Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by b0tt094, Oct 8, 2006.
Im lookin at the nikon d50 with a 28-70mm and 70-300mm lenses from sigma
Sigma makes good glass. Some of their lenses are better than others.
I have the 105mm Macro and the 10-20mm Ultra-wide. Both great lenses.
I just placed my order for the 10-20. I wanted the nikon 12-24, but I was actually advised against it by a couple of people who shoot pro. They said that they have the 12-24 and went and bought the 10-20 and found their post processing times cut in half due to the lack of necessity to fix their images from distortion.
You just really have to do your research. I hear that the new Nikon 18-200 is in short demand and Sigma makes a 18-200 but it is about 2 stops less light than the nikon. However, optically, people are saying that it is not as far off as one might think and Sigma actually has enough for the demand, unlike Nikon.
The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (not 28-70) is generally regard as a very good lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is considered even better.
The 28-70 has received very mixed reviews. Because your D50 has a 1.5x crop factor, you should go with a wider angle anyway.
FIrst off no matter who makes the lens 28mm is not very wide on a DX format camera. The D50 has what they call a 1.5x crop factor. so the 26mm acts like a 42mm would on a 35mm camera,
You left off half the specs from the lenses. What's a the max f-stop. THis is almost as important as the length. Other things to look at are if the filter ring rotates when the len focuses. (make using polarizing filters much easier and of couse the focus speed and if there is a useable manual focus ring and build quality.
Is Sigma good? not a fair question it is like asking if Toyota is good. Sigma make some high and lenses and some cheap stuff too.
Also 300mm was "way long". It is longer then most people will need and you will have some trouble using it had held. You wouldhave to shoot at 1/500th or faster.
If you are trying to save money start out with the Nikon kit 18-55 lens, use that for a while then keep track of what shots you are missing. Literaly keep track, using paper and pen. Buy your second lens based of what would have made you miss less. Who knows maybe the 12-24 or 85mm f/1.8 lens would be of more use. or maybe a 180 f/2.8 You can't know untill you start keeping track.
As for quality in genaerl the Nikon lenses are better however there are exceptions. The sigma lenses caost less for a reason.
You've already gotten some good answers from people. I'll chime in with my two cents worth too. Sigma make a few really good lenses, and a lot of lenses that are good enough for most photographers- which is to say they're not the best lenses out there but most people will mess up a different part of the equation before they'll hit the lens's faults unless it's just a dog of a lens. Sigma has those too.
One of the wonderful things about a Nikon F-mount camera is that Nikon has been producing autofocus system lenses since the 90's for it. That means you can get some excellent glass at wonderful prices, and some pretty darned good glass for bargain prices. I'd look for a used 35-70 f/2.8 AFD lens, and a wider prime, like a 24mm f/2.8 first (though these days I find that if I want wide, I go with the 20-35mm before the 35-70 or the 24mm,) and perhaps something in the 85, 90 or 105mm ranges. Past that, you're generally going to have issues with handholding in poor light, especially with slower glass. The other thing you could do is start with one of the 50mm Nikkors, almost all of which are very inexpensive and sharp, and get used to shooting with the camera, and evaluate any potential lens purchase against that (though expect to go down a notch in quality if you don't have a great budget)- I'd probably go with the 50mm f/1.8 in that case, though the 1.4 would be tempting.
What about the time to fix their images from light fall-off?
All super-wides have their issues, and while I'd probably do one of the other lenses, Nikonians has a very good comparison of all the super-wides at:
There's no magic bullet extra-wide, every single lens is a compromise in performance. The good news is that shooting digital, it's easy to get wide by shooting and stitching if you're not shooting action.
Personally, I prefer to buy Nikon lenses to work with my Nikon cameras. IMHO third-party lenses invariably are lacking something. With a D50, you're probably not going to be getting into a lot of serious professional shooting so using third-party lenses might be OK. On the other hand, because you are using a D50, you are also deprived of some of the benefits of using older Nikons lenses and still being able to meter them accurately....you can do this with a D200 or the other D2....series, but not with the D50 or the D80, which are both more "consumer" cameras. However, you CAN still have the benefits of using older Nikon lenses and getting some terrific images. Personally, I'd choose to do that, buy some older Nikon lenses rather than third-party ones....
Nikon's 28-70mm lens (affectionately known as "the Beast") is one of its best lenses, and their new 70-300mm VR is probably going to be a lot better than any third-party lens.
Just my opinion. YMMV.....
To be fair though, those lenses are from the 60's, 70's and 80's and many of them are either uncoated or have been replaced by better autofocus versions over time.
The D50 looks capable of producing great images up to at least 8x10, and probably 11x14, and won't be as diffraction limited as the D200 and D2x (which despite starting with the same first number aren't in the same family- the D200 was the D100's replacement, though Nikon certainly blurred the lines by finally putting MLU on a body that wasn't its flagship.)
I am sure you are right. It is hard to say as I've seen lenses that I've spent $800 on that perform worse than some I've only spent $200 on. It's all about me the user though.
I looked long and hard at the 12-24's from Nikon, Tamron and Tokina, as well as the 14mm rectilinear lenses. I looked at the Sigma too, but it wasn't in stock in an F mount when I was in that lens buying mood, so I picked up a Nikkor 20-35mm and outside the 17-35mm, it's probably one of the best in its range-- it's certainly much cheaper!
Personally, I'd rather have a program do an automatic correction for distortion than deal with fall-off, but pull of the Sigma really was in going ultra-wide. I hope it works out for you.
I too was going to go the route of the sigma for a 10-20mm but in my reading up at ken rockwells and nikonians and seeing some samples of what 12-24 nikkor can produce, I think it's well worth spending 2xthe price for the nikkor. Come xmas time I'll buy there 10.5 fisheye to go wider.
You might shoot around a bit with one if you can borrow it and see if you really go that wide-- shooting with a friend's Canon system with a Sigma 12-24mm had me really not going out past about 20mm. I ended up with a pristine 20-35mm instead, and am really happy with it.
I just realized I *hate* this phrasing. Who are "they"? And why does it seem that this phrase only serves to keep those that know about the term in question and those that don't distinct in the customer's mind?