amount of light as ISO 50 @ F2.8. So at ISO 200 @ F2.8 - you should be rocking.

Please anyone jump in here if my understanding is flawed in some way.

ah ha! cool.. I got it.. I think I need to memorise my f-stop tables

so, yeah by fast lens you mean the ability to use fast shutter speeds due to aperture.. sweet, that's the stuff I need to really understand and this sort of commentary helps me enormously.

In the past I've just pointed at things and thought "I reckon this speed will do!"

for me now, it's understanding how many stops are in the light of subject I'm looking at so that I can balance it... I guess this is metering then? (yet another topic.. I'm awesome at thinking of topics and yet, here it is 6 posts later and I haven't created any!!).

Given that most sports take part outdoors light isn't normally an issue even on cloudy days. I tend to sit on 1/1250 (shutter priority) when capturing action (not panning) and adjust the film speed to let me get that, normally you can do it fine on ISO 100 and still get a decent depth of field on a tele lens, even when its rather dingy weather shooting at 400 its still not hard to get 1/500 @ f5.6.

Of course you can always try panning rather than freezing the action if that happens, dimmer light makes panning easier as you can drop your shutter speed down.

gd Wrote:what impact would it have given that the D70's lowest ISO is 200...

Is that right? I would have thought that it would go to at least ISO100 if not ISO50?

Hm... *checking nikon site for specs* ISO rating: Auto, 200 - 1600

Wow... wouldn't that impact greatly on the photo quality? I know my Fuji S5000 has a ISO200 limitation and the pics are not exactly the best. However it is a consumer digicam and I knew it would be the case. But for a DSLR?

Now.. the original topic, alternative lenses.. Ok for a few months now I've had a craving for prime lenses, the beautiful quality I discovered shooting with a 50mm 1.8 has opened my eyes to them. As far as zoom lenses go though I have no problems with alternative brands, below is a list of the current "arsenal" and any opinions.

Canon 17-40L f4 - Nice and sharp even at f4, quickest focusing of the three WA's

Tamron 17-35 Di f2.8-4 - Has a bit of barrel distortion, doesn't flare as much as the Canon 17-40 amazingly, average build quality, good value for the price.

Canon 18-55 - Considering the price this lens is pretty decent, fairly distorted and on big images the image definition just isn't there, very light and compact though.

Sigma 24-70 EX 2.8 - Quite sharp stopped down to f8, focus isn't spot on and declines in low light.

Canon 28mm f1.8 - Sharp even at f2

Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 - Surprising again for a consumer lens this one is pretty sharp and the USM focuses quickly, good value for an all rounder.

Canon 50mm f1.4 - My favourite lens, does wonders in the dark, images don't get much sharper than this when you put it anywhere between f5.6 and f11, full time manual focus is great!

Canon 50mm f1.8 - Nice lens, replaced by the 1.4, manual focus is useless, flares more than the f1.4, still sharp though.

Canon 70-200L f4 - Picked up as a used hire lens, a real workhorse even now and its 6 years old, not as sharp as the Sigma 70-200 surprisingly.

Sigma 70-200 EX HSM APO - My 2nd favourite lens, very sharp, super quick, when combined with the 2x converter the images are still sharper than the Canon f4

Canon 75-300 III USM - Currently holidaying in Turkey with a friend, not a bad lens very soft once you get past 200mm

Canon 85 f1.8 - New toy, not really tested yet.. great for minimal DOF and working at a longer length in dim light.

Sigma 120-300 EX - I picked this one up after hiring it for a job, I asked the retailer to sell it to me when they were going to get rid of it from their hire cycle, when used with the 2x converter it goes a little soft at f5.6 but its nice and sharp at f8 great for those long distance captures or tele-perving

Canon 1.4x
Sigma 2x

Split across two systems btw with a couple of unused lenses, the 28-105 & 75-300 are in Turkey with a mate while he works over there.

StudioJ Wrote:Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 - Surprising again for a consumer lens this one is pretty sharp and the USM focuses quickly, good value for an all rounder.

This one I can vouch for, and it's awesome. I think there are a couple of versions, but the one I used was the good ol' oldie and the images were tack sharp.

The older one has the metal body, there are two newer versions one is more cone shaped towards the front end. The older version is the one worth getting, I bought mine 2nd hand on EBay a couple of years ago now and it was well worth it, still going strong from what I hear.

ST.. according to the Ken Rockwell site that Toad put me onto:

"Why no ISO 100? Simple: the only reason for slow ISO speeds in the old days of film and in digital point-and-shoots was to get great color and no grain. I explain why compact digital cameras still need ISO 50 and 100 here. The D70 gives such great results at ISO 200 there is no need for the older, slower speeds like ISO 100, 50, 25 (Kodachrome II in the 1970s) and 10 (Kodachrome in the 1940s). If you want to use big apertures you just shoot at 1/8,000 of a second" endquote.

He seems very direct.. who knows if he's right!

Hey, as long as it works, I'll be happy

Had one highly frustrating experience with Sigma tech support and I won't buy their lenses again.

Jamie, have you actually shot with the Tamron 17-35 DI, or just reporting what you've heard? I'm wondering how usable it is wide open - obviously for landscapes that wouldn't matter, but for pj-style people shots in natural light it would be essential. I'd also consider a used Canon 17-35 f/2.8L but that's a few dollars more expensive...

Also the Tamron 28-75 DI is a real winner and hugely popular. I liked mine, but have sold it for a Canon 50mm 1.4 which better suits my low-light needs.

gd Wrote:.. according to Ken Rockwell:

"the only reason for slow ISO speeds in the old days of film and in digital point-and-shoots was to get great color and no grain. I explain why compact digital cameras still need ISO 50 and 100 here. The D70 gives such great results at ISO 200 there is no need for the older, slower speeds like ISO 100, 50, 25

Ken is totally correct in that the principal reason for using low ISOs is for grain (and noise) control. There is also the case of extremely bright subjects - but that is pretty rare. If the Nikon D70 has no noise or grain at ISO 200 - why shoot at slower?

Lucky you. If I get a digital body to supplment my F100 (and share my Nikon lenses) - it will definately be a D70...or whatever it's successor is at that time.

Toad Wrote:If the Nikon D70 has no noise or grain at ISO 200 - why shoot at slower?

Agreed. The Canon 10D is quite similar in noise control, and I find myself using ISO 200 and 400 quite regularly when hand holding the camera, especially with a longer lens.

Hmm although I wonder whether the extra 2 stops of light will be an issue if you're trying deliberately slow shutter speed on a sunny day, like I was at Erskine Falls. I suppose DSLR lenses have much smaller apertures compared to consumer digicams...

I was thinking the same thing ST, there are plenty of ways to decrease the amount of light entering your lens though, ND filters or CP's especially if you want to cut back on the glare, the biggest problem with them though is if its bright the polariser adds more contrast making things worse.