Tom Kielick
Class Glass (0879-1)
"Cameras come and cameras go but good glass goes on forever."
When selecting gear for your hobby it pays to buy the best lenses that you can afford. Good lenses will serve you well through many iterations of cameras. I understand that sometimes you can't buy the best but when you can upgrade, spending money on good glass is usually better than spending money on the next generation camera.
I started with a Nikon D40 and 18-55 kit lens. I needed a telephoto and soon added an inexpensive 55-200. My first expensive lens was the Nikon 12-24 F/4, seen here on the far right.
This is a solid lens for a DX camera, designed and built for "pros" when Nikon did not have any FX cameras. I like the 24mm focal length as it gives me a 36mm equivalent - 35mm was my favorite walk around lens when I shot film and overlapped nicely with the wide end of my 18-55.
To be fully honest, I don't use this lens as often as I could. When photographing indoors without a tripod I find the lack of VR problematic. The f/4 speed does not help either. I keep looking at the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 which offers an additional f/stop of speed but hate to part with the Nikon and can't see owning both. It also takes oversized 82mm filters; the other two lenses here take 77mm!
On the far left is my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM, which, according to Thom Hogan (www.DSLRBodies.com) is arguably one of the best mid range zooms you can put on a DX camera. It is right sized, fast (f/2.8) and has VR (OS). This is my go to lens for most serious use. It is sharp, handles well and focusses fast and accurately. When I took it to the American Southwest I shot 85% of my images with it. Its quite versatile and the price has come down dramatically. If you need a lens like this you might also consider the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 Contemporary or the newer (and much more expensive) Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR, noting of course that while both lenses get you a little more reach than the Sigma 17-50 they do drop to f/4 at the long end. I never seriously considered the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens. It is HUGE, expensive and lacks VR, something I think is essential for a mid range zoom.
Dead center is the fabulous Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 G IF-ED VR. I know that there are two newer versions but the original VR1 works fine on DX and is available for $850-1000 used. It focuses nearly instantly, is sharp as a razor and feels and handles like the fine tool that it is. If you shoot kids sports, people, or other fast action then this lens is for you. If you shoot in low light you must have it. I thought long and hard before paying $1600 for it used over 10 years ago but am glad I did; and you will be too.
No 70-200 f/2.8 is complete without a TC14E teleconverter which turns your 70-200 into a 100 - 280 f/4 zoom; close enough to 300f/4 to be a handy upgrade. It costs 1 f/stop but doesn't seem to lose much in sharpness or AF speed. It is shockingly expensive so you might want to consider the Nikon 70-300 which costs about the same. Be careful though; the TC14E, like all the other Nikon teleconverters, only works on a handful of professional grade lenses.
There you have it. My personal collection of performance lenses that have taken me from a D40 to a D200 through the D300s and now a D500 body. I've shot southwest landscapes to competitive cycling and never felt I was lacking.
Next on my list? A really long lens for distant wildlife, most likely the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 zoom.
STROBIST INFO: Lit with a single Novatron 440+ watt second power pack firing into a 27" Larson Reflectasol Softbox. directly over the shooting table. I used 4 large sheets of white foam core to build an impromptu light table around my subject gear: both left and right sides, table top and background.
What are your favorite performance lenses? Which glass can't you do without? What's on your Christmas list?
Class Glass (0879-1)
"Cameras come and cameras go but good glass goes on forever."
When selecting gear for your hobby it pays to buy the best lenses that you can afford. Good lenses will serve you well through many iterations of cameras. I understand that sometimes you can't buy the best but when you can upgrade, spending money on good glass is usually better than spending money on the next generation camera.
I started with a Nikon D40 and 18-55 kit lens. I needed a telephoto and soon added an inexpensive 55-200. My first expensive lens was the Nikon 12-24 F/4, seen here on the far right.
This is a solid lens for a DX camera, designed and built for "pros" when Nikon did not have any FX cameras. I like the 24mm focal length as it gives me a 36mm equivalent - 35mm was my favorite walk around lens when I shot film and overlapped nicely with the wide end of my 18-55.
To be fully honest, I don't use this lens as often as I could. When photographing indoors without a tripod I find the lack of VR problematic. The f/4 speed does not help either. I keep looking at the Tokina 11-20 f/2.8 which offers an additional f/stop of speed but hate to part with the Nikon and can't see owning both. It also takes oversized 82mm filters; the other two lenses here take 77mm!
On the far left is my Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM, which, according to Thom Hogan (www.DSLRBodies.com) is arguably one of the best mid range zooms you can put on a DX camera. It is right sized, fast (f/2.8) and has VR (OS). This is my go to lens for most serious use. It is sharp, handles well and focusses fast and accurately. When I took it to the American Southwest I shot 85% of my images with it. Its quite versatile and the price has come down dramatically. If you need a lens like this you might also consider the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 Contemporary or the newer (and much more expensive) Nikon 16-80mm f/2.8-4E VR, noting of course that while both lenses get you a little more reach than the Sigma 17-50 they do drop to f/4 at the long end. I never seriously considered the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens. It is HUGE, expensive and lacks VR, something I think is essential for a mid range zoom.
Dead center is the fabulous Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 G IF-ED VR. I know that there are two newer versions but the original VR1 works fine on DX and is available for $850-1000 used. It focuses nearly instantly, is sharp as a razor and feels and handles like the fine tool that it is. If you shoot kids sports, people, or other fast action then this lens is for you. If you shoot in low light you must have it. I thought long and hard before paying $1600 for it used over 10 years ago but am glad I did; and you will be too.
No 70-200 f/2.8 is complete without a TC14E teleconverter which turns your 70-200 into a 100 - 280 f/4 zoom; close enough to 300f/4 to be a handy upgrade. It costs 1 f/stop but doesn't seem to lose much in sharpness or AF speed. It is shockingly expensive so you might want to consider the Nikon 70-300 which costs about the same. Be careful though; the TC14E, like all the other Nikon teleconverters, only works on a handful of professional grade lenses.
There you have it. My personal collection of performance lenses that have taken me from a D40 to a D200 through the D300s and now a D500 body. I've shot southwest landscapes to competitive cycling and never felt I was lacking.
Next on my list? A really long lens for distant wildlife, most likely the Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 zoom.
STROBIST INFO: Lit with a single Novatron 440+ watt second power pack firing into a 27" Larson Reflectasol Softbox. directly over the shooting table. I used 4 large sheets of white foam core to build an impromptu light table around my subject gear: both left and right sides, table top and background.
What are your favorite performance lenses? Which glass can't you do without? What's on your Christmas list?