| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2005 01:34:00 PM · #1 |
Got my first D-SLR (Nikon D50) with kit lens (Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED)some time ago and really love shooting with it. My dad happened to have few nice prime lenses (Nikkor MF 50mm f/2.0 and Nikkor MF 200mm f/4.0) for his old F-SLR. Their image quality is way better than the kit lenses, so I've mostly been shooting with them. Although the MF 200mm is a fine piece of glass I will need a telezoom with AF. Nothing really expensive goes. I think I'd mostly shoot sports and occasional nature shots with it, MF 200mm works fine when there's no rush.
I've been reading DPC forums some, and Sigma 70-300 looks really good. Nikon has a cheap 70-300 as well, and I don't dare to count Tamron out either. I think it should start from somewhere around 50 to 100, and end at 200-300.
Something like these:
Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX
Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DC Lens for Nikon Digital AF
Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G Autofocus Lens - Black
Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II AF Lens
Tamron Zoom Telephoto AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 LD Macro AF Lens
*sigh* had hard time hunting those links from b&h, everything is so cheap when compared to prizes around here. :-v |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 01:46:00 PM · #2 |
You can try here for some opinions on different Nikon zooms:
Fred Miranda - Nikon Zooms |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 01:50:19 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 02:01:24 PM · #4 |
I'm not qualified to comment on the quality of the Nikon tele-zooms, but I can certainly tell you that the slower "consumer" telezooms are almost sure to disappoint you with respect to image quality compared to the primes you're used to shooting with. On the other hand, I do know that the Nikon 70-200/2.8 is very highly regarded. The price will certainly put you off, however. You're in a tough spot, being used to the image quality delivered by the primes, but the birght side is, you know what the camera can really deliver, and so are better equipped to assess the quality of any lens you evaluate :-)
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 02:12:42 PM · #5 |
Yes I know the image quality won't be as good as with primes but I'm sure it will be enough. Here in DPC there's a bunch of really great pictures taken with Sigma 70-300 for Canon. Nikon 70-200/2.8 sure DOES look really tempting but I really can't afford that anytime soon. High school doesn't actually make you rich. :)
Thanks a lot about quick replies jbsmithana, will be looking into those reviews.
I mostly do my shooting outdoors so it can be a little slow (and it will be, because of the cost issue). Also, Nikon D50 works pretty fine with ISO 800 so F5.6 is still agreeable. If my pictures come out in sharp focus and not too noisy I'll be really happy. :)
Message edited by author 2005-08-27 14:15:53. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 02:45:09 PM · #6 |
i'm pretty happy with my sigma 70-300mm. Have a magazine cover I shot with it, and the macro function is great.
You will eventually reach the limits of its capabilities, but for the price it is a great lens. A more expensive lens is always going to be better, faster, better focus, etc...I also shoot with the L series lenses of a friend on occasion, and its depressing to go back to mine afterwards.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 02:49:22 PM · #7 |
I for one own the "Sigma Zoom Telephoto 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II AF Lens", and i love it!
The sharpness is just outstanding and I'm sure you'll find lots of happy reviewers on that one.
Oh, and the 1:2 macro (+ 1.6 FOV crop) is a nice plus |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 04:32:40 PM · #8 |
I'm kind of considering the SIgma lens. Does anyone have any macro examples from it?
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 06:17:40 PM · #9 |
here is a link to some macro images i've taken with my sigma 70-300.
Macro Bugography
handheld and manual focus, no retouching, so they leave a lot of room for improvement obviously, but its a fun lens, and the macro works from 200-300mm, so you have some zoom left to play with.
Message edited by author 2005-08-27 18:24:37.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:14:47 PM · #10 |
I'm very happy with my Sigma 55-200, especially since it only cost $160! Here are some shots I've gotten with it (they have all been post-processed, including sharpening)...
     |
|
|
|
08/28/2005 12:06:13 AM · #11 |
I too have the Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO super 2 macro. The new one is out, it adds DG to the title. Great lens for the money. Inlcudes the hood and a case that you can wear on your belt - handy at times, very handy.
I got mine new off an ebay vendor for $170 back in May.
Some samples...
 
 
 a macro shot, handheld
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 11:35:37 AM · #12 |
| Sigma 70-300 (the best model) looks like what I'm looking for. My MF Nikkor 200mm f/4.0 sure does give better results, but after all, it's a prime and it's MF. Doesn't go for all situatons. Sigma should be able to deliver punchy enough pictures with AF and ok macro function - and with a reasonable price tag. Thanks for sharing your ideas! |
|
|
|
08/28/2005 11:42:32 AM · #13 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 07:54:37 PM EDT.
