Whilst I see your point the Sigma is £250 used, the Nikon is £1000... I wouldn't expect the Sigma to be as good.
I've just joined the dark side guys... just need a lens now.
Tamron 28-75 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Other?
Looking for a general purpose lens, f2.8 with decent AF. Doesn't need to be really wide.
P.S. Can't wait to get the D7000
siggy 10-20 f/3.5?
If you're going to go to the expense of a 2.8, I would stay clear of the 3rd party manufacturers myself. I've tried the Sigma side by side with the Nikon and there really just was no comparison imo (and Sigma use weird 82mm filters that nobody sells, and when they do they're way more expensive than the standard 77mm pro filters).
I'm not saying you're wrong as everybody has a different budget etc... Just my viewpoint.
I completely agree and get where you're coming from, however, many of the older pro lenses (like the 80-200mm f/2.8 that got replaced by the 70-200VR lenses), that are still just as fast and razor sharp as they ever were are often around the same price as buying the current version of off-brand lenses.
I compromised too. I mainly shoot a D300s, also a DX crop body, so instead of getting the 70-200VR2, I got the original 70-200VR, as it generally makes zero difference on a crop body.
I'm not suggesting people buy the latest and greatest most expensive everything, but spend wisely and do your research. Sometimes spending £400 instead of £800 on an off-brand lens looks like a good idea. Spending £400 on a lens to find out it's soft, has a lot of distortion and chromatic aberration only to sell it at a loss (assuming you can sell it at all) and then buy the £800 lens anyway isn't such a good idea.
I normally don't recommend Sigma vs the Nikon & Canon equivalents, and the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 is no exception, however I have no problems whatsoever singing huge praises for the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (which is about £150 cheaper and WAY sharper, with less CA and less barrel distortion than the f/3.5). It's even better than some of the twice-as-fast and three-times-the-price Nikon & Canon UWA lenses (but if you're shooting landscapes, really, who's doing that at f/2.8???).
I ask as I can afford only ONE upgrade before retiring and it was to be a D300...but everyone seems to be bashing on about the D7000
Really just about everything else 'HANDS DOWN', that big a difference ;-) Common then educate everyone else...
I've had my D300s about 18 months, and I've had a good play with the D7000 over the last couple of months. I won't be getting one. For video and high ISO the D7K's pretty fantastic. For just about everything else the D300/D300s beats it hands down.
thanks..!
the D300 seems to be selling for about £200 less than the 'S'...so I'll take a look
then again - one 'knowledgeable' member here reminded me the D300 is 'older' technology
need to research more...........
The D7000 is equal or worse in every other respect.
D300s has a better autofocus system, it shoots up to 8fps, it has a flash sync socket and 10-pin remote (which makes hooking up intervalometers, wired and wireless shutter releases a lot easier), it's a full magnesium alloy body (not a partial one that's still mostly high impact plastic like the D7K), it's fully weather sealed, one of its two card slots is CompactFlash (which is much faster than SDHC - but it has one of those too). The D300s is a pro body rated to pro spec. The D7000 is not.
I'm not saying the D7000 is a crap camera, because it's not. But if he's not interested in HD Video (which the D300s sucks balls at) or high ISO (which the D300s does fairly well, but not as well as the D7000), the D300s is a much better choice.
Really just about everything else 'HANDS DOWN', that big a difference ;-) Common then educate everyone else...
Don't forget you can largely overcome the buffer issue on the d7000 by using the special extreme pro cards - not cheap 30 notes for 8 gb but v fast
And that is key and a bit more balanced response than win hands down on just about everything.You seem to forget that the D7000 also has better image quality, colour depth and dynamic range.
It's also the full 6FPS when shooting 14 bit RAW, compared to the D300s which only does 2.5.
It depends what your priorities are, but I wouldn't get for the D300s for anything but sports personally.
I often read about the D300/s having superior controls. Out of interest what are those controls that the D7000 is worse at? Also do the U1 and U2 modes on the D7000 mitigate a lot of that disadvantage?
Build and Feel (the D300 is my favourite, even over the D700 for this as it just fitted my hands perfectly)
I thought this was the D7000 owners thread?
I THINK ITS GREAT .......
Ordered one of these last night along with a third party grip. Going to be one hell of a step up from my D40!