My TOP 5 Most Wanted Lenses - on a Budget

[ChrisAdval]

I did some massive research into 3rd party lenses and some were good for the prices with the quality of image they provide, but some lenses that were 1st party was still a good budget (low) prices I thought wasn't worth to go 3rd party, such as $50-$100 difference. Just note this observation is purely from research, no hands-on and experience of the lenses I'm recommending.

Two lenses I really would love to have are a 24-70mm 2.8 lens for of course portrait (model) photography, and as well a 70-200mm 2.8 lens. I looked at the 1st party lenses for these and they were heavily priced at 70-200mm 2.8 Canon lens (with IS and USM), and the 24-70mm 2.8 Canon lens (with USM). And I would love to invest into the 1st party lenses but I don't see myself being able to afford them or really needing them for another 5-10 years from the level of research I've done I just don't see enough of a difference to paying 3-5x more of the cost than a 3rd party would provide.

From my research I found the counter parts of those lenses with the best image quality as my primary focus, as I'm not looking for durability as my primary as I do mostly shoot (right now) studio so durability wouldn't as important, but if I would need that I would just get insurance on my equipment than paying a few thousand for durable lenses to use on-location shoot.

24-70mm 2.8 counter part for me I found best was Tamron's 28-75mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8 counter part for me I found best was Tamron's 70-200mm 2.8, it was Sigma's 70-200mm 2.8 (NON-OS) but its a $100 difference as Tamron being cheaper and with tests in research I have found the Tamron has better image quality which again is my focus in lenses not durability.

Those are my two top budget lenses I would and plan on buying within the year, but there are 3 additional lenses I've found not primarily made to shoot portrait photography which are...

A macro lens thats 100mm and found canon was my best choice Canon's 100mm 2.8 MACRO. And a prime super wide angle and zoom super wide angle lens with 2.8 apertures, which I choose Sigma's Prime Super Wide-Angle (Fisheye) 15mm 2.8 and Tokina's Zoom Super Wide-Angle 16-28mm 2.8

Overall List

1. Tamron 28-75mm 2.8
2. Tamron 70-200mm 2.8
3. Canon 100mm 2.8 MACRO
4. Sigma Prime Super Wide-Angle (Fisheye) 15mm 2.8
5. Tokina Zoom Super Wide-Angle 16-28mm 2.8

I hope you guys enjoyed that and let me know if you own these lenses to share your thoughts, experiences, or even if you're planning to buy any of the above let us know your reasoning.

And no I'm not a "gearhead" I'm just listing equipment I know I will need in the future and will very soon reach my limits with my current lens choices.

Compare lenses yourselves here, read lens reviews and tests here.

[bigben6]

I shot with the nikon mount version of the tammy 28-75 and found it good. It was hard because I am used to my 18-105mm nikkor so when indoors I found 28 rather limiting, I just could not go as wide, that being said I could also shoot at a lower ISO which Ofc has its benefits. Overall I liked it, but i worry about being limited to 28mm. And primes that would be able to fill the super wide niche are $$$$. I was hoping to sell my 18-105 and replace it with the tammy, because as you found the Nikkor version is 3x the price. After having shot the 28-75 I am considering Sigmas 17-7mm 2.8-4.0, i would lose some speed at the top end but keep a nice wide angle option, and is has OS which may help make up for the lack of f/stop at the top end. Though I am unsure how many stops sigmas OS is good for, i think nikons newest VR is supposedly good for 2-3 stops, but even if sigmas is only good for 1-2 stops (vs the "claimed" 4 stops) that gets you from an effective 4.0-2.8 in one stop, though you wont have the creative options of f/2.8, you could still get the needed shutter speed in theory.

And I too plan on getting a 3rd party 70-200 f/2.8 but i selected the sigma because of its faster AF, i plan to use it for sports and auto racing type stuff.

[RichardTaylor]

You get what you pay for.
When you are on a shoot, and that cheaper lens fails, an insurance policy won't help you.

I purchased a Tokina 80-400 for $700 from a grey market importer. It was selling in the shops for just under $1200.

The first one failed to focus after about 30 shots.
It was replaced by the retailer.
The second on failed to auto focus after about 14,000 pics.
It was a good lens, when it was working.

I replaced it with a Canon 100-400 L lens for $1800 (from another grey market importer). On line Canon dealers were selling them for around $2400 and recomended retail was $2800

100,000 + pics latter the Canon lens is still working, and it is a better, except for the weight, lens than the Tokina.,

[bigben6]

I cannot argue with you rich, but i also know that the price of the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is 1900 bucks for the price I can get SO MUCH glass by a 3rd party.... some nikon some sigma, some tamron, but 1800 buys ALOT of glass, for me I would buy (currently thinking anyways):

Sigma 17-70 - $470

Sigman 70-200 f/2.8 - $799

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 - $200

And still be $431 ahead in total cost.... that's realllly tough to argue with if i am not making my living with these lenses.

[graciousness]

Originally Posted by bigben6

I cannot argue with you rich, but i also know that the price of the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 is 1900 bucks for the price I can get SO MUCH glass by a 3rd party.... some nikon some sigma, some tamron, but 1800 buys ALOT of glass, for me I would buy (currently thinking anyways):

Sigma 17-70 - $470

Sigman 70-200 f/2.8 - $799

Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 - $200

And still be $431 ahead in total cost.... that's realllly tough to argue with if i am not making my living with these lenses.

Problem is, Chris Adval has aspirations of being a model photographer and making lots of money off photography.

Is it worth investing in the best gears you can get with the business you are trying to make money off? YES.

You have to invest in your business so that it can serve you better in the long run.

[bigben6]

I guess i don;t know chris well enough cause i do not see him explicitly stating his intention to turn pro and make it his career, if he does thats is certainly a consideration.

I guess my last though would be if you buy the cannon 28-70 and its all you have whats better..... beinging severly limited with one lene, or having alot of options with slightly lesser lenses?

If a 200mm focal length is called for or a 18mm focal length is called for, your screwed, I have always felt a good shot with perhaps some sacrifice in IQ @ 200mm f.28 is better than the same shot @ 70mm when you subject is a speck in frame, or getting everything in frame @ 18mm is better than half your intended subject @ 28mm...

But in the end, chris will have to make that call! And for the record i DO NOT pretend to know what its like ot be a pro photographer i am admittedly amature!

[graciousness]

Fashion and modelling industry is the toughest industry you can get in as far as photography. It's unrelenting, unforgiving and they can and will easily dismiss you if they see that you can't produce the quality they want and need.

And that's the crux of it - QUALITY.

You don't see professional fashion photographers use anything else but the top gears and this is for a reason - they have to maximise the quality of the images they produce. Therefore, there is heavy investrment in the quality of the gears they use.

Can you get good photos with second-rate gears? Sure. You can get great images with them. However, most often than not, the quality of the gears will come into play here if you are going to now start comparing images that you can produce between second-rate and first rate ones.

Of course, the utmost importance here is that the photographer needs to know how to take top-quality images with whatever gears he or she uses first. No Hasselblads and umpteenth amount of Carl Zeiss lenses will help you if you don't know how to set up your shots.

Personally, I'd rather have ONE all-round,, top quality lens than having several so-so lenses in my bag. Quality matters more than quantity.

[ChrisAdval]

Originally Posted by graciousness

Fashion and modelling industry is the toughest industry you can get in as far as photography. It's unrelenting, unforgiving and they can and will easily dismiss you if they see that you can't produce the quality they want and need.

And that's the crux of it - QUALITY.

You don't see professional fashion photographers use anything else but the top gears and this is for a reason - they have to maximise the quality of the images they produce. Therefore, there is heavy investrment in the quality of the gears they use.

Can you get good photos with second-rate gears? Sure. You can get great images with them. However, most often than not, the quality of the gears will come into play here if you are going to now start comparing images that you can produce between second-rate and first rate ones.

Of course, the utmost importance here is that the photographer needs to know how to take top-quality images with whatever gears he or she uses first. No Hasselblads and umpteenth amount of Carl Zeiss lenses will help you if you don't know how to set up your shots.

Personally, I'd rather have ONE all-round,, top quality lens than having several so-so lenses in my bag. Quality matters more than quantity.

I agree, but from the research I've done the image quality had so little differences I don't think its worth to starting up photographer. But for a business who's a little past making some money or made some kind of money to use that money to re-invest into top of the line equipment yes I agree go 1st party because what they sell is not just image quality but durability and of course weather sealing. And for an application of doing more outdoor environmental portraits I would need that durability and weather sealing. Thanks for everyones inputs though!

[Rentham]

To me it makes very little sense to buy third party "compromise" lenses if you have any intention of ever buying the top of the line Canon or Nikon version. Buying the Tamron 70-200 means you're $700 more dollars away from the Canon version. Buy the best and cry once.

[bigben6]

Again, not an expert here, but whats wrong with buying a 700 dollar sigma copy and shooting NOW, like TOMORROW, when saving for the nikkor version means waiting 3-6-9month or a year plus in my case.... by the time I could afford a nikkor 70-200 I will have missed soooo many shots from just not having ANY 70-200 and I cannot get those opportunities back. Plus You will be able to sell the sigma to recoup SOME cost, not all, but some.

How many F1 drivers started in an F1car? NONE... they all started in shifter carts because they could afford to drive carts long before they could afford to drive F1 cars. Then they went formula 3000 and many other steps in between.

How many pistol shooter start with a $400 USED glock 17 and end up with a $9,000 Razorcat custom competition pistol, most people do not buy a razor cat as with for, second, or even third gun and still compete....


I'm not a pro photog but I have ALOT of hobbies and ALOT of life experience, be it cameras, cigars, cars, guns, (I have alot of hobbies), computers, beer brewing, you name it the top teir always tout the top gear, but many many people get 90% of the result for 50% the price and are very happy....

If your GOAL is to be shooting the Victoria secret holiday show or the SI swimsuit cover TOMORROW then fine anti up for top glass, but if you can even get in TO shoot that you will have someone to bank roll you, otherwise my advice fomr LIFE experience in MANY areas and hobbies is get EXPERIENCE because if you can shoot well with a cheap glock or a tamron lense then you will shoot ECEPTIONAL with a NIkkor or a Razorcat...

my.02
But I AM NOT AN EXPERT when it comes specifically to photography.