| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/10/2004 03:11:50 PM · #1 |
After breaking 2 lenses in 6 months I have since been left with a fast 24mm Sigma EX.
This, I feel, hampered my desire to go out and shoot.
I do not have enough money to justify a 'pleasure purchase' of the type of lens I wanted to replace (My £600 Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX) so i left it.
Until today..I passed jessops and saw the Nikon 100-300 f4-f5.6 G for £119 pounds - brand new. I would usually not get such a badly made lens (after all what do you expect for such little money) but my desire to shoot a wider range again made me buy it (as it comes with a 30 day no quibble take back scheme)
So I got it and walked to my local playing field where some chaps were playing cricket and shot a few frames. Now I am not a lens head, but I was really expecting it to have to be mounted on a tripod to get enough light in and be overall disappointing compared to my old Sigma.
But I am not ;) I was quite surprised that at 300mm F5.6 I could use a shutter of 1500 and 2000 with no problems. My Sigma used to struggle more at f2.8!!
Attached are the images and one 100% comparison from a similar Sigma shot I took a while ago. The sigma was taken in RAW and the Nikon in Jpeg too. Also note for the huge drop in price I also gained an extra 100mm.
Whilst the images are not very good aesthetically, I am quite pleased with the detail and color reproduction. On such a bright day it was quite hard not to let the white shirts blow out.
So for all those like me whom perhaps shy away from cheap bottom range lenses, I for one feel that they are ok. (although I will get my Sigma again in a few months ;)
   
Message edited by author 2004-07-10 15:13:15.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 03:18:10 PM · #2 |
do some research on the lenses optimal working settings. i think you'll find you can get good quality out of it on a regular basis.
i only use cheap lenses for now, and am pleased with much of what comes from it.
i think ideally compromising to medium quality is ideal as - the top end stuff is more expensive partially because they produce less of them... supply and demand. and they know that those with money will spend it on the top end stuff - so they can charge more. and the pros tend not to even have to pay for them anyway...
is any car really worth $500,000? will it out last my $18,000 ford escort when driven in the same manner? it might ride a bit better, ans take off faster, but in the long run my escort will still get me from point A to point B.
glad you are happy - curious how you are breaking lenses...
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 03:32:58 PM · #3 |
All from knocking my tripod over while camera is attached!
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 03:42:08 PM · #4 |
| You should buy insurance! |
|
|
|
07/10/2004 04:08:38 PM · #5 |
Agreed... I think anyone who could not put out the cash to replace their camera equipment if damaged or stolen should have it insured. It really is quite inexpensive... about US$30/year depending on your equipment.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 04:14:38 PM · #6 |
I've been bitten BAD by cheap lenses. Two that I have worked just fine for me, but after upgrading to better lenses with really good glass later on, I couldn't believe the improvement in image quality from a couple I had bought previously that I thought were okay before.
I'd suggest researching before buying *any* lens.
Some of the cheaper ones WILL be good enough to get you quality shots, but if you get the wrong one, it's very frustrating. Find someone who can give you a personal recommendation (like you just did here for the Nikon) before dumping money into any cheap lens. Really good optics are just amazing when you can get around to buying them.
An aside - my cheaper lenses have been Nikon and I've been VERY pleased. I don't think they're badly made at all.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 04:27:01 PM · #7 |
| I dropped my ultra cheap sigma 70-300mm twice last week,once on a rock.The dam thing just wont break. If it did then I would have reason to get good glass,LOL |
|
|
|
07/10/2004 04:31:40 PM · #8 |
you people need to stop buttering your fingers before going out to shoot...
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 04:33:10 PM · #9 |
BTW - Dim7 what do you think of the 70-300 sigma ( 2:1 macro i think right ) i almost bought that over the canon i have but thought it was heavier, and it takes a larger filter than the canon.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 04:43:06 PM · #10 |
| I think its a great lens!! |
|
|
|
07/10/2004 05:54:14 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Until today..I passed jessops and saw the Nikon 100-300 f4-f5.6 G for £119 pounds - brand new. I would usually not get such a badly made lens (after all what do you expect for such little money) but my desire to shoot a wider range again made me buy it (as it comes with a 30 day no quibble take back scheme) |
Glad to hear you're shooting again - more power to you. My old 75-300 (and I do mean old) served me well. Not the sharpest glass in the world, but certainly well appreciated. :-) |
|
|
|
07/10/2004 08:01:49 PM · #12 |
| Tim , I should say it bounces really well! LOL |
|
|
|
07/10/2004 08:57:54 PM · #13 |
My cheapest lens is one of my favorites - Canon 50mm f1.8
Sharp as hell, fast too. A steal at ~$70US |
|
|
|
07/10/2004 09:34:40 PM · #14 |
I guess you'll have to add me to the cheap lens club :-)
I have a couple of Tamrons, and a Canon 50mm f1.8. They suit me just dandy! |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 06:09:32 PM · #15 |
you are just one a big bunch og cheap shots.
and I cant even change my lens can only stack in front of it...
and all I got is a UV filter...
Message edited by author 2004-07-11 18:10:01. |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 07:17:48 PM · #16 |
I also use my cheap canon 50 mm 1.8 really much,and I also have zenitar fisheye 2.8 which costed about 120 $. I really like both of those lenses but of course the more money you spend the better quality you will get.
Here is one with the Zenitar:
And one with the Canon 50 mm:
 |
|
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: 09/11/2025 11:32:41 AM EDT.
