sigma or nikon

evilonion

evilonion

Messages
802
Name
Dave Peacock
Edit My Images
Yes
so, breaking it down to my main lens choices what setup would you choose.

sigma 18-50 2.8
sigma 70-200 2.8
both non vr


or

nikon 24-120 f4


I mainly shoot people and macro and have the macro side covered.
Originally i was looking to extend my focal range as 50mm is very limiting, but id also like the best image quality that i can afford.

The nikon 24-70 or 70-200 are waaaaaaaaay out of my budget being as this is just a main hobby.
 
sorry i shoul;d have mentioned that i already have the sigma 18-50 2.8
my option would be to sell the sigma and get the nikon, or keep the sigma and get the sigma 70-200.

only thing i worry about is that wide open the sigma is quite soft, im assuming this would be the case with the 70-200.
 
evilonion said:
sorry i shoul;d have mentioned that i already have the sigma 18-50 2.8
my option would be to sell the sigma and get the nikon, or keep the sigma and get the sigma 70-200.

only thing i worry about is that wide open the sigma is quite soft, im assuming this would be the case with the 70-200.
Click to expand...

What about the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 or the 85 f1.8 just to throw in some options. Personally I'd avoid sigma but my view is tainted by my own experience:D
 
Sigma 50-150? :) Great lens really and even cheaper, or stretch the budget a bit and get the 70-200 VR I
 
As you have the same camera as me and I have the Sigma 70-200mm lens it is a very good lens but not possibly for what you say you want to take photos of. One thing to watch out for with Sigma lens is they are not always the sharpest without "tuning" to the Nikon D300.
Add it to the setup menu (spanner) and AF fine tune saved values.
This will ensure every time you fit that lens the camera detects it and goes to that setting automatically

Link to how to fine tune
http://spyder.datacolor.com/product-cb-spyderlenscal.php

Also I found that by setting the Nikon D300 not to take the picture until it was in focus it cut down the number of bad pictures by 80%

I also have the 24-120mm Nikon lens but the other version F3.5-F5.6 VR which is a good general purpose walkabout lens.
Realspeed
 
Last edited:
thanks for the information. I didnt know the d300 could do that.
I dont actually have a problem with the sigma focusing... i find it very sharp when you stop to say f8. I just find it gets soft when you try using f2.8 so i dont really every shoot below about 5.6.

I have started doing more and more people shots where i would like as much detail as possible and i just wonder if going over to a good nikon lens would be the next best choice.

The main issue then is that i dont have a longer zoom for places like the zoo or at motorsport events.
Then again i could just use a t/c with the 24-120 to get nearer the 200 range?
being vr i would be able to shoot at the slightly higher f stop with a slower shutter...?


would the lens be suitable if im going to events as a 2nd photographer?
or would i be better using the 18-50 and 70-200 for that?
 
You don't really need a 70-200 for people do you? The 50-150 is very good and also a longish prime would do well like something an 85/105/135 they all have 1.8 versions which are not expensive but are very good.
 
no, dont need the 200 for people... the 18-50 has been fine for people shots... the main reason for wanting longer reach is for when i go to race days and zoo's etc... 50mm becomes very restrictive.

so im either looking at adding the 70-200 sigma... or, sell the 18-50 and fine an alternative for the range... the 24-120 seems to have a good review, but then rockwell says get the 28-300 which is cheaper but uses the same glass... not sure how good 28mm would be on a crop sensor though.
 
If you are planning on getting an F4 lens why not get the 70-300 VR? It is not F4 but it is F4 past the 120mm range I believe and it is a great lens. Extremely well reviewed lens especially on a crop and will give you a great range and get VR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top