davealan
April 25th, 2003, 10:47 AM
I seem to have more money than sense, and I’m not sure I have that much money. I research and research, make my best choice, then sometimes wonder about my selection.
Here’s my situation. I bought a new Tamron AF 24-135 F3.5-5.6 SP Aspherical AD IF Macro SLR Lens to go along with my S2. The reasons I choose the Tamron are: 1) I don’t necessarily want to pay the $$$ for the Nikon name, unless it’s clearly worth it, 2) had the longest reasonable zoom range (~36-200mm crop-equivalent), and, 3) had reasonably good reviews. I give up, however, speed, meaning a dimmer viewfinder, and less ability to get small depth-of-field with the smaller minimum apertures.
So, I’m now looking back into the TWO (!?) Nikon 24-85 lenses: Nikon AF 24-85mm F2.8-4.0 D SLR Lens, and Nikon AF 24-85mm G F3.5-4.5 IF-ED AFS SLR Lens. Ok, I loose the focal range beyond 85mm (~127mm crop-equivalent). I notice, however, that the advantage of the longer zoom may not be as much as I had weighted it in the beginning. I notice that handheld, as I shoot mostly, I get more camera shake as compared to my younger days. Also, as I Photoshop ALL my photos, I can crop to the Tamron’s 135mm equivalent. (Yes, I know 85mm cropped to 135mm equivalent is not the same perspective as shooting at 135mm, but let’s discard that difference at this time).
So - stick with me here - I am now considering the two Nikons again. I’m looking for experience and opinions on: 1) the two Nikons vs. each other, and, 2) those Nikons vs. the Tamron. Please no generic “All Nikons are better that aftermarket Tamrons”. While I may not disagree with that in general, how much better is the key in deciding to go and buy another lens.
BTW, I did return the Sigma 17-35 that had inconsistent exposures and went for the Nikon 18-35.
Here’s looking forward to your opinions and pleasant debates.
Dave
Here’s my situation. I bought a new Tamron AF 24-135 F3.5-5.6 SP Aspherical AD IF Macro SLR Lens to go along with my S2. The reasons I choose the Tamron are: 1) I don’t necessarily want to pay the $$$ for the Nikon name, unless it’s clearly worth it, 2) had the longest reasonable zoom range (~36-200mm crop-equivalent), and, 3) had reasonably good reviews. I give up, however, speed, meaning a dimmer viewfinder, and less ability to get small depth-of-field with the smaller minimum apertures.
So, I’m now looking back into the TWO (!?) Nikon 24-85 lenses: Nikon AF 24-85mm F2.8-4.0 D SLR Lens, and Nikon AF 24-85mm G F3.5-4.5 IF-ED AFS SLR Lens. Ok, I loose the focal range beyond 85mm (~127mm crop-equivalent). I notice, however, that the advantage of the longer zoom may not be as much as I had weighted it in the beginning. I notice that handheld, as I shoot mostly, I get more camera shake as compared to my younger days. Also, as I Photoshop ALL my photos, I can crop to the Tamron’s 135mm equivalent. (Yes, I know 85mm cropped to 135mm equivalent is not the same perspective as shooting at 135mm, but let’s discard that difference at this time).
So - stick with me here - I am now considering the two Nikons again. I’m looking for experience and opinions on: 1) the two Nikons vs. each other, and, 2) those Nikons vs. the Tamron. Please no generic “All Nikons are better that aftermarket Tamrons”. While I may not disagree with that in general, how much better is the key in deciding to go and buy another lens.
BTW, I did return the Sigma 17-35 that had inconsistent exposures and went for the Nikon 18-35.
Here’s looking forward to your opinions and pleasant debates.
Dave