Are they worth the extra?

Red9R

Red9R

Messages
410
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Newbie question and sorry if it has been done to death!

For indoor sport mainly Judo would it be worth getting Nikon lens instead of T/Party lens, are Nikon that much quicker than say Sigma? I am looking at a 24-70 f2.8 to start, I can normally sit mat side so dont need a big zoom (untill I can afford one I will rent a lens for any Major comps where I can not get mat side).

Photos will mainly be for our club web site and if good enough the odd one or two, to a local paper for publicity and club promotion :)

I have seen lots of posts on the image quality / focus speed for outdoor photography but not much for indoor sport.

Thanks
 
on a D70 the 17-55 makes more sense unless you are planning on going full frame sometime soon ish. 2nd hand they can be had for less than £700 which is a big saving on the 24-70.

The Nikons are no quicker then sigma or any other t-party lens f2.8 is the same regardless of sigma, nikon or anybody else. Are the nikons worth the extra cash, thats a big debate. The AF on the Nikon is second to none and shooting judo that will be important but..........

Hugh
 
I've had a couple of Sigma 24-70's and they are good value but the 24-70mm Nikon is a different class. The AF consistency used to bug me with the Sigma's, was probably poor technique on my part but I could take three shots from the same position and one would be pin sharp and the other two would be very slightly OOF, the Nikon AF on the other hand seems a lot more accurate and consistant...

I'd also consider the Nikon 28-70, slightly cheaper than the 24 with similar optics...
 
Thanks for the replies, I am thinking about FF but the bank manager and better half arn't :lol: so unless I win the lotto the D70 will do me for some time :)

It was the focus speed I was worried about on the T/P lenes, 17-55 humm, there is a comp on this weekend, I will put my 50mm on and see if I really need any more reach, if not that may well be the way to go thanks :thumbs:

Cheers
 
Red9R said:
Thanks for the replies, I am thinking about FF but the bank manager and better half arn't :lol: so unless I win the lotto the D70 will do me for some time :)

It was the focus speed I was worried about on the T/P lenes, 17-55 humm, there is a comp on this weekend, I will put my 50mm on and see if I really need any more reach, if not that may well be the way to go thanks :thumbs:

Cheers
Click to expand...

Not ideal I know but if it's just for a website you can always crop the photo in a bit, you will have ample mega pixels to play with for web images and even smaller prints... I did this photographing renault world series with my 300D (6 mp) as I only had 200mm but was a distance away from the action, had a few printed and the quality is still excellent....

Just thought it might be worth putting out there as this is one of the few advantages of this mad increase in mega pixels in modern cameras
 
Cheers Creed, :thumbs:
I have a few photos on the club site that I cropped and you are right they still look ok, it was more for getting a pic or two in the local rag and giving some of the players copys, (I e-mail our club members any photos of themselves I get).
 
boyfalldown said:
The Nikons are no quicker then sigma or any other t-party lens f2.8 is the same regardless of sigma, nikon or anybody else.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing I see on here being spouted all the time again... The term "fast glass" refers only to aperture in that something "fast" allows you to keep shutter speeds high becuase of the wide aperture.

The term does NOT refer to focus motor speeds.

Fast focusing is a product of USM/SWM combined with the wide aperture to allow maximum light onto the AF sensor(s) and the cleverness of your camera's AF system.

In no way are something like the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 anything like the Nikon or Canon equivalents!
 
desantnik said:
Thats the thing I see on here being spouted all the time again... The term "fast glass" refers only to aperture in that something "fast" allows you to keep shutter speeds high becuase of the wide aperture.
Click to expand...

My post did only refer to aperture - which seems to be the point you are making :thinking: I also said that the Nikon AF outclassed most of the others if that was a consideration

Hugh
 
Thanks for the replies, my apologies for not being clear in the OP it was focus speed and consistency that I was wondering about, my newbie error in terminology.
 
Yes, the Nikon 24-70 is the one you want then.
 
Red9R said:
Cheers Creed, :thumbs:
I have a few photos on the club site that I cropped and you are right they still look ok, it was more for getting a pic or two in the local rag and giving some of the players copys, (I e-mail our club members any photos of themselves I get).
Click to expand...

Have a look at my flickr account, link is in my signature, and all the motor sport pics on there were heavily cropped on a 6.1mp camera as I didn't have enough reach on the day, I have had them all printed, granted only 6x4 but the quality is brilliant... I would imagine a paper etc won't require high res as they can't print them well enough anyway...

Obviously if it was going in a magazine they might want some thing a little better quality or if you were going for massive prints.
 
Neil_g:

Red9R said:
it was focus speed and consistency that I was wondering about,
Click to expand...

So, yes, I stand by my comment that the Sigma is in no way as good.

The Sigma is not total, junk, but its not the Nikkor 24-70 with a different label on it.
 
Again thanks for all the feed back peeps.

I am getting the idea that generally the Sigma etc are fine lenses in there own right, but the Nikon equivalent will be faster at focusing, which is what I need to help up my keeper rate!

I guess I had better get saving, in the mean time I will try the different focal lengths on the lenses I have to see which f2.8 lens I will be happiest with, (I know the IQ will not be great but I will get an idea of range of zoom I will prefer)

Creed, love the stuff on your flickr page and I think you are right about cropping :thumbs:

Cheers
Ian
 
someone posted an interesting link to a rental company with returns data. It showed the probability of getting a "good" sigma was a lot less than Nikon or Canon, which extrapolated out to 5 purchases meant something like 30% chance of all the Sigmas being good compared to 70% for Nikon or Canon (from memory).
 
The 17-55 is supposed to be lovely I will give you that... probably worth looking at what field of view you get for a two person sized subject and checking what distance you need to be to get it.

I havent done the calc, but definitely take a look!
 
Thanks all!!
Now I have a couple of lenses to aim for I know how much I have to save (hide from the better half ;) ) now to work out which one will suit me better :thinking:

Seems I have a knack of picking expensive hobbies and not having much to put into them :lol:


Thanks again to all

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top