adi arifin

As all of my lenses are now gone from the dry box, I am in serious research on deciding the new lens line-up. Actually I do keep the rather slow Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55mm ED f/4.5-5.6G and the ultra-wide Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX-DC HSM, which are the only lenses I have for the time being. Should I go for a kind of one-for-all lenses like 18-200 or 28-200? I have read a lot of appreciation to Nikkor A-S DX VR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED in online resources, as well as hearing recommendation from a few friends. It is quite appealing really. Along with the Sigma 10-20mm I have will cover the whole range from ultra-wide to telephoto. Yummy … I would not even need the backpack carrier any longer. A small belt pack will be the only think I need to carry around.

Another thought is that soon or latter, getting more serious enthusiast, and maybe become a professional wannabe someday, any photographer would want, need, have to get more professional lenses. I think Nikon should have learned from their experience before inventing their new lineup of professional lenses which mainly consist of the trio (1) AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED (2) AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED and (3) AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF ED. But those are- by all means - far beyond what my pocket could afford.

Actually I am happy enough with the Sigma 10-20mm for ultra-wide. With very short focal length, I can go very slow hand-held if needed. And as it mainly goes for architectural and landscape shots, I rarely feel in need to shoot wide open to get desired depth of field. In fact 8-11 is the range where I mostly play. And with a DX camera body, the 4mm difference between Nikkor’s 14mm and Sigmas 10mm is quite significant. In fact one of the reason behind my decision to go for Sigma 10-20mm instead of Tokina 12-24mm was the 2mm difference. So for the time being AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED is a luxury I could not afford, and I do not really need.

The normal focal length where portraiture remains is something taking serious consideration. Whilst AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED is definitely out of my list - for financial reason - the portraiture range is quite important. A bit cheaper than AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED is AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED which apparently is still far beyond my reachable range. There are at least two lenses which are quite appealing, and recommended by some friends. (1) 24-70mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro and (2) TamronSP AF 28-75MM F/2.8 XR DI LD Aspherical(IF) Macro. Both brands have something in 18-50mm range, but I think these two represent closer comparation to AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED. But the most appealing option, which I think is the one I would prefer to get is Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8D AF, which is no longer available new. When available, its used price is slightly cheaper than either Tamron or Sigma brand new, whilst it still offer Nikkor excellence. I believe the gap between 20mm to 35mm is something I can easily afford.

In telephoto range, I have to - again - regretfully throw away AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF ED for financial reason. Both Tamron and Sigma offer option in the same range at less than a half of Nikkor’s price (minus VR). Compromising VR is not really a though decision, but Nikkor superior excellence is something very important. Actually, Nikkor has a predecessor to their new AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF ED, which are still available brand new. Maybe it is the way I have to go.

By priority, 70-200mm range is at the highest priority as I definitely do not have one. I decided to keep the Sigma for ultra-wide, and still do have the slow Nikkor at portraiture range, which can - at least - keeps me alive.

Bookmark to: