Quality Glass Under $900

[JonathanRimmel]

I am not so patiently waiting for Nikon to release the D400 and when it does I am going to need some new glass. What I currently have won't cut it so I am looking for some suggestions. The first lens (and most important to me) I would likely get is a 24-70mm f/2.8, next a 70-200mm f/2.8 or 70-300 f/4-5.6, then a 12-24mm f/2.8(or 4) or 16-35mm f/2.8(or 4) after that macros and primes. I only want to go with full frame lenses because I intend to go with that format in the future. The biggest problem I have is my budget. (currently really low - unless I get this really nice job I am working on) So I would like to find lenses under $900. I am looking at Sigma and Tokina , (Tamron seems a bit cheap to me) and they are quite nice, but how do they stack up against the top glass from Nikon?

Anywho, please offer your suggestions, comments, etc.

[Ellis Vener]

Go Prime:

AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G

AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D or AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D

[Mattnord]

Agreed, primes are the way to go if you want exceptional image quality, fast glass and low cost.

[gubaguba]

Well my 24-70 was sharper then all of my primes in that range.  I have the afd 50, 35, 24 and they rarely seen light since I got the 24-70.  85mm 1.8 is nice.  On the long side 80-200 afd is sharp lacks fancy VR. 

[Colorado David]

I own the 80-200 2.8 and kept it when I bought the 70-200 2.8 VR.  It is a great lens and if you don't need VR there is nothing wrong with it.  I imagine you could get one fairly reasonably on the used market.  I wouldn't sell mine for what the used market would pay.

[bjanes]

Go Prime:

AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G

AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D or AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D

Agree!

I would add the Micro-Nikkor AF-S 60mm f/2.8 G, which is very highly rated both for close-ups and distance. It works very well with panos in landscape work.

Regards,

Biii

[irvweiner]

Johnathon, I am presently using this complement of Sigma lenses, on my N80, D100, D300 with great satisfaction. They are the 15-30, 24-70, 50 macro. My newer long teles are the VR equipped 70-200 and the 150-500. All are excellent performers for my landscape and multi-stitched 'pano' image arrays in which I simulate large format images.

Each lens cost ~40% of their Nikon versions, a substantial savings for a retired serious non-pro. I also have my venerable Nikon primes (35,50,85, 55 macro) from the '60's for my F, still fully functional (as well as my S2 RF).  I proudly bring this to your attention to remind you and a myriad of others that the most critically important tool needed in the photographic arts lies 'between' your ears--all the other 'stuff' are handtools.

Photographs that I created over the past decades, but more importantly in the last decade, the digital era, (Nikon or Sigma glass) are indistinguishable in their technical quality. Especially so when using our eyes (not a loupe) for viewing at the appropriate distance.

I have put away my NBS test charts several 'whiles' ago and now concentrate on the creating, not taking of fine photographs. Do not let anyone embarrass you  about the pedigree of your gear--just show them your fine prints.

Bottom line: the Sigma EX lenses I chose will permit you fulfill your immediate needs. When your finances improve you can purchase the 'approved' glass--if you so desire.

good luck  irv weiner

[JonathanRimmel]

Really great advice everyone! Keep it coming!

I think I will look very strongly into Sigma and Tokina glass for now. At least for the zooms. The Sigma 24-70mm looks decent enough. Actually I used to own the older version of this lens when I was using a Sigma DSLR.

Absolute technical image quality isn't really too important to me overall, but I don't want my equipment to be the reason a photograph doesn't work. (Though, it would be easier to blame it than myself.)

[ripgriffith]

Tamron SP series is worth a look.  I find the build quality better than the average Sigma, and infinitely better than most kit lenses.  I don't know how their quality control is, and there may be inconsistencies from lens to lens, but my SP 28-70 is, as someone observed, eye-bleeding sharp at f4, highly usable wide-open and diffraction limitations don't seem to start until about f10 or so.  Since I shoot Sony (a65), I can't compare it with Nikon glass, but it is optically equal to or better than the equivalent Sony-Zeiss glass I tried at twice the price (at least).

[JonathanRimmel]

Tamron SP series is worth a look.  I find the build quality better than the average Sigma, and infinitely better than most kit lenses.  I don't know how their quality control is, and there may be inconsistencies from lens to lens, but my SP 28-70 is, as someone observed, eye-bleeding sharp at f4, highly usable wide-open and diffraction limitations don't seem to start until about f10 or so.  Since I shoot Sony (a65), I can't compare it with Nikon glass, but it is optically equal to or better than the equivalent Sony-Zeiss glass I tried at twice the price (at least).

Hmm, I have always been a bit leery of Tamron as their quality seemed much lower. But I will look into these. Their new 24-70 VC lens has me intrigued, although for the price they are asking I may as well get the Nikon.

[Michael H. Cothran]

FWIW - I remember back in the 70's and 80's that Tamron had the "best" reputation in third party lenses. Of course, Vivitar Series One lenses of the day were reputed to be tops for the money.
But it's just heresay, and times may have changed things.
I would try to get my hands on any I could to compare first hand. Most camera stores should carry one or two of these brands.

[JonathanRimmel]

FWIW - I remember back in the 70's and 80's that Tamron had the "best" reputation in third party lenses. Of course, Vivitar Series One lenses of the day were reputed to be tops for the money.
But it's just heresay, and times may have changed things.
I would try to get my hands on any I could to compare first hand. Most camera stores should carry one or two of these brands.

Unfortunately there is only one camera store within a few hundred miles and it carries a very slim selection.

[ebowles]

Generally you get what you pay for with lenses.  Nikon glass carries a premium price for a reason.  Not that every lens is perfect, and there are some top lenses from third parties - but the 24-70 and 70-200 are first class lenses in the bag of most Nikon professionals.  Top quality glass holds its value very well.  You'll notice that replacements tend to carry a still higher price helping quality used lenses to hold their value.  And you can easily sell your Nikon pro lenses at any time.

Now that does not mean that you should not buy third party lenses.  Just know that you are trading off quality and resale value.  If you are not a pixel peeper and print normal sized prints, that's not a problem.  With large prints and cameras like the D800 or similar future models, glass flaws are revealed.

Since you are staying with DX for the foreseeable future, you mention a likely movement to FX in the future.  That means investing in high quality FX lenses which are more expensive.  They work fine on DX cameras but have some pluses and minuses.

Using a kit made of primes is a matter of style.  There are some great prime lenses and for certain situations primes would be the lens of choice.  If you are a portrait photographer an 85mm prime would be at the top of the list.  If you shoot a lot of macro, a 90-105 prime is almost a necessity (or a 150mm).  And everyone needs a fast 35mm or 50mm lens.

But for many photographers, the flexibility of framing and shooting style with zooms is preferred.  The 70-200 is one of the finest lenses from Nikon and belongs in your kit.  But the price is out of the question.  The Nikon 70-300 VR is a light weight alternative at a relatively bargain price - and it is a full frame lens.  Quality is very good and it has a place in your kit even if you pick up the 70-200 later.

At the normal end, the FX choice is the 24-70.  But it carries a premium price and is not wide enough for DX.  Given you will be with DX for 4 years or more, I'd just get the 16-85 VR.  It's a nice light weight lens and would be easy to sell later.  It's wide enough that you can wait for an ultrawide when your budget permits.  And it is light enough to be part of a travel kit well after any move to FX.  I don't know that you gain enough with a third party 24-70 or equivalent since you would still need an ultrawide.

For DX you probably need to add an ultrawide with a 24-70, so a 10-24 or 12-24 makes sense.  The Sigma and Tokina ultrawide lenses are quite good for the money and proved good alternatives. 

[JonathanRimmel]

Generally you get what you pay for with lenses....

More and more I am seeing that you indeed get what you pay for. I have thought about getting a 18-200mm dx lens to replace my 28-200mm. But their not fast enough for my liking nor is the image quality. Though I must say my 28-200 is VASTLY SUPERIOR to the 28-135 canon I have at work (horrible lens). The 16-85mm is interesting but again speed and optics just are not up to par.

Absolute musts in my bag are a 17-35 f/4 [or 2.8], 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 35mm f2.8 [or faster], and a nice macro. The first lens I am looking for which I already stated is the 24-70 because it's range is most useful to me. I love landscapes but I don't get much chance to shoot them so a wide angle is likely to be the 3rd lens I get. I have been looking for the older 70-200's out there but I can't seem to find any. I may just have to wait and save up for the more expensive lenses. I have to save up for CS6 Design Suite Premium any way (or master collection if I feel like waiting even longer). There is no doubt I want the best glass, but since the professional work I do is limited it makes me hesitate.