[viggen]

Hello All:

Previously I had asked about which body to get.  I've lived with the D80 for almost a month.  Here are some of the pros and cons impressions:

Pro: 
Fit and finish is good enough for me.  I've played with the Canons and Sonys and none felt right in my palm.  I think I prefer the D40's size, but the D80 fits really well.  I have no complaints about the build quality.  It might be too much to ask for the body to have more metal without adding to the weight?  I like things made out of metal.  Just a pet peeve.

This is my first SLR, so, this is my first time to really play around with aperture and shutter speed.  I really like how I can change these on the fly.  So, I think I made the right choice between D40 and D80 in terms of this functionality. 

Con:
DX.  I dislike DX in two ways. 

One, for me to get a wide angle lens, I have to buy something that is extraordinarily wide.  This means the lens will have more distortion and will be more expensive than if I went with an equivalent lens with FX type sensor. 

Two, lots of pixels are jammed onto a smaller sensor, so, I need a faster lens to compensate for the sensors inability to soak up light as much light as it can.  At least this is my assumption based on a new lens I recently purchased.  Please read on.

Premise/background: 

I originally purchased the D80 with the 50mm 1.8D lens.  At first, I was amazed at what this lens can do.  I can snap at anything without framing, and each shot turned out to be sharp, contrasty and, most importantly, in focus.  This is true no matter what mode I was using as long as I didn't screw up with the settings.  I even took shots of the city in the dark at 3am with aperature wide open, and shots turned out well lit as if it was day time.  Truly amazed, I was. 

So, I've read the 50mm 1.8D is one of the best lens available in the Nikon line up despite its low price.  And, for the price, I am overwhelmed by both the lens and body.  However, after taking some shots at a musuem, a few restaurants and at home, I found I needed a wider angle for indoor shots where space is limited.  So, I started looking for a wide angle lenses.

I narrowed my choice down to the 18-35mm F3.5-4.5 ED IF Nikon full frame lens.  All the reviews I've read by Bythom to Rockwell to CameraHobbyist gave it high marks.  Their conclusions are that the 18-35mm is as good as the pro-line zoom lenses without the tank-like build quality.  Other than that, the pro lenses are faster at constant F2.8.  So, I purcahsed a minty 18-35mm lens from ebay. 

The first shots I took with the lens turned out fine.  They were in a well lit restaurant during lunch time.  I thought I made the right choice.  However, after taking some more shots when the lighting were less than perfect, the shots were noisy, lacked detail, and, frankly, dull.  And, when shooting people, their faces does not appear to be perfectly in focus.  Their facial details just doesn't show.  In fact, this is due to my shaky hands, often the person will have two pairs of lips or somethign to that effect in the shot. 

What do I need to do to get a wide angle lens with 50mm 1.8D-esque performance?  Do I have to go with a pro lense like the 17-35mm F2.8?  How about going with a 20mm or 24mm F2.8 prime lens? 

The thing that really irks me is that maybe the 18-35mm lens is fine, but the camera and lens are a bad match.  Maybe the DX sensor is compromising.  If this is the case, do I need a super fast lens?  Nikon doesn't even currently make a fast wide angle lens.  I'd have to go with Sigma that has a few 1.8 EX lenses which really have mixed reviews. 

So, what're your opinions?  Is my rationale correct in why the 18-35mm isn't working out for me?  I really like to move to a wide angle zoom, but the price for a good one seems prohibitive.  My next choise are the Nikon wide angle F2.8 lenses.  However, I don't know if the F2.8 aperature is fast enough.  It's only a few stops faster than the 18-35mm's F3.5.  Or, should I buy a Sigma wide angle with F1.8?  I believe I can buy them from Amazon.com and return them if they don't turn out to be the answer. 

Anyhow, it is just really dissapointing that the 18-35mm isn't working.  I still can get decent shots at night.  But, I need to fiddle with the settings, and I have to hold the camera as if it is a cup with water practically overflowing.  With the 50mm 1.8D, I just aim and shoot even with very little light. 

Below are some snapshots I took of a wall in my backyard.  As you can see, with the 18-35mm, the shots are terrible at 400ISO and at open aperature.  This was taken at around 3:30pm when the sky is fairly clear.  So, lighting shouldn't be an issue.  I shot at 18mm which translate to a DX 27mm.  And, I took shots with the 50mm (DX 75mm) at similar settings for comparison.  I shot everything with aperature priority setting.  Notice how the shutter speed is faster on the 50mm in each shot compared to the 18-35mm's shot when using the same aperature and ISO settings.

[JohnR]

What are the images - are they 1-1 crops?

[viggen]

For the 27mm, those are direct crops.  For the 75mm, those are cropped then reduced to 35%. 

So, I know the 75mm would look better just because less of the image is cropped.  However, the differences are actual much more dramatic when the subject is more detailed.  The wall pics are just something I made up really quickly hoping it can succicntly demonstrate my plight.

Just took a few indoor dimly lit shots.


I am surprised to see the 75mm has a slower shutter speed in each of these shots.  Remember, I am on aperture priority mode. 

But, notice how the wall is completely noisy and grainy with the 18-35mm.  And, notice how the facial details are not intelligible with the 18-35mm lens too.

Well, maybe the difference isn't that major when viewed on this page since the image is compressed...

[JohnR]

It's frustrating when a lens doesn't work out. I have a similar thing going with a 25-50mm AIS zoom that I'm still trying to figure out whether to keep or not.

On the first set of images, the top left one is overexposed by a stop, which isn't helping. Not sure why that would have happened. Also, from what I read that lens needs to be stopped down to at least f/5.6 to get good sharpness.

I'd suggest trying some of the lower light pictures with a tripod, as that's the only way to know what the lens is doing. Also, try doing some contrast adjustments and sharpening, you may find that helps bring the lens to life.

Other than that... a 20 or 24mm f/2.8 might be an option... although I'm not sure they haven't been surpassed by the modern zooms anyway... or the 12-24 zoom if you want really wide... but I think a VR lens would probably be a better choice if hand held is what you want to do, maybe you can try a 16-85 and 18-55 VR in a store?

[viggen]

Yes, I have to keep things in perspective.  It is just that I had very high expectations for the 18-35mm since the 50mm worked out so well and since the 18-35mm lens was so well reviewed.

You are right about this lens' sweet spot at least I read the same thing you did.  This lens does perform better in day light when I have the f stopped higher at f5.6 or above.  The other problem is when I raise the ISO, the picture gets grainy above 150.  With the 50mm, it doesn't get grainy until above 400.  I guess I am spoiled by the 50mm 1.8.  I shoot away indoors without tripod or flash.  I usually keep it between f2 and f3.   Is it unreasonable that I ask for a lens that is slightly wider than the 50mm but can do the same things?  Maybe it is.  At least it is with the budget I am giving myself (under $500).  The 12-24mm is defintely out of the question.  So, that's the reason why I am considering to go with a prime.

I did think about trying out some VR lenses as part of the problem are my shaky hands.  However, I think even if the VR allows the the lens to capture more detail, it can't reduce noise that result from the lens not letting enough light thru.  This is probably less of a problem with the D40?  I will go try some next weekend anyways and see.  I also wanted to avoid DX lenses in case I make the jump in the future.  However, according to Ken Rockwell, hording FX lenses for the future is rediculous.  I think he made some good points.

[JohnR]

Is it unreasonable that I ask for a lens that is slightly wider than the 50mm but can do the same things?

How much is "slightly wider"? If 35mm qualifies, the 35mm f/2 might be worth a look, performance is comparable to the 50. Used ones would be fairly plentiful and not expensive I would think. There's a long thread on nikoncafe comparing it with the Sigma 30, I'll see if I can find it.

Interesting observations you make concerning ISO. Maybe that's some of my issue with the 25-50... I'll have to investigate more thoroughly.

[JohnR]

This is the thread I mentioned, although unfortunately a lot of the images are now missing 

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=180010

[WerTicus]

I've been doing some extensive research lately into lenses, and I've noticed consistently that the best option is not the main brand lenses.  Sigma / Tamron lenses are the equal of or out performing the nikkors, canons and pentax brand lens, for half the money.  In general all the 1st party lenses have is better feel in your hands.  The only exception i've found is the 50mm prime f1.4 pentax lens, which i now own.

Otherwise it looks like im going to get either a:

sigma 10-20mm or tamron 10-24mm (at around the same price as the 12-24, but both out perform it)
the sigma 24-70f2.8 (at half the price of the da* 16-50, and out perform)
and the tamron 70-200mm f2.8  (at half the price of the DA* 50-135 and out perform)

[viggen]

Hello:

I was both looking at the 35mm F2 and the Sigma 30mm F1.4.  However, I returned the D80... and got a D90 and spotted a minty 17-55mm F2.8 on ebay.  So, originally, I had a budget.. and obliterated it.  I hope this doesn't become a trend.  I am currently getting back into vinyl with budget around $2k and might obliterate that too. 

Anycase, I think for arty pics I much prefer the D80 over D90.  Perhaps the CCD sensor is better at color rendering than D90's CMOS.  Let's say out of 100 exposures, I might have 80 junk out of D80 but 15 doable pics and 5 great pics.  Out of 100 exposures with the D90, I might have 90 doable pics but no great pics. 

Basically, I can blast away with the D90 with 17-55mm lens.  And, I need to carefully set up the scene and camera settings with the D80.  But, then again, maybe it is because I do take more time to set up the D80 hence I get some more great pics. 

Maybe there is something to be said about using a camera that requires more attention sort of like beginning photography students who are required to use manual cameras with fixed lenses.

If I get a new lens, it might be the new 35mm 1.8G. 

[jrtrent]

Since you were happy with the 50mm f/1.8, but just needed a wider angle, the 35mm f/2 or f/1.8 would seem an ideal choice.  I use a Sigma SD14 and have just the 30mm f/1.4 lens to go with it, but am very happy with the combination.

What have you been looking at for vinyl?  I bought a new turntable last year and for the first time since 1985 am using something other than a Linn LP12 as my primary source.  The Well Tempered Record Player I went with is a bit above what you've budgeted, but you certainly have lots of options.  I'm rather partial to Rega models in that price range; in fact, I'd give the little Rega P3-24 with Elys 2 cartridge (about $1095 for the package) a good long listen before spending any more.  That would still leave you room for a good phono stage should you need one and even the turntable power supply upgrade.  If you're happy with your phono stage and/or don't need the power supply upgrade and don't want to keep any money in your pocket, you could step up to a P5 or, for a different flavor/presentation, a VPI Scout.

[viggen]

Hi:

I probably won't be buying any new lenses for awhile.  The 17-55mm f/2.8 is very good and versatile in the mean time.  I haven't really had the need to go wider than f/3.5.  I could use a slightly wider angle at times though.  If I go traveling somewhere pretty and exotic, I might be tempted to get a Tokina 11-16mm.

Regarding the analog rig, I have already went over budget.  Got a table for $1500, arm for $1100, and phono stage for $420.  And, I still need a cart.  So, I'd say I have gone over my budget by approximately 75%.

[jrtrent]

I have to admit that I've never cared for wide angle lenses.  Even a 35mm lens on my film SLR's just seemed too much, it's wide angle somehow expanding and exaggerating distance relationships in a way that made the resulting images appear unnatural.  I don't mind a telephoto for a specific need (such as getting a "closer" view of speakers at a conference), but over time, I realized that I liked best those images taken with a 50mm "normal" lens; the resulting pictures simply appear more like what I remember a place looking like.  Now that I'm shooting digital, a fast lens of about 50mm equivalence is all I want.

What turntable, arm, and phono stage did you end up with?  Were you able to audition these pieces against other possibilities, or, like so many these days, did you have to buy blind (or would that be deaf)?  Though no local dealers stocked it for audition, I ordered a Grado phono stage yesterday.  I'm not at all unhappy with the phono stage in my main system's preamp, but I'm curious to hear my Grado cartridge with their own phono stage and it will give me the flexibility to try Grado's low-output Statement series cartridges, for which they claim a number of sonic improvements.

[viggen]

I have to agree that using a prime standard angle lens does result in better picture either regarding framing or spatial issues.  At least in my case, some of my best pictures were taken using the D80 with the 50mm prime (75mm equiv.). So, I really should invest in a 35mm instead of a wider angle.  However, recently, I've been doing a lot of house shopping and my fiance is doing a lot of gown shopping.  So, I've taken a lot of indoor shots lately. Taking shots where space is limited definitely warrants a wider angle.

I got an Amazon Model 12 table which I might have some issues regarding using a 50hz motor with 60hz AC.  I also just got a Moerch DP6 tone arm and Lehmann Black Cube SE phono-pre.

I am curious to hear how the Grado combination plays out too.  Let me know.