Which lens - Nikon 85mm f/1.4d or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8d?

[Kaido]

My wife is a photographer on the side and I want to get her a new lens this summer. We currently have a pair of Nikon D70s cameras, one with a 50mm f/1.8d and one with the 18-70mm kit lens. Here is a sample of her work: (other galleries are linked at the top)

http://malindyportraits.com/gallery1/index.php

Note that those are last year's photos; she's since switched over to Aperture 2 and has learned quite a bit about color correction...so the next step is to improve the sharpness of the photos. She does primarily outdoors work, but we also do some indoor work with our SB-800 flash. She shoots mostly people, mainly children but also pregnant women, couples, wedding-related stuff, families, portraits, and also pets on occasion.

She uses the zoom a LOT, since the kids she shoots are running around parks and gardens and stuff. Initially I was tempted to just get a really nice zoom lens, especially since she doesn't use the 50mm a whole heck of a lot (I use it more, for computer-related stuff usually), but the more I hear about the 85mm f/1.4d the more it sounds like the right lens to get. The Tamron 17-50mm is also looking extremely nice, especially for the price (1/2 the cost of the 85mm prime). I've never gone with a non-Nikon before and I'm losing some zoom (17-50 vs 17-80), so I'm a bit nervous about which to go with. I'm leaning towards the Tamron at the moment because (1) the quality is great, (2) it's a zoom lens, and (3) it's a much more affordable option.

What do you guys think?

 

[ElFenix]

the long end of the 17-50 is just reaching into classic portrait territory, while the 85 is your prototypical portrait lens. you might want to consider something a little more into the portrait range than the 17-50, such as the 28-75 that will get her well into portrait territory. if she really wants to be in zoom portrait territory the sigma 50-150 II or the tokina 50-135 would be a good choice. they both replicate the classic portrait zoom on APS format cameras.

no need to toss out the 18-70, especially if you get one of the last two lenses i mentioned.

 

[spikespiegal]

I shoot kids on the side as a speciality. Sorry, but my web-site is down or I'd show you some samples.

Not to brag, but the past year or so after learning some contrast mask techniques my work is getting really, really good. Pros in the area asking me for techniques and tips.

Your wife's basic style is very similiar to my own. I also own the Tamron 17-50 and own several Canon primes; 50mm, 100mm macro, etc.

All things considered, the 17-50 is just too short at the long end for getting kids. The Tamron has outstanding image quality, but it's tough to fill the frame with 50mm and impatient kids. However, you get into trouble at the other end because too much zoom/focal length results in facial compression that flattens facial features. On kids, you can get away with 100mm, but on adults it can 'add weight' and can be unflattering unless you are shooting wafer thin models.

On a cropped sensor dSLR like the D70 50mm is actually perfect because it's roughly the same as 85mm on a classic 35mm film SLR. A full head shot at this focal length delivers a very natural, and 3D perspective for close portraits.

My vote would be something that goes to 85 or 100 at the long end, and has outstanding specs for F4-5.6, which is the sweet spot for kids because it isolates the eyes with depth of field.

I wouldn't kick that 85mm out of bed either, but it will require more practice if you aren't used to primes and more discipline. This is a lens you invest in and keep for a long time.

 

[soydios]

I've taken some decent portraits and candids with the 50mm f/1.8D on my D50. I have heard however that the 85mm f/1.4D isn't a "sharp" lens wide open, because it just isn't designed to be. Portraits do not ask for a super-sharp lens to resolve every pore. Portraits instead require a smooth transition from a pleasantly-rendered in-focus depth-of-field to a creamy out-of-focus bokeh. So hopefully the marketing department won't try to strong-arm the lens designers into designing a tack-sharp 85mm prime lens just to satisfy the magazines and their by-the-numbers MTF charts.

But back on topic: I notice that you don't own a telephoto. Perhaps an AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR would be a good way to get some reach?

 

[jpeyton]

People can shoot great portraits with a standard zoom lens like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (which is a fantastic lens, I highly recommend it). But looking at your wife's photos, her photographic style doesn't really fit with a standard zoom, IMO.

As ElFenix mentioned, the most popular focal lengths for portrait lenses are between 80-200mm.

In fact, if your wife can handle the weight, a Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 would produce some knockout portraits. 80mm is great for head/shoulders shots; zoom in a little further and you can get some great background separation. The 80-200mm f/2.8 has prime-like sharpness and bokeh; it runs about $500-$700, depending on the condition and the version (optically they're all the same, but the two-ring zoom with the built-in tripod collar runs a little more than the push-pull zoom). It's heavy, though.

Otherwise grab her a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8; about $370 at Adorama. Lightweight; great sharpness and bokeh. The Tamron 17-50mm is sharper than the Nikkor 18-70mm, but not enough to warrant the upgrade. As soydios suggested, a sharp consumer telephoto zoom like a Nikkor 70-300mm VR (or even a 55-200mm VR) would be a good second lens.

If she hasn't already, point her to Strobist so she can pick up some ideas about how to use her Speedlight indoors and outdoors. The SB-800 is a good start since your D70s can wirelessly trigger it using the commander mode; get a good diffuser (like a small shoot through umbrella) and a small tripod for it.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: soydios
But back on topic: I notice that you don't own a telephoto. Perhaps an AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR would be a good way to get some reach?

Why would I need a telephoto for portraits? (in all seriousness; I don't have a lot of experience with different lenses)

Also, my wife is pretty happy with the 17-80mm, which is why I'm even hesitant to look at another prime - the 50mm hardly ever gets used.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
People can shoot great portraits with a standard zoom lens like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (which is a fantastic lens, I highly recommend it). But looking at your wife's photos, her photographic style doesn't really fit with a standard zoom, IMO.

As ElFenix mentioned, the most popular focal lengths for portrait lenses are between 80-200mm.

In fact, if your wife can handle the weight, a Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 would produce some knockout portraits. 80mm is great for head/shoulders shots; zoom in a little further and you can get some great background separation. The 80-200mm f/2.8 has prime-like sharpness and bokeh; it runs about $500-$700, depending on the condition and the version (optically they're all the same, but the two-ring zoom with the built-in tripod collar runs a little more than the push-pull zoom). It's heavy, though.

Otherwise grab her a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8; about $370 at Adorama. Lightweight; great sharpness and bokeh. The Tamron 17-50mm is sharper than the Nikkor 18-70mm, but not enough to warrant the upgrade. As soydios suggested, a sharp consumer telephoto zoom like a Nikkor 70-300mm VR (or even a 55-200mm VR) would be a good second lens.

If she hasn't already, point her to Strobist so she can pick up some ideas about how to use her Speedlight indoors and outdoors. The SB-800 is a good start since your D70s can wirelessly trigger it using the commander mode; get a good diffuser (like a small shoot through umbrella) and a small tripod for it.

My concern with the 80-200mm is that she won't be able to get in as close as she likes, as with her 18-70. We always carry the spare d70s with the 50mm attached and occasionally use it, but swapping lenses and even swapping cameras is a pain with the type of child photography she does (i.e. capturing them running through the park happily).

The 18-200mm was actually the first lens I looked at and is still looking pretty good, but I don't know if it would be enough of a jump in quality to really warrant an upgrade. Here it is on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18...m-Nikkor/dp/B000BY52NU

Here is the lens we have now:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18...S-Nikkor/dp/B0001YEOCU

From what I understand, it's pretty much the same quality lens (both f/3.5-5.6). The 18-200mm is appealing because (1) it adds quite a bit more telephoto capability and (2) it's a VR lens. So a little extra zoom would be wonderful, but really having that VR would help reduce some of the shaky shots. This was the lens I was looking at initially, but I got sucked into the Nikon 85mm and other lenses, haha.

Would the 18-200mm be a better choice? It would certainly fit my wife's style better...

 

[ElFenix]

the f numbers aren't a quality rating. the f numbers tell you the intensity of the light coming out the back of the lens compared to what goes in the front. the higher the number, the lower the intensity. f/1 is the same intensity as what is coming in the front, f/1.4 is half, f/2 is a quarter, f/2.8 is an eighth, f/4 is a sixteenth, so on and so forth.

at 70 mm and wide open (f/4.5), the 18-70 has a pretty even sharpness across the frame, with pretty good sharpness right in the middle. at 75 and wide open (f/5), the 18-200 is a bit less sharp in the middle and gets pretty soft going into the corners. that actually works to your advantage as a portrait lens. the slight softness in the middle can help hide blemishes, while the rather soft corners can help throw the background out of focus (assuming the portraits are centered). no idea about the quality of the background highlight blur (bokeh), though. could be nice and comforting, could be jittery and distracting. from 75 the 18-200 softens up in the middle a bit more by 135 and may be too soft at 200 (though at 350 mm equivalent that's well outside of what most people would use for portraits).


if by 'in as close' you mean that she is moving physically closer to the subject, that could be bit of a problem with the 80 mm short end (120 mm equivalent) of the 80-200. however, she wouldn't need to move close to the subject with that lens. if she is usually at the long end of that 18-70 then it wouldn't be too much different to use the 80-200 on it's short end. if she changes between 50 and 70 then it'd definitely be a different experience.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the f numbers aren't a quality rating. the f numbers tell you the intensity of the light coming out the back of the lens compared to what goes in the front. the higher the number, the lower the intensity. f/1 is the same intensity as what is coming in the front, f/1.4 is half, f/2 is a quarter, f/2.8 is an eighth, f/4 is a sixteenth, so on and so forth.

at 70 mm and wide open (f/4.5), the 18-70 has a pretty even sharpness across the frame, with pretty good sharpness right in the middle. at 75 and wide open (f/5), the 18-200 is a bit less sharp in the middle and gets pretty soft going into the corners. that actually works to your advantage as a portrait lens. the slight softness in the middle can help hide blemishes, while the rather soft corners can help throw the background out of focus (assuming the portraits are centered). no idea about the quality of the background highlight blur (bokeh), though. could be nice and comforting, could be jittery and distracting. from 75 the 18-200 softens up in the middle a bit more by 135 and may be too soft at 200 (though at 350 mm equivalent that's well outside of what most people would use for portraits).

I'm wondering if a combination of the softer quality combined with the VR would work to our advantage. It's sounding like a really good lens. What do you think?

 

[ElFenix]

ken thinks the background is jittery

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the f numbers aren't a quality rating. the f numbers tell you the intensity of the light coming out the back of the lens compared to what goes in the front. the higher the number, the lower the intensity. f/1 is the same intensity as what is coming in the front, f/1.4 is half, f/2 is a quarter, f/2.8 is an eighth, f/4 is a sixteenth, so on and so forth.

at 70 mm and wide open (f/4.5), the 18-70 has a pretty even sharpness across the frame, with pretty good sharpness right in the middle. at 75 and wide open (f/5), the 18-200 is a bit less sharp in the middle and gets pretty soft going into the corners. that actually works to your advantage as a portrait lens. the slight softness in the middle can help hide blemishes, while the rather soft corners can help throw the background out of focus (assuming the portraits are centered). no idea about the quality of the background highlight blur (bokeh), though. could be nice and comforting, could be jittery and distracting. from 75 the 18-200 softens up in the middle a bit more by 135 and may be too soft at 200 (though at 350 mm equivalent that's well outside of what most people would use for portraits).

I'm wondering if a combination of the softer quality combined with the VR would work to our advantage. It's sounding like a really good lens. What do you think?

Personally, I would shoot for a fixed f/2.8 aperture zoom lenses. They offer nice versatility in all situations and will be more useful as the light disappears than the variable aperture lenses. The 80-200 AF-D is superb. The 18-200 AF-S VR is shaping up to be a great walk-around lens, but whatever softness it produces could be more of a downside than an upside to the lens (think flower shots, landscape shots, etc; do you want soft images in those instances?). VR is a very nice feature to have, in my opinion, but just understand it's limitations. While it may allow your wife to shoot at 1/20th or 1/30th of a second, it's not going to help capture moving children at those speeds. This is where the fixed f-stop comes into play.

If it were me, I'd be seriously considering the 85 f/1.8. The extreme wide end can be used to produce some interesting shallow depth of field options. I'm one of those that really uses his 50 f/1.8, so it makes more sense for me to grab for an 85. For a zoom, the Tamron 17-50 looks like a great option, and is another lens in my wish list stable. It's basically a 28-75 on a AP-C sized sensor, which is considered by many to be the standard portrait zoom range (especially for wedding photographers), and good samples are producing some very high quality images.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Kaido
Why would I need a telephoto for portraits? (in all seriousness; I don't have a lot of experience with different lenses)

At longer focal lengths, with larger apertures, you flatten the features of your subject and nicely blur-out the background.

A larger aperture at a smaller focal length would also blur out the background, but facial features are more pronounced and less flattering.

Smaller apertures at any focal length don't blur out the background enough, causing it to distract from the subject.

You'll find that any professional portrait photographer will have a fixed aperture telephoto in their bag; a prime or zoom between 80-200mm.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: tdawg

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the f numbers aren't a quality rating. the f numbers tell you the intensity of the light coming out the back of the lens compared to what goes in the front. the higher the number, the lower the intensity. f/1 is the same intensity as what is coming in the front, f/1.4 is half, f/2 is a quarter, f/2.8 is an eighth, f/4 is a sixteenth, so on and so forth.

at 70 mm and wide open (f/4.5), the 18-70 has a pretty even sharpness across the frame, with pretty good sharpness right in the middle. at 75 and wide open (f/5), the 18-200 is a bit less sharp in the middle and gets pretty soft going into the corners. that actually works to your advantage as a portrait lens. the slight softness in the middle can help hide blemishes, while the rather soft corners can help throw the background out of focus (assuming the portraits are centered). no idea about the quality of the background highlight blur (bokeh), though. could be nice and comforting, could be jittery and distracting. from 75 the 18-200 softens up in the middle a bit more by 135 and may be too soft at 200 (though at 350 mm equivalent that's well outside of what most people would use for portraits).

I'm wondering if a combination of the softer quality combined with the VR would work to our advantage. It's sounding like a really good lens. What do you think?

Personally, I would shoot for a fixed f/2.8 aperture zoom lenses. They offer nice versatility in all situations and will be more useful as the light disappears than the variable aperture lenses. The 80-200 AF-D is superb. The 18-200 AF-S VR is shaping up to be a great walk-around lens, but whatever softness it produces could be more of a downside than an upside to the lens (think flower shots, landscape shots, etc; do you want soft images in those instances?). VR is a very nice feature to have, in my opinion, but just understand it's limitations. While it may allow your wife to shoot at 1/20th or 1/30th of a second, it's not going to help capture moving children at those speeds. This is where the fixed f-stop comes into play.

If it were me, I'd be seriously considering the 85 f/1.8. The extreme wide end can be used to produce some interesting shallow depth of field options. I'm one of those that really uses his 50 f/1.8, so it makes more sense for me to grab for an 85. For a zoom, the Tamron 17-50 looks like a great option, and is another lens in my wish list stable. It's basically a 28-75 on a AP-C sized sensor, which is considered by many to be the standard portrait zoom range (especially for wedding photographers), and good samples are producing some very high quality images.

Why not the 85mm f/1.4d instead of the 85mm f/1.8d?

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: tdawg

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the f numbers aren't a quality rating. the f numbers tell you the intensity of the light coming out the back of the lens compared to what goes in the front. the higher the number, the lower the intensity. f/1 is the same intensity as what is coming in the front, f/1.4 is half, f/2 is a quarter, f/2.8 is an eighth, f/4 is a sixteenth, so on and so forth.

at 70 mm and wide open (f/4.5), the 18-70 has a pretty even sharpness across the frame, with pretty good sharpness right in the middle. at 75 and wide open (f/5), the 18-200 is a bit less sharp in the middle and gets pretty soft going into the corners. that actually works to your advantage as a portrait lens. the slight softness in the middle can help hide blemishes, while the rather soft corners can help throw the background out of focus (assuming the portraits are centered). no idea about the quality of the background highlight blur (bokeh), though. could be nice and comforting, could be jittery and distracting. from 75 the 18-200 softens up in the middle a bit more by 135 and may be too soft at 200 (though at 350 mm equivalent that's well outside of what most people would use for portraits).

I'm wondering if a combination of the softer quality combined with the VR would work to our advantage. It's sounding like a really good lens. What do you think?

Personally, I would shoot for a fixed f/2.8 aperture zoom lenses. They offer nice versatility in all situations and will be more useful as the light disappears than the variable aperture lenses. The 80-200 AF-D is superb. The 18-200 AF-S VR is shaping up to be a great walk-around lens, but whatever softness it produces could be more of a downside than an upside to the lens (think flower shots, landscape shots, etc; do you want soft images in those instances?). VR is a very nice feature to have, in my opinion, but just understand it's limitations. While it may allow your wife to shoot at 1/20th or 1/30th of a second, it's not going to help capture moving children at those speeds. This is where the fixed f-stop comes into play.

If it were me, I'd be seriously considering the 85 f/1.8. The extreme wide end can be used to produce some interesting shallow depth of field options. I'm one of those that really uses his 50 f/1.8, so it makes more sense for me to grab for an 85. For a zoom, the Tamron 17-50 looks like a great option, and is another lens in my wish list stable. It's basically a 28-75 on a AP-C sized sensor, which is considered by many to be the standard portrait zoom range (especially for wedding photographers), and good samples are producing some very high quality images.

Why not the 85mm f/1.4d instead of the 85mm f/1.8d?

For me it's not worth the cost going from 1.8 to 1.4, but that's just me. Same goes for the 50 f/1.8 vs 1.4. If you're willing to shell out for the 1.4, you might also want to look at the 105 DC (sorry to introduce another lens to your decision!). I'm actually kinda surprised nobody's mentioned it yet.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Kaido
Why not the 85mm f/1.4d instead of the 85mm f/1.8d?

600 reasons.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Kaido
Why not the 85mm f/1.4d instead of the 85mm f/1.8d?

600 reasons.

plus the weight and size difference.

Anyhow, my thoughts on the 18-200mm VR, which I own: it's the ultimate KIT lens. If you need one lens to cover almost all your "snapshot" needs, then take this one. If you're focused on photography, there are other better lenses that cover smaller parts of that zoom range.

I am also an owner of the AF 80-200mm f/2.8 push-pull that jpeyton mentioned. I haven't shot a test chart with it to determine sharpness, but I've taken some pretty good pictures with it wide-open, and I snagged it for only $341.

 

[virtuamike]

Your wife would the best person to ask. She knows better than we do about what she needs, especially with the range that the kit lens already covers.

Looking at her work though, she might benefit from faster glass especially at the longer end since it doesn't look like she shoots wide much. You might want to try and hunt down an old Nikon 35-70/2.8 for her to try out. Slow focusing but clean glass and not too expensive.

There's also the 28-70/2.8, should be easy to find especially with people moving to the 24-70/2.8.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Your wife would the best person to ask. She knows better than we do about what she needs, especially with the range that the kit lens already covers.

Looking at her work though, she might benefit from faster glass especially at the longer end since it doesn't look like she shoots wide much. You might want to try and hunt down an old Nikon 35-70/2.8 for her to try out. Slow focusing but clean glass and not too expensive.

There's also the 28-70/2.8, should be easy to find especially with people moving to the 24-70/2.8.

This one?

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541531364.htm

Pricey but I'll save up for it if it's worth it...

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Your wife would the best person to ask. She knows better than we do about what she needs, especially with the range that the kit lens already covers.

Looking at her work though, she might benefit from faster glass especially at the longer end since it doesn't look like she shoots wide much. You might want to try and hunt down an old Nikon 35-70/2.8 for her to try out. Slow focusing but clean glass and not too expensive.

There's also the 28-70/2.8, should be easy to find especially with people moving to the 24-70/2.8.

This one?

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541531364.htm

Pricey but I'll save up for it if it's worth it...

W W W DOT E B A Y DOT C O M

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Your wife would the best person to ask. She knows better than we do about what she needs, especially with the range that the kit lens already covers.

Looking at her work though, she might benefit from faster glass especially at the longer end since it doesn't look like she shoots wide much. You might want to try and hunt down an old Nikon 35-70/2.8 for her to try out. Slow focusing but clean glass and not too expensive.

There's also the 28-70/2.8, should be easy to find especially with people moving to the 24-70/2.8.

This one?

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541531364.htm

Pricey but I'll save up for it if it's worth it...

W W W DOT E B A Y DOT C O M

Hmm...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikk...VWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Will the f/2.8d give a huge PQ improvement, and sharpness?

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Your wife would the best person to ask. She knows better than we do about what she needs, especially with the range that the kit lens already covers.

Looking at her work though, she might benefit from faster glass especially at the longer end since it doesn't look like she shoots wide much. You might want to try and hunt down an old Nikon 35-70/2.8 for her to try out. Slow focusing but clean glass and not too expensive.

There's also the 28-70/2.8, should be easy to find especially with people moving to the 24-70/2.8.

This one?

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541531364.htm

Pricey but I'll save up for it if it's worth it...

W W W DOT E B A Y DOT C O M

Hmm...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikk...VWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Will the f/2.8d give a huge PQ improvement, and sharpness?

At 70mm, you'll get 1 1/3 stop advantage at f/2.8 compared to f/4.5. That's a pretty significant jump in speed.

As far as IQ and sharpness, yes there's a difference, but you'll probably see it more from the simple fact that it's faster glass.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Your wife would the best person to ask. She knows better than we do about what she needs, especially with the range that the kit lens already covers.

Looking at her work though, she might benefit from faster glass especially at the longer end since it doesn't look like she shoots wide much. You might want to try and hunt down an old Nikon 35-70/2.8 for her to try out. Slow focusing but clean glass and not too expensive.

There's also the 28-70/2.8, should be easy to find especially with people moving to the 24-70/2.8.

This one?

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541531364.htm

Pricey but I'll save up for it if it's worth it...

W W W DOT E B A Y DOT C O M

Hmm...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikk...VWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Will the f/2.8d give a huge PQ improvement, and sharpness?

At 70mm, you'll get 1 1/3 stop advantage at f/2.8 compared to f/4.5. That's a pretty significant jump in speed.

As far as IQ and sharpness, yes there's a difference, but you'll probably see it more from the simple fact that it's faster glass.

Yeah, I just don't want to spend ~$800 on a (used) lens and not get my money's worth, you know? If it's only a small change then I wouldn't bother.

Well it's either this or the 18-200mm, which sounds like it might actually give worse PQ. Should I pull the trigger on the 18-70mm f/2.8d?

 

[ElFenix]

jesus the tamron is less than half of what that nikon glass on ebay is. and that's with 5 days left.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
jesus the tamron is less than half of what that nikon glass on ebay is. and that's with 5 days left.

Yeah but read the reviews on non-Nikkor lenses. I have some friends with Tamron and other third-party lenses who have mixed opinions on them. I think my best bet is to stick with genuine Nikon lenses to get the best quality, even if they are expensive. We take pretty good care of our equipment, so it should last a lifetime.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Your wife would the best person to ask. She knows better than we do about what she needs, especially with the range that the kit lens already covers.

Looking at her work though, she might benefit from faster glass especially at the longer end since it doesn't look like she shoots wide much. You might want to try and hunt down an old Nikon 35-70/2.8 for her to try out. Slow focusing but clean glass and not too expensive.

There's also the 28-70/2.8, should be easy to find especially with people moving to the 24-70/2.8.

This one?

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541531364.htm

Pricey but I'll save up for it if it's worth it...

W W W DOT E B A Y DOT C O M

Hmm...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-Nikk...VWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Will the f/2.8d give a huge PQ improvement, and sharpness?

At 70mm, you'll get 1 1/3 stop advantage at f/2.8 compared to f/4.5. That's a pretty significant jump in speed.

As far as IQ and sharpness, yes there's a difference, but you'll probably see it more from the simple fact that it's faster glass.

Yeah, I just don't want to spend ~$800 on a (used) lens and not get my money's worth, you know? If it's only a small change then I wouldn't bother.

Well it's either this or the 18-200mm, which sounds like it might actually give worse PQ. Should I pull the trigger on the 18-70mm f/2.8d?

Most shops have it available for rent, probably be worth it to give it a try.