[scollins]

I've been thinking about upgrading my lens selection by eliminating the Nikkor 18-200 and replacing it with f2.8 or faster glass. Right now my lenses are the 18-200 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8.

The problem of course is always "BUDGET!!", or in my case, the near lack thereof. I have in my mind that what I need is the following:
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8 (already have).

I don't feel like I shoot wide-angle all that much, so that 24mm doesn't really scare me. Or so I thought (read on.....)

Based on what I think I need, I just need to find a 24-70 f2.8 for a decent deal, right? Even used, that lens is still north of $1,500. So I've also thought about some other options, like the Nikkor 17-55 DX or even the 17-35 (found one used locally). But I don't shoot a lot of wide-angle, remember?

I don't know that I'll ever move up to FF, but I was thinking the 17-35 f2.8 would be better than the 17-55, just because I could use it on 35mm film or FF. The 17-55 is a DX lens, meaning it has limited application for FF. I would like to get a Nikon F5 35mm some day, so having FF capability wouldn't be a bad idea. I could add a 50mm prime and have nearly the same coverage as the 17-55.

That used 17-35 I found locally got me thinking, "At what focal length do I really take most of my pictures?" I came across a neat function in Windows Explorer that allows me to "stack" all my pictures based on focal length, and it gave me a count of each. Since I do a lot of data analysis for my real job, I thought, "HEY!! Let's graph these data points out."

The results were quite interesting....

I looked at roughly 2000 images, and graphed them out based on the following Nikon zoom lenses
14-24, 24-70 and 70-200.



Clearly, I need to add the 24-70 lens, as that is where I shoot the 2nd highest amount of my shots. Not so fast.......

I decided to break down the shots a little differently, as it seemed like I had a lot of shots that were at 35mm and under. So I grouped the shots into 5 different buckets:
17-35 (Nikon Zoom), 40-46mm (unassigned), ~50mm (prime lens), 60-65mm (unassigned) and 70-200 (Sigma Zoom.)

These results are really interesting! Most of the shots, as I expected, would fall into the 70-200 range, but the second highest total now fall into the 17-35 range! So it seems that I mostly shoot either long telephoto, or wide-angle, and not a whole lot in the middle. I could cover the majority of my shooting with my 70-200, the Nikon 17-35 and 50mm prime.



There are two "dead zones" as I call them, where those 3 lenses would be either be too short or too long. But a good portion of those shots could be covered by physically moving up or back.


Now, if I regroup the shots into 17-55, 60-65 (dead zone) and 70-200, I have to really think about buying the 17-55 DX lens.




Anyway, with all of that, I suspected that I mostly shot in the 70-200 range, and that suspicion is confirmed. What I found surprising was the amount of shots I take in the 17-55 range.

Do you know where you take the most amount of pictures? I think you might be surprised......

Of course, none of this takes into account that the majority of the shots were done with the 18-200, so how many shots would I have missed from lens changes, etc.? That is something I don't think I can answer...

[Vudoo4u2]

how about getting the nikon 24-70 and a tokina 11-16?

14-24=223
17-35=498
17-55=856
60-65=95

tells you the following...
between 35 and 55 you shot 71.8% of the photos you did in 17-35 range, if you then add in the 95 from the 60-65 range, then you are shooting 90.1 % of the photos in the 35-65 range vs the 17-35 range

to me that seems you need to see how many photos you take between 24 and 35, and between 17 and 24

Why not get the 24-70 2.8, and then a tokina 11-16 for wide angle? (the tokina is fantastic) youll spend a bit less on the tokina, and youll have your range covered...super wide angle is usually a specialty shot or something you set up for anyways, you wouldnt normally be shooting moving objects (something you need to not switch your lens in the middle of for) with a 17mm aperture...so why not cover the typical range for yourself?

consider also, that if you at some point decide to switch to FF, youll be loving the 24-70 range that much more

just my thoughts

[scollins]

That is something I'm considering, it just gets up there price-wise. I can sell the 18-200 for $450 to $600 (trade-in to private sale), which makes a lens like the 17-55 an incremental $250 to $400. The 24-70 goes for about $1,500 used, so about $1,000 incremental.

And I'm still waffling on the whole carbon fiber tripod too! I might just get a ball head for "the tank" and worry about a fancy lightweight tripod later.

Also, I graphed out the shots by focal length, and you can see where the peaks are. A lot of the 18mm shots are of family events like birthday parties, etc. where I'm physically constrained by space and have to be close.



Just need the winning numbers to the Mega Millions lottery.....

[Vudoo4u2]

with that breakdown...the 17-55 seems a hands down winner over the 24-70 for you

with crop its probably a good option, 17 would be ~24mm and the 55 would be ~78mm...so pretty much the same 24-70 range i use with my full frame...and its perfect for walkaround and wides

get it! and with the money youve saved...get the ballhead

[RusherRacing]

This is a great. I can't believe you spent the time to do that. I am similar to you with the 18-200 lense but mine isn't even as good as the Nikkor. I only have the Tamron 18-200.
I was thinking about getting a 50 f1.8 next but this might help sway the decision.

Very interesting.

[UdubBadger]

WOW...

I'd say I spend most time right around 35mm but I might go past 40mm if I had a lens up there cuz my gaps are:
17-35mm
gap
50mm
gap
70-200mm

[lucky7]

i think most of my shots are at 10mm. lol. i dont even have a telephoto in my bag, nor do i feel i have a need for one. i would never use one.

whenever i hear people say that they dont need a wide angle, i always laugh a little. they're so useful. :D

[scollins]

Originally Posted by RusherRacing

This is a great. I can't believe you spent the time to do that. I am similar to you with the 18-200 lense but mine isn't even as good as the Nikkor. I only have the Tamron 18-200.
I was thinking about getting a 50 f1.8 next but this might help sway the decision.

Very interesting.

I didn't take that long to compile the data and graph it out. Maybe 10-15 minutes, if that....

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

WOW...

I'd say I spend most time right around 35mm but I might go past 40mm if I had a lens up there cuz my gaps are:
17-35mm
gap
50mm
gap
70-200mm

That is what I'm considering as choices, the Nikon 17-35, a 50mm and the 70-200, leaving those same gaps. The 17-55 DX covers the range pretty well, but is a DX lens. I might try and find some comparison reviews between the 17-35 and 17-55 on a D300....

[scollins]

Originally Posted by lucky7

i think most of my shots are at 10mm. lol. i dont even have a telephoto in my bag, nor do i feel i have a need for one. i would never use one.

whenever i hear people say that they dont need a wide angle, i always laugh a little. they're so useful. :D

Funny, I'd say the same thing about not having a telephoto in the bag.....



Try isolating a player on the soccer field, or a ballet dancer on the stage, with a wide angle, it can't be done.

Well, unless it is the goal keeper and the action is on the other side of the field, and you run out there past security to get right in his face for the shot......

[lucky7]

more proof that what you shoot has everything to do with what you shoot with.

i have no interest shooting at sporting events or anything like that (i dont even watch them on tv).

but even my 18mm kit lens cant touch my 10mm for wide.


the peak of the ceiling is 76ft, and a telephoto would be worthless. lol.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by lucky7

more proof that what you shoot has everything to do with what you shoot with.

Perfect statement!

i have no interest shooting at sporting events or anything like that (i dont even watch them on tv).

Don't have kids I take it? My daughters play soccer and basketball, as well as dance (jazz and ballet) and ice skating. I've only taken my camera to one football game (Florida at LSU.) I don't shoot college or pro sporting events.

I think that is why my shots tend to group in two places: 200mm and 18mm. 200mm for the activities and 18mm for the family/group shots.

ISO 2000 (!!)
1/200th @ f2.8
150mm

[scollins]

Originally Posted by lucky7

the peak of the ceiling is 76ft, and a telephoto would be worthless. lol.

I bet you could find some very interesting patterns in that place that you could capture with a telephoto. But yeah, if you are trying to convey the size of the place, wide angle is where it is at.

All of this has me thinking the ideal setup for me would be:
D700 FF with a 14-24 and 24-70
D300 CF with the 70-200

Gives me true wide angle and extra reach on the telephoto!!

[dcstep]

Interesting analysis.

I haven't done the same analysis of my own images, but I know they're heavily weighted toward my 400mm lens. My interest in birds in flight explains that acquisition and love affair. I take about 1000 images per week with that lens.

I come from the Canon side and use a 24-105mm f4L on my FF 5D MkII. I'm usually at one end or the other. I don't see how anyone can live without a true wide-angle. Hence, I think you need a good wide-to-normal or wide-to-portrait zoom in any kit.

Dave

[Carnifex]

Most of my work is at 200mm-400mm I shoot a lot of sports so big glass is frequently on my camera. The other majority of my work is at 16mm. I think I might sell my 24-70, It just doesn't see enough use

[itsoverton]

I frequently shoot between 10-22mm. However, I'm going to upgrade to FF here soon, so that lens will be obsolete. I'm thinking about a 14mm prime, but I'm just not sure if I want to do a wide prime.

lets see....i don't have any gaps from 10-40, but then i have a gap from 40-50 and 50-70. I don't spend a whole lot of time above 50 and below 70, though...

[Carnifex]

Originally Posted by itsoverton

I frequently shoot between 10-22mm. However, I'm going to upgrade to FF here soon, so that lens will be obsolete. I'm thinking about a 14mm prime, but I'm just not sure if I want to do a wide prime.

lets see....i don't have any gaps from 10-40, but then i have a gap from 40-50 and 50-70. I don't spend a whole lot of time above 50 and below 70, though...

Get the 16-35 when you go FF. It's an awesome lens.