Hi everyone. I'm currently working with a 18-135 and a 70-300vr(great lens!) on a d80 and I am frequently running into problems with less than ideal light where the 18-135 really does not cut it. After researching it looks like my choices are the tamron 17-50, nikon 35 f1.8, sigma 30 f1.4, or one of the 50's. I would be using this lens for general walk around and informal portraits. Any thoughts or experiences with any of these lenses? Is there anything I'm missing? As I am a college student my max budget is around $400-500. Thanks for your help in advance.

I'm a big fan of the Sigma 30 1.4 - used it on a D50 and was very happy with it. . .but it got lost in the bottom of the bag when I got the D300 & 14-24 & 24-70 and it finally moved on to a new owner who would spend more time with it. . .

I just rented the Tamron 17-50 for my D90 and I was very happy with the results when used as a general walkaround lens to cover a birthday banquet.

I think Tamron has a few rebates going on right now too.

Nikon 50 1.4! 2 stops faster than any zoom, if you shoot in low light - do it right!

What's your ISO tolerance on the D80? 400? 800? 1600?

In my mind, this is a race between the Nikon 35 1.8 DX, Sigma 30 1.4, and Tamron 17-50. A 50mm prime is too long to me on DX for general purpose walkaround.

I have a Sigma 30 1.4 that I routinely use between f2 and f2.8. f1.4 through f1.8 is not forgiving enough on depth of field for my general photography. I have not used the 35 1.8DX, but everything I read about suggests that it is a phenomenal value at $199. You can buy a 35 1.8 and a SB-600 for the cost of a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 30 1.4. Given that, I'd pick up the Nikkor 35 DX and an SB-600.

Ya I usually try to keep things at or below iso 800 because as much as I love my D80 1600 is not its strong point. Ya it would prob be smart money wise to just go for the nikon 35 because you just can't beat that price point. I bet it would also be nice to be able to just be able to put that in your pocket as a low-light back up. I don't really have a lot of large aperture experience so I don't really know how much more useful the f1.4 would be.

The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is a superb lens. Amazingly sharp even wide open but..... and this is a big but. The Bokeh is so horrible sometimes that a f/2.8 lens would look more pleasing.

My D80 was terrible in low light. My experience with the 35mm 1.8 wasn't great with it either.

I would recommend getting a used 50mm 1.4D for around $200 on craigslist.

I still have & use my D80. I own a Sigma 30mm f1.4, tried a Nikon 35mm f1.8G, own a Nikon 50mm f1.8, have tried Sigma 50mm f1.4, have tried Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and own the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. A very high percentage of my photos are taken at night or very low light. I use ISO 800 as the "standard" on both D80 and D300. I'll go down the list and give my thoughts:

Sigma 30mm f1.4 is an excellent lens. I bought mine for $270 on eBay.

Nikon 35mm f1.8G. I tried one for a weekend and returned it. It had too much CA and that drove me nuts. It's not built as solid as Sigma 30mm, and not as fast. The Sigma was a no-brainer for me.

Nikon 50mm f1.8. Cheap, but too much CA. This is an older lens and does not have modern coatings. I quit using it once I bought the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8.

Sigma 50mm f1.4. Excellent lens, the best 50mm in NIkon mount IMO. Have not bought because I already have the 30mm f1.4. Will sell 30mm and buy Sigma 50mm if I ever buy a (used) D700.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Excellent lens, gives pro image quality. A favorite of beginning wedding photographers. Very compact & lighter than Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. Really, for what you are doing, this is the lens to get. For general purpose use I am always extremely frustrated by single focal lenses and their lack of flexibility. The Tamron has both the speed you need and the versatility. Price makes it an outstanding value. Can't decide between a fast 30mm and 50mm? This lens does both, along with 20mm. This would easily be my choice.


Kent in SD

I agree with Kent that if 2.8 is fast enough, the Tamron 17-50 is the best thing going for under $500. I'll also agree that a good copy of the Sigma 30 1.4 is the best normal DX prime going.

To the OP: You must choose which you value more: Being able to go faster than f2.8 or being able to zoom. If all you've used is zooms in the past, you may want to rent a prime to see if you can adapt your shooting style to their strengths. If not, then the Tamron 17-50 is your best bet.

Personally, I use my primes around f2.0. Any faster and I can't get the composition right to get enough in focus. Slower than f2.8 and I can't get enough shutter speed.

I can't comment on CA...I have a D90 and shoot JPEG

all of the above are spot on, I agree 100%. However, being that I have shot a D80, 50 1.8, and 17-55, I would speculate that even a 2.8 is 'slow' for less than ideal lighting conditions, simply because of the d80's lack-luster high ISO noise. I still love the 17-55 to this day and consider it the best mid-range zoom, but I found myself wishing more than a handful of times for that 1.8, so I could keep my highISO usage down.

Sadly, I've parted with my kit, but now own a d70+35 1.8 as a 'budget' alternative. The 35mm FL is worlds better than the 50 1.8 and is hands down a much more useful FL for my type of shooting (wider). If I had one lens to choose from in the list as the OP stated, it would hands down be a sigma 30 1.4 because of the focal length, build, ridiculously awesome reviews, and speed.

blcknspo0ln wrote:
all of the above are spot on, I agree 100%. However, being that I have shot a D80, 50 1.8, and 17-55, I would speculate that even a 2.8 is 'slow' for less than ideal lighting conditions, simply because of the d80's lack-luster high ISO noise. I still love the 17-55 to this day and consider it the best mid-range zoom, but I found myself wishing more than a handful of times for that 1.8, so I could keep my highISO usage down.

The OP has already stated that his high ISO tolerance on his D80 is 800. My D90 lives at 1600 indoors without flash, with the occasional excursion to 3200. My latest indoor event had lighting giving me 1/125 f2.0 at ISO 3200 or 1/60 at 1600. 1/30 at 800 just doesn't stop action at all

Being capped at f2.8 would have really hurt there. However, there were also moments where a zoom would have helped.

To the OP:

Choose wisely.

I believe you can get both the 35mm 1.8 and the 17-50mm 2.8 for ~$500 used.

Dudewithoutape wrote:
I believe you can get both the 35mm 1.8 and the 17-50mm 2.8 for ~$500 used.


Not likely to find a 35mm f1.8G used yet, as they are too new. However, could find a used Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and a used 50mm f1.8 AFD. There are quite a few out there. I kind of hedge a bit like that myself with Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 as "lens of last resort" in the dark.


Kent in SD

Tamron's 17-50 has made me all but forget that I still have a 50 MM f1.8.

Honestly, you could sell your d80 and afford to buy a d90 and a 50mm 1.8 or 35mm 1.8.

That's my recommendation. You would be lightyears better off.

Two23 wrote:
Dudewithoutape wrote:
I believe you can get both the 35mm 1.8 and the 17-50mm 2.8 for ~$500 used.


Not likely to find a 35mm f1.8G used yet, as they are too new. However, could find a used Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, and a used 50mm f1.8 AFD. There are quite a few out there. I kind of hedge a bit like that myself with Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 as "lens of last resort" in the dark.


Kent in SD

Saw a used 35mm on here for $150, or if necessary I have seen the Tammy go for around $320 used. You can find the 35mm for $200 new anyways, just find a place online that doesn't charge tax in your state. $500-ish shouldn't be a real problem

The D90 is a good idea, IMHO. Better ISO performance, video, etc.

Thanks for the ideas everyone! I figured it might be useful to see what focal lengths I shoot right now and it kind of surprised me.