| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/13/2006 06:20:33 PM · #1 |
I'm thinking of upgrading my camera. So from my Sony f717 to a Nikon D70. I also wanted to buy a lense or too. So the question is: Are Tamron lenses recommended? How do Sigmas compare. Im on a limited budget so buying Nikon lenses, which seem to be more expensive, is doable but i would like to get 2 different lenses instead of one expensive Nikon, when i could have gotten a good whatever else lense. Help anyone?
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:24:37 PM · #2 |
Lot's of people recommend this one
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:29:04 PM · #3 |
At least start with the kit lens -- 18-70mm. It's Nikon and low cost.
Also the 50mm f/1.8 can't be beat. Beyond that, there seem to be comparable lenses that are *almost* as good but much less expensive in most categories. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:31:36 PM · #4 |
Yep, what talmy said. The Nikon kit lens is actually not bad at all for an inexpensive lens. The 50/1.8 is, like its Canon counterpart, a real performer, and very inexpensive. It will really show you what the camera can do and provides a fast lens for low-light work. Shoot with these for a while, then decide where to go with your next lens purchase.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:33:37 PM · #5 |
If you want to save some money and still get two great lens get the
50mm f/1.8 for Nikon (like kirbic said)
and the
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for Nikon.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:47:31 PM · #6 |
I'm no fan of the kit lens. I switched it for the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and haven't looked back. I think it's a better general lens...or at least it's serving me well...far better than the kit did.
I don't know of any all around Sigma lenses that compare though they may.
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 18:48:40.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 06:53:23 PM · #7 |
The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is certainly better than the Nikon kit lens, but at 28mm on the wide end, it surely falls way short of being wide (42mm equivalent sure ain't wide). The Tammy 28-75 would be a great upgrade when paired with an ultra-wide zoom (10-2Xmm or 12-2Xmm), but the kit lens and the 50/1.8 are a decent, cost-conscious starting point.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:05:43 PM · #8 |
I recently acquired the Tamron 28-300mm as a general purpose 'reduce lens changes' accessory. It is quite good in the 28-200 range, very little distortion, good sharpness and contrast, but gets slightly soft at 300mm. It is much slower (and noisier) focusing than the Nikon kit lens (18-55mm).
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 19:06:44. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:07:41 PM · #9 |
I also have the Tamron 28-300mm and am very impressed with it
Message edited by author 2006-03-08 19:18:53.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:19:46 PM · #10 |
Photozon.de (once again) has many great tests of lenses. Most are Canon and EF mount lenses, but I think the sharpness of the Sigmas and Tamrons tested there should be about the same.
If you want a general do it all lens, then a Sigma 17-70 maybe a good idea. A Tarmon 28-75 or a Sigma 24-70 are other good lenses. I personally prefer 24mm as it's wider with a cropped sensor.
Each lens design is different, so you can't throw out a blanket, brand A is better than brand B statements among comparable third market lens makers. You have to look at each lens model as a seperate case. Lastly, I'm not a big fan of the cheap 50mm f1.8 lens. The optics are fine, but I find it either too long or too short for my needs. Unless you specifically want a fast 50mm lens (which is 75mm with the crop) then get it. Otherwise get more familiar with your camera, then if you need it get it. Those aren't exactly limited stuff you know.
P.S. since you mentioned that you are interested in a lens or two, unless you are looking for something specific like zoos, macros, tilt shift, a good starting point maybe an ultrawide and a normal zoom.
An ultrawide is great for landscape/cityscape/environmental portraits, etc, while the normal zoom also is good for portraits, walking around.
I'd recommend a Sigma 10-20mm EX and a Sigma 24-60EX or a 24-70 EX in the DG Macro version.
Good luck
Message edited by author 2006-02-13 19:23:31.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 07:52:04 PM · #11 |
I'll chime in in favor of the inexpensive 50/1.8. The 50mm focal is about the simplest lens design ever made and yield exeptional results for the price. Don't be put off by the fixed focal length. With a little bit of walking backward and forward (granted it may not always be possible), you will get some zooming action.
I think it would even be a wise choice for a first lens while waiting get something wider.
I am in the process of selling my D70 with the kit lens which I won't particularly miss. I'll manage with the 50mm on a D200 while waiting to get something really wider, like 24mm prime or a 10-20mm zoom. I'll probably miss the 18mm focal length on occasion, but I'll be able to cover the 28-70mm range by foot most of the time.
Of course, if you don't want to mess with lens change, go for a zoom. |
|
|
|
02/13/2006 08:01:58 PM · #12 |
you guys are great. thanks for all of this informative stuff. I will still have to think about it, plus i will only really be upgrading this spring. am out of cas hat the moment. Thanks a bunch.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2006 09:35:05 PM · #13 |
If you are looking for a bargain third party lens, consider the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro (NOT the non-APO version). It costs around $190 new, and is quite sharp. Here are some samples from it with D70:
//forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=15368965
If buying the D70s on a budget, I'd probably go with the kit lens + the Sigma. |
|
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: 09/10/2025 07:30:26 PM EDT.
