how much difference does 100mm make?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by thouts, Dec 19, 2008.

  1. thouts macrumors regular

    thouts

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    #1
    hey people.

    stuck between a couple of lenses. a nikon 55-200mm or a sigma 70-300 mm. I feel like I would really like the extra zoom but I also feel like the nikon would be a better quality lens...has VR...is a Nikon...so is my camera, all that stuff. Don't want to fall for a gimmick. Could someone show me maybe with photos what the extra 100mm does. I'd really appreciate it! Also maybe some feedback from owners of these lenses would help.
     
  2. SimD macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2008
    #2
    Pictures won't do justice until you go out and try the lenses.

    Cheers
     
  3. svndmvn Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Italy
    #3
    It definitely depends on what you usually shoot. For me the VR is worth it. Your sensor is cropped anyway so your 200mm would be in reality 300mm, on a 35mm FullFrame sensor that is.
     
  4. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #4
    That's a pretty bad comparison. While on an APS sensor the 200 will be 300, the 300 will be a 450.

    Both lenses are OK for general photography. The VR in the Nikon would be better. On the telephoto end, there is a much smaller difference in the FLs when compared with the wide end. I would personally go for the Nikon.
     
  5. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #5
    55 is a better starting point than 70 on crop. That's the key.
     
  6. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #6
    The Nikon is a better lens. I'd rather use the plastic-fantastic Nikon than the Sigma and just crop for the extra 100mm.
     
  7. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #7
    make the decision based on the subjects. A 300mm lens is for subjects that are quite far away and there is no practial way to walk up closer. Also the lens being f/5.6 is slow so you've have to have some good light and a relatively stationary subject.

    the 200m is still a long lens and with VR you could hand hold the lens if you had to and use a slower shutter speed and still get good result.

    I can't say which is best because I don't know what kinds of subjects you have in mind. Neither is an idealportrait lens for people shots and both are optimised for cost and some corners are cut v. the better f/2.8 zooms
     
  8. svndmvn Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Italy
    #8
    I did mean to say if he bought the 200 it would be like having a 300mm on a full frame,is this wrong?
    Anyway, 450mm on a full frame is kind of extreme, especially with no VR.
     
  9. djbahdow01 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Location:
    Northeast, CT
    #9
    All depends what you are looking to accomplish. Figure sports shooters (like me) need the reach. You see many Nikon D3s with 400mm 2.8 lenses or longer. I mainly use my 300 2.8 on my D300.

    To the OP, it all depends on what you are looking to photograph. Both lenses are ok. But the Nikon probably is a better lens. I have not used either so I do not know how I actually feel about them. Your best bet is to go to a camera store, ie Ritz, Wolf, or a local shop and try them out to see.
     

Share This Page