best affordable low-light-lens for my D40: f/1.4 prime or f/2.8 zoom?

the Interceptor

the Interceptor

I LUV MY PRIUS!!!
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
6,041
Location
ze Vaterland
Car(s)
VW Diesel of Death
It's me again, with my D40 (still very happy with it)! I'm looking for the right cheap-ish lens for indoor shooting at low light situations. The D40 works well up to ISO 800, but shooting longer than 1/25s by hand with f/5.6 (kit lens @ 55mm) is not really fun. Therefore, I need to get more light onto my sensor. Another issue is that I need a lens with a built-in focus motor, so some classical lenses (like the good old dirt cheap Nikkor 50/1.8) are out of the race.

I looked around a bit and basically found two possible solutions:

1. a f/1.4 prime lens or...

2. a f/2.8 wide angle zoom

They all come at about 320-350 Euros, so price is not an issue.

Group #1 consists of the new Nikkor AF-S 50 mm f/1.4G, which finally brings auto focusing with a prime to the D40. The alternative is the Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM, which is a bit older, but still good. The obvious difference between these two is the focal length. The Nikkor 50mm appeals to me, but I think for indoor shooting including some wider angle shots, Sigmas 30mm would be the better compromise since it averages the 18-55 zoom range of the kit lens pretty well.

Obviously, these lenses mean that zooming will be performed by my feet, yet, they offer loads of light. The alternative are low-light zooms such as the fairly new Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM and the comparable Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF. Which one I go for is less important (though I'm leaning towards the Sigma), the question is whether this is better than the above primes. Obviously, these would replace my 18-55 kit lens (f/3.5-5.6) and offer quite a bit more light, especially when zoomed. However, I would rate picture quality noticeably higher for the primes, also they offer a good chunk of even more photons.

Therefore, I'm indecisive. Do I take the prime and sacrifice a few shots for lack of being able to walk there, or do I take one of the zooms? And if I take the prime, which one do I take? Help!!! :(
 
Last edited:
Man, you really have it stacked up here, don't you? :)

The 50/1.4 and 30/1.4 are by all means good lenses (as far as the 50/1.4 is concerned, it can't be anything but good). And they are very nice and bright. But, the Tamron and Sigma are very sweet pieces of glass indeed.

To be honest, what I would try doing would be to duct tape your current zoom to 30mm one day, and then to 50mm another day, then make up your mind as for which of the focal lengths work without making you angry and mad, and if you feel restricted by both, I'd go for one of the zooms. The Tamron, probably.

:)
 
Okay, I'm pretty much set for one of the zooms. Seemingly, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 actually is better than the Sigma, so it might be that one.

However, a workmate reminded me of vibration reduction today, and how it would give me more light on the sensor in terms of longer exposures. That brought the new Nikon 16-85 VR back to my mind, the kit lens of the D90. Apparrently, this is an excellent lens, which only does f/3.5-5.6, but works around it with giving me a three-f-stop advance through VR. The Nikon is significantly more expensive at 500 Euros compared to the Tamron (325 Euros), but then again, it is the high-quality-all-purpose lens of the moment, and therefore probably worth the money.

I'm still indecisive... :?
 
Last edited:
I'd forget about the VR, it'll only stop the shake from your hands but nothing else. Depending on the focal length you're getting 1-2 stops worth of more light with the bigger f/2.8 aperture, so I'd definitely go for the Tamron, especially since the Nikon is that much more expensive.

Better yet, save a bit more and get the Tamron AND one of the primes :nod:
 
Raparperi said:
I'd forget about the VR, it'll only stop the shake from your hands but nothing else.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, that bugs me as well. A lot of my shots are of resting objects, but some have moving objects (people) as well, and those wouldn't look good with long exposures.

Raparperi said:
Depending on the focal length you're getting 1-2 stops worth of more light with the bigger f/2.8 aperture, so I'd definitely go for the Tamron, especially since the Nikon is that much more expensive.
Click to expand...
If I didn't miscalculate, f/3.5-5.6 translates to f/1.25-2.0 through VR. So technically, the Nikon will give me an advantage over the Tamron f/2.8 even under worst conditions. Right?

Raparperi said:
Better yet, save a bit more and get the Tamron AND one of the primes :nod:
Click to expand...
Whichever zoom I'll get, I'd leave the prime for later. :)

EDIT: Okay, I'm almost sold on the Tamron, but I need some more convincing. Quick, do something! :hug:
 
Last edited:
the Interceptor said:
If I didn't miscalculate, f/3.5-5.6 translates to f/1.25-2.0 through VR. So technically, the Nikon will give me an advantage over the Tamron f/2.8 even under worst conditions. Right?
Click to expand...

No. VR is useful in only ONE situation: shooting STATIC subjects in low light. It will not allow you to use faster shutter speeds - if you shoot even a slightly moving subject at 1/3s, it'll be blurry. If the subject moves in any way, VR doesn't help at all. Aperture, however, does, as it allows for faster shutter speeds to be used in more challenging lighting conditions. Aperture also allows for more DoF options, though that can be a plus or negative depending on shooting style.

So, if you only plan on shooting static subjects when the lights go down, then by all means get the VR. If your subjects are known to move, there's no replacement for aperture, aside from cranking up the ISO.
 
^ He's right, also I will say that VR is a must with any slow or variable aperture telephoto zoom for handheld shooting of static subjects, even in good light. I certainly prefer it to cranking up the ISO and introducing more noise into a photo.
 
Well, you could do good with IS/VR even when shooting movement. When?

To freeze ie. a soccer player, you'd usually use a shutter speed revolving around 1/640s. If you're using a 400/2.8 with a 1.4 TC on a 40D, that's 896mm (EFL) and would need a faster shutter speed, even if it's not needed to freeze the movement.

This, of course, is a very, very specialized situation that really only occurs with professionals. But worth pointing out.
 
Well, I certainly wouldn't mind if the Tamron 2.8 would have some kind of image stabilization. However, I'm beginning to embrace the fact that a VR only cures slow lenses in specific situations, so a fast lens is the overall better choice.

Kinda sounds like the weight thing with cars. A fast lens is like an Elise, a slow lens is like a Veyron. Sure, you can make a heavy car fast with engineering (VR), but it'll never make up for low weight (f/2.8).
 
Gentlemen, you will be pleased to hear that after some more research, I just ordered the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I will provide you with reputation and some sample shots as soon as I will hold it in my hands. Thank you all for your advice. :)
 
Last edited:
Well, already having a 24 f/1.8 prime, I'm getting the new Nikon 50 f/1.4 G (which works with the D40), it fits my style of photography more than a f/2.8 zoom. That's the question you should ask yourself first. ;)
 
Well ... it's here! My Tamron f/2.8 zoom has arrived. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to do some real photography with it yet since the weather has been crap lately and we're in the middle of the winter, so days are short.

What I can report however is that it looks and feals heaps meatier than the 18-55 kit lens, but focuses slower and louder. Still looks good and gives a good overall balance on my D40. I'll make some comparison shots with the kit lens within the next days and post them here. From what I've seen so far, it is a bit sharper, the 17 does make a difference to the 18, and so does the f/2.8 to the f/3.5+. More to come...
 
Kinda important update: I am likely swapping my Tamron for a new model or have it fixed/calibrated. I noticed some uneven sharpness problems at wide angle shots with wide-open aperture. I am aware that a budget lens will not shine at this, but it seems that there's some alignment problem with some optical elements within the lens.

Here is a comparison I made with a calendar (to see the differences):

17mm f/2.8

(click to zoom, 100% resolution)

17mm f/8.0

(click to zoom, 100% resolution)

I have no problem with the pincushion distortion and the falloff in the corners at 2.8, but it is obvious that while the left side of the picture and the corners on the right side are sharp, the right side of the picture and especially the corners on the left become quite soft. The f/8.0 is sharp overall. Any professional opinions on this?

P.S.: I might add that these were quick shots, so neither the calendar was flat on the wall, nor was the camera aligned properly. Therefore, the general "waviness" of the lines is not down to the camera equipment.
 
Last edited:
The Tamron isn't tack sharp in the corners wide open. I don't think the corresponding models from neither Canon nor Nikon is either.
 
But shouldn't it be at least evenly unsharp? I'm not expecting it to be perfect in every way, but as I understand it, shortcomings of lenses should be consistant for all parts of a picture, shouldn't they?

I read that some people swapped their Tamron for three or four new models before they got one that was perfect.

EDIT: Here's a shot from the predecessor of my lens, taken at 17mm and f/2.8:

https://pic.armedcats.net/t/th/the_interceptor/2008/12/19/zeitung-tamron-17-50-17-28.jpg

As you can see, the lens gets equally unsharp at all four corners, as opposed to my model.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I see... Well, try taking a pic of an evenly flat chart first @ exactly 90?, only then will you see proper distortion.
 
IceBone said:
Ah, I see... Well, try taking a pic of an evenly flat chart first @ exactly 90?, only then will you see proper distortion.
Click to expand...
I'll do that tomorrow, I'll post the pic here then.

EDIT:
Okay, I managed to get two clean shots that represent the problem pretty well. The camera was aligned properly to the wall, focus was put on manual to not affect the results, a remote control release was used to minimize screwing around with the camera body. The pictures were made in RAW mode, then saved to a 95% JPG in Capure NX without any further alterations (no resolution change, no sharpening, no lens corrections, no exposure compensation, no white offset correction, no nothing).

17mm f/8.0


17mm f/2.8


It's easiest if you save the shots to your computer, then use a picture viewer to jump back and forth between the pictures. The f/8.0 is sharp all the way through, with only getting a tiny tad unsharp in the corners. The f/2.8 gets pretty weak on the whole left side while the right side remains surprisingly sharp throughout the corners.
 
Last edited:
If you indeed had everything aligned correctly, the lens has a centering defect and should be exchanged or sent in for repair. Personally, I would exchange it. Things like frontfocus issues I'd have repaired.
 
Yeah, my 24mm had a BAD front focus issue, but got measured and repaired in 5 minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top