|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/12/2008 05:32:04 PM · #26 |
i guess good glass aint cheep and cheep glass aint good.
Ive got the Nikkor 60mm 2.8. I like it its sharp. sometimes i cant get it to not give me massive dof.  in action, although not the greatist shot. The 105 i a head shot / port lens, when not shooting macro. My father has it and loves it. In fact I think he owned an older ver. then upgraded to a newer one.
I also have the 80-200 2.8 (2 ring kind). Its older and i believe has been replace by the 70-200. its super sharp and a tad slow. For weddings i would imagine you would wnat somthing faster like nikons swm lenses.
Last thought, IMHO stay with Nikon for glass. Although i have seen reccomendatoins for the sigma 10-20, Nikon knows how their cameras work and how to make glass to go with it. In my estimation better than anyone else.
ETA: look here for reviews: Photozone.de & Thom Hogan.
Message edited by author 2008-09-12 17:34:26. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 06:14:05 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by amathiasphoto:
Sure, if I had the extra grand, I may have gone with the nikon simply because of the sharpness at 2.8. But the speed with the sigma is there. For the money, it is more than an excellent lens. Get off your high horse |
So you don't count weather-proofing as a must if you are a pro-shooter? hmmm, strange.
I take it when you talk about speed, you refer to the speed of the AF?
I dont think MrPants was being arrogant, its just you did sound like you was trying to justify it to yourself.. glad you got a good copy of the lens though. |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 06:42:14 PM · #28 |
| I am so surprised and very grateful that while I slept, you guys argued your heads off....tee hee. I really should have put 'nikon or canon' up and slept through the storm lol. For all you sigma lovers, I can see that there are many people happy with them, however there are discrepancies within the models that just don't warrant spending good money. Having said that, I bought a beautiful 17-55mm Nikon lens about 4 months ago that has now developed a rather nasty crack on the casing of the lens -on the part that retracts at the end. This is not good, and unfortunately I bought it second hand (1 year old) so I have no recourse with warranty. Still, I'm not completely put off, it is still an outstanding lens and I'm going to go with the quality rather than trying to save money, because I believe now that saving money by buying 3rd party lenses doesn't necessarily pay off, and ends up more expensive in the long run. I'm still unsure which macro to get - the 60 or the 105 - as I find myself really attracted to the shots that people like Irene come up with in terms of quality, bokeh, colour. But I'm definitely going to get the 70-200 Nikon. Thanks for all your input! |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 06:47:32 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by NVPhoto:
Ive also had a camera shop guy recommend Sigma lenses. Im not close friends, but he knows me by name. Personally I think he pushes the Sigma because its in the price point most can stand and its on his shelf..no L lenses on the shelves as with a lot of retailers. I dont' think the variation in quality is acceptable as someone else said. I have a rental company and am lucky to have all L lenses and the equivalent Nikons at my disposal and their quality is second to none.
All the Sigmas are adequite at best.
The other thing to consider is resale value. I have taken an 85mm 1.2L (MRSP $1700) and sold it on ebay for $1450 a year later. From there I bought a 70-200 2.8L IS. Sigma lenses might fetch 50% of MSRP. That sucks. Pay $500 and get $250 tops.
You can rent one from my site //www.rentphotostuff.com to see how it goes for yourself. Ill give you 2 weeks for the price of 1. |
I almost missed this one.....renting a lens sounds like a brilliant idea. Trouble is, I'm in Australia - do you rent outside the US? |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 07:08:58 PM · #30 |
jetty, I am sure you will love your new lens. I am sure that it will suit you well.
Its funny to me where this thread went. Nikon makes EXCELLENT stuff. I own it, I buy it, I love it. I will always reccomend it. I am sure that canon is the same way. I too was anti-off brand for a while, until I tried this. While I am not saying that it is the only way to go, I am saying that people should at least be open to the idea. Jetty, clearly you were, so this is not directed towards you. Simms, Ive seen your work. Its excellent, and I know you know what you are talking about. Everyone else, I am sure you know your stuff too. At the same time, I am a staff photog, and a photo editor. I am a professional, have done some good size shoots, and have a degree in commercial photography. While we may not agree on this, please do not belittle my opinions, as I have tried to not belittle yours. I have worked hard to get to where I am and do what I have done. If I have had good success and a good opinion of a lens, why attack it? |
|
|
|
09/12/2008 08:00:42 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by jettyimages:
... I'm still unsure which macro to get - the 60 or the 105 - as I find myself really attracted to the shots that people like Irene come up with in terms of quality, bokeh, colour... |
Trish - earlier you said that you were more interested in artwork than insects for your macro work, kind of like Irene (although we hate to mention her name here as she gets enough attention!). The new AF-S version of the Nikon 60 macro is excellent and the evaluations I have read rate it even sharper than the older version (which was very sharp). I ended up selling my Sigma 105 and replacing it with the new Nikon 60 because of the AF-S and the IF, the fact that the barrel does not extend when focusing. The only advantage to going with the Nikon 105 would be working distance from the end of the glass but if bugs are not your interest and stationary subjects are this should not be a problem. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/17/2025 07:35:55 PM  |
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: 08/17/2025 07:35:55 PM EDT.
|
