Eye of the eclipse...

by darkhausen

submit your photo

Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Sign up ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I desperately need some help!!! I want two lenses to do landscape, portrait and travel shots. I have a budget of U$ 1.400 and i would like something that gives me more quality them the nikon 18-200. I have done a lot (really a lot) of research and ended up with those 2 lenses (haven´t bought it yet)

Tokina 12-28 2.8 Tokina 50-135 2.8

I have a D7000 and i am a bit afraid that the 12-28 will be to wide for shooting daily life. Could you guys help here? I also don´t want to carry a 1.3KG lens all day. So I would like to keep it bellow 800g if possible.

Thank you very much

share|improve this question
The biggest issue I would have with that setup is that a general purpose walkaround lens is usually in the 24-70mm(35mm eqiv.) range or so. Your gap in focal lengths is right in the middle of that, and the ends of both lenses come into it as well. What that means is that I would anticipate switching lenses very often. Kind of a pain, but if you are absolutely limited to 2 lenses this is unavoidable. I personally use 3 lenses for the same range in my kit that I bring everywhere for this same reason. – dpollitt Aug 26 '13 at 19:01
What would u recommend me? I can spend U$1300 maximum. – Paulo de Oliveira Leitão Neto Aug 26 '13 at 19:47
What's the question here? Is it whether that's too heavy, or are you asking for someone to suggest other options? The latter is hard, because we don't know all of the research which resulted in narrowing your choice to these lenses. – mattdm Sep 25 '13 at 19:12

1 Answer 1

12-28 on a crop sensor is going to be like 18-42mm on a full frame. That's going to have a fair bit of distortion on the short end, but 42mm is a fairly usable length. Something in the 18-50 range would really be preferable, but you would be able to get by with a 12-28.

If you are mostly interested in landscapes, portraits and daily life, those are all really generally the job of a standard zoom. You currently are looking at a wide angle zoom and a telephoto zoom lens. Why do you want to buy two lenses that bracket the outsides of your ideal range instead of spending all of your budget on one really nice standard zoom lens (somewhere between 18 and 24 on the low and 55 and 85 on the high range). It seems like one lens would fit your needs and you could still use the 18-200 when you need telephoto and super-telephoto capability, but you would get the most improvement possible among your most common uses.

share|improve this answer
In this case what should i buy? i Find out that i really need a bit more them 55mm... probably 85 would do it. But no one makes a good 18-85 lens with fixed apperture. – Paulo de Oliveira Leitão Neto Aug 26 '13 at 19:46
@PaulodeOliveiraLeitãoNeto - I'm a Canon guy, so I don't know what in particular is available for Nikon. A quick search shows that Sigma has a 24-70 f/2.8 for crop bodies for under $900 US. Which shots do you think you will need 85 on a crop body for? I shoot full frame and I pretty much never take off the 24-70 unless I need to do telephoto work with my 70-200, but I'm pretty much always on the 135-200 portion of that lens unless I need a wide shot but don't want to have to change lenses. With the 1.5 crop factor, a 24-70 is going to be like shooting a 36-105mm on 35mm. – AJ Henderson Aug 26 '13 at 19:57
Aj Henderson - That was the reason i was going to get a 50 -135. Because that would be like 75 - 200. So i would have a Telephoto and a very good portrait lens (from 75 til 135mm on full frame). But i got ur point. I have done a lot of research and it looks liek that sigma is pretty expensive but not very good. The Tamrom on the other hand is pretty amazing but costs 1100 U$. – Paulo de Oliveira Leitão Neto Aug 26 '13 at 20:21
One more thing. I really like the tamrom 24-70. But if i buy it i would have nothing to shoot wide. Do you think it would be worth it? – Paulo de Oliveira Leitão Neto Aug 26 '13 at 20:30
@PaulodeOliveiraLeitãoNeto - yeah, I don't much about the third party stuff. If the Tamron is better, I'd go with that. Personally I buy all Canon optics, so I don't look much at the third party. Choose your range, then look for the best you can do for the most of your shots. You still have the 18-200 on the occasion you need the ultra-wide. Sure it makes lots of compromises since it is a super-zoom, but you want to invest in what's going to give you the most bang for your buck. Get the best you can for the vast majority of your shots and improve the periphery when budget allows. – AJ Henderson Aug 26 '13 at 20:35

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.