When is the right time to upgrade

[chiefster69]

I have a serious case of unnecessary kit acquisition syndrome and I think I need to either be told to stop and wait or get some advice on what would compliment/replace my current kit

Currently I have...
D50 body (not likely to upgrade this anytime soon)
nikon 18-55 kit lens (standard lens I use but a soft, cheaply made, rubbish manual focus and not enough reach)
nikon 50mm f/1.8 (nice, sharp but obviously limited by the fixed focal range)
nikon 28-100 (poor impulse purchase, I use the wide end loads and this isn`t wide enough. It`s annoying to change to this lens just for the extra reach and its soft and focus is terrible - soon to be on ebay)

What I`m after is something to replace the kit lens and with a little more reach. I`m finding even when I take a "good photo" I seem to have to spend ages on photoshop to get some decent contrast and often things just look too soft (except with the 50mm prime)
I have no real idea what to spend so all suggestions are appreciated, if its out of my budget (when I work one out) then i`ll take that as a stop and wait

Sorry for the ramble but I need help before I buy more of the wrong kit
Oh and I don't need a macro or anything above 150mm (at present). I mostly shoot landscapes and close/candid portraits

[Radiohead]

One lens to replace the kit lens that also has more reach?

Obvious choice for replacement is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. If you want a bit more reach the Sigma 17-70 is reckoned to be excellent, albeit not constant f2.8.

[Highlander]

55mm is 'not enough reach' - 50mm or 70mm is not really going to satisfy him, is it? The obvious choice would be one of the 18-200mm offerings from Sigma and Tamron (no VR) or from Nikon and Sigma again (with VR). Not being a Nikon owner, I don't know much about the 18-200mm VR, but with all the lenses mentioned, there are mixed reviews. A few of the guys here have just bought the Sigma 18-200mm OS and seem happy with it. See here (http://www.thedvdforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=486349).

[Radiohead]

55mm is 'not enough reach' - 50mm or 70mm is not really going to satify him, is it?

Oh I do apologise.

I suspect any of the all-in-ones you propose will leave him with some of the issues he already has. For that reason I stand by 2 lens of higher quality. My money would go on a 17-50 and maybe a Sigma 50-150/2.8.

[puddleduck]

I'm sure I warned someone off the Nikon 28-100 recently - glad to hear I was listened too ;)

If you want an excellent lens, look no further than the Tamron 17-50 - this has been my most used lens this year (close tie with my Nikkor 70-200) and it sharp, constrasty - it delivers Pro performance without a bonkers price tag for an absolute bargain £200. Obviously that lens doesn't give you reach - what are you trying to photograph, how far is it away, and can you just not move forward a bit with good old fashioned foot zoom? For landscapes its the best lens I've used - 17mm is sublime, with sharp corner to corner.

Finally before you buy a lens, are you sure you have your D50 setup optimally? It ought to produce excellent results even with your kit lens (which actually isn't bad). I reckon checking your settings to rule out pilot error first.

[chiefster69]

heh heh puddle, twas me you were warning about the 28-100 and you were damn right. I didn`t doubt it for a second but I just needed something cheap for the holiday. Although I`m selling it on I`m still glad I had it, got some good close ups on monkeys.
As for the setup on the D50 I thought it was generally a bad idea to let the camera sharpen the photos too much (I leave it on soft and unsharp mask in photoshop).

I think I will wait until I get to 50 photos that I am truely happy with (I`m on about 3 at present, I`m my harshest critic) and then consider buying the tamron.

As always guys your wisdom is greatly appreciated.

[rick67]

Shoot in raw and stop your 18-55 down a bit. Then sharpen in PS. You should easily be able to get sharp images with the kit lens.

[Highlander]

Oh I do apologise.


Not sure if I upset you there or not, but apologies from me, if that came across the wrong way. I was merely picking up on the fact that the OP said 55mm was a bit short, amongst other things, and you were recommending a 50mm. Looks like he's ignored that fact anyway, and will be going for the 17-50mm in the future?

[chiefster69]

I apologise for changing my mind so rapidly as well
Hope you got my entry for the photo of the week comp highlander

[Highlander]

Hope you got my entry for the photo of the week comp highlander

Yep, got it :thumbs:

[Radiohead]

Not sure if I upset you there or not, but apologies from me, if that came across the wrong way. I was merely picking up on the fact that the OP said 55mm was a bit short, amongst other things, and you were recommending a 50mm. Looks like he's ignored that fact anyway, and will be going for the 17-50mm in the future?

We're both at it aren't we - I meant it as a genuine 'oops didn't read it properly did I'.

:lol: