DSLRUsers.com

Ok, I know, another one...but I'm stuck between a few choices here

I recently bought a Sigma 28-70 ex dg apo macro F2.8 (whole range).

now to complement it in the tele range I'm stuck because I really don't know the relative benefits of eiter VR/OS to a really fast lens

eg Sigma 80-400mm 4.5-6.3 OS (Nikon has one: is VR also) as compared to a 80-200mm F2.8 (whole range) : these two just fall into my budget range

what I'm really looking for I can't have (70-300 apo macro asp if OS EX DG conv) .....it does not exist yet and will be incredibly expensive..also macro is only in far (locked) tele range

I know the Tamron lenses are useually macro through the whole range of zoom

Does any of you have the answer to what could work best for me in shooting (tele)portrait in poorly lit conditions say fd:200mm needing 1/30 at F4.5?? VR/OS or a fast lens...

zdDog wrote:Ok, I know, another one...but I'm stuck between a few choices here

I recently bought a Sigma 28-70 ex dg apo macro F2.8 (whole range).

now to complement it in the tele range I'm stuck because I really don't know the relative benefits of eiter VR/OS to a really fast lens

eg Sigma 80-400mm 4.5-6.3 OS (Nikon has one: is VR also) as compared to a 80-200mm F2.8 (whole range) : these two just fall into my budget range

what I'm really looking for I can't have (70-300 apo macro asp if OS EX DG conv) .....it does not exist yet and will be incredibly expensive..also macro is only in far (locked) tele range

I know the Tamron lenses are useually macro through the whole range of zoom

Does any of you have the answer to what could work best for me in shooting (tele)portrait in poorly lit conditions say fd:200mm needing 1/30 at F4.5?? VR/OS or a fast lens...

Very confused with your post!

"Sigma 80-400mm 4.5-6.3 OS (Nikon has one: is VR also) "

They're difference in quality and performance!

"80-200mm F2.8 (whole range)"

It's in difference league with the above lenses and it has three difference versions, all of them are constant f.28 but none of them is available atm, perhaps no longer in Nikon production line.

what I'm really looking for I can't have (70-300 apo macro asp if OS EX DG conv) .....it does not exist yet and will be incredibly expensive..also macro is only in far (locked) tele range

Sigma 70-300APO macro is at around AU$305.00 and it's available

Does any of you have the answer to what could work best for me in shooting (tele)portrait in poorly lit conditions say fd:200mm needing 1/30 at F4.5?? VR/OS or a fast lens.

It's Nikon 70-200VR/ f2.8

here is the benefit of VR (Niokn 70-200 VR)



http://www.sierrafirerescue.com/gallery/nature/sunrise_02.jpg


Taken on my way to work driving 70 MPH (120kph for the metrics in house!) Yeah I know, obviously not the brightest idea, but hard to pass up....

A

Hi Birddog114,

the sigma 80-400mm f1:4.5-6.3 OS is available but less fast, but has a OS function like Nikon's VR

Sigma also has a 70-200mm F1:2.8 (whole range of zoom)

can you motivate why this particular VR lens you say (Nikons 70-200VR) gives better images or do you have simply good experiences with it?

Sigma 70-300APO macro is at around AU$305.00 and it's available

yeah, but it's not apo if conv asp and F2.8 and OS....

but thanks,
thats one for Nikon (arghhh why are they so expensive....I know, they must be good). Not being a convinced nikonian when it comes to lenses I will not rule out the sigma 80-400 OS or sigma 70-200 F2.8 yet though...



Hi atancati, Yes you should know better....but hey..that's crispy.....well two huh? no-one comes forward for Sigma????

zdDog wrote:Hi Birddog114,

the sigma 80-400mm f1:4.5-6.3 OS is available but less fast, but has a OS function like Nikon's VR

Sigma also has a 70-200mm F1:2.8 (whole range of zoom)

can you motivate why this particular VR lens you say (Nikons 70-200VR) gives better images or do you have simply good experiences with it?

Sigma 70-300APO macro is at around AU$305.00 and it's available

yeah, but it's not apo if conv asp and F2.8 and OS....

but thanks,
thats one for Nikon (arghhh why are they so expensive....I know, they must be good). Not being a convinced nikonian when it comes to lenses I will not rule out the sigma 80-400 OS or sigma 70-200 F2.8 yet though...



Hi atancati, Yes you should know better....but hey..that's crispy.....well two huh? no-one comes forward for Sigma????

No The Sig and Nik. in 80-400 are not the same.
Sigma 70-200 /2.8 is not the one to compare with the Nikon 70-200VR, all they're constantly of 2.8 but the Nikon won., check few thread about Nikon 70-200VR on this forum.

No one has the 70-300/2.8 yet, perhaps it's in your sweet dream, and APO and OS and macro, it means ALL IN ONE LENS Next year maybe

zddog, if you are after a fast lens 70-200 2.8 the Nikon version is far better than the Sigma by all reviews. I bought it and am very happy with it. It has VR which is useful. If you want more reach it can take a teleconverter. If you want a wider range of focal lengths say 80-400 Nikon and Sigma both make one and again the Nikon is widely acclaimed as the better lens. It also has VR, but is not 2.8 as the 70-200 is. It is much more convenient though than a 70-200 + TC, plus cheaper

atencati wrote:Taken on my way to work driving 70 MPH

Andy

I'm guessing you couldn't just pull over

Great shot.

stubbsy wrote:[quote=atencati"]Taken on my way to work driving 70 MPH

Andy

I'm guessing you couldn't just pull over

Great shot.[/quote]

No, someone drives him on the firetruck with the sirens and flashing lights on

Hi all,

I live in another time zone (Netherlands), hence my response is somewhat late..

Hi Birddog114

check few thread about Nikon 70-200VR on this forum.

I looked and looked but obviously not in the right place, I'll try again but if you know a link, can you post it?

Hi Glen

zddog, if you are after a fast lens 70-200 2.8 the Nikon version is far better than the Sigma by all reviews. I bought it and am very happy with it. It has VR which is useful. If you want more reach it can take a teleconverter. If you want a wider range of focal lengths say 80-400 Nikon and Sigma both make one and again the Nikon is widely acclaimed as the better lens

So OK, I'm starting to lean more towards the Nikon VR:shock: ...but is this a sorts of rule of thumb?....that VR is better than a more speedy lens? Just as an experiment of thought: would a Nikon lens of same build/type etc eg 70-200 f4,5-5.6 VR do better than a Nikon 70-200 F2.8 (no VR)?

No, someone drives him on the firetruck with the sirens and flashing lights on Laughing

do they make fire trucks that go that fast?.....I think not...maybe he was on the run from something with sirens and flashing lights uh?


well now it's time to earn some euro's......thanks alll

ZdDog,
Make a move to Down Under

-To look for those threads, they're in Equipment review or general discussion section.
- Nikon only has the 70-200VR/ 2.8 no other current of this lens on the f4 or something, but you may be able to find the Nikon 70-210/ f4 or f4.5, this second lens is now discontinued from Nikon, It was introduced since the 90 but It's was praised with many D70 users.

The fire truck in Down Under can run 250Km/h

Glen wrote:zddog, if you are after a fast lens 70-200 2.8 the Nikon version is far better than the Sigma by all reviews.

Glen,

You're being very kind to the Stigma.

Gary, I believe you are right. I think every range has its gems, and one range is closer to having the crown jewels.

I have even picked up some of those gems, but the majority of my collection is from one range.




zddog, just to be clear, the Sigma 70-200 is not a gem from Sigma especially compared to the Nikkor version

Okay, I'm starting to lean towards being convinced now...

can you all vote on my rule of thumb question?

if you had to choose between a nikon (nikkor) lens with less speed eg 70-200mm F4.5-5.6 which is VR

AND

a similar build Nikon lens 70-200mm F2.8 - no VR...

what would you choose for poorly lit teleportrait -handheld shots(wedding/party)

....and I will bug U no more

ZdDog,
As mentioned, no such of 70-200/ f4.5-5.6 VR is existed, only your dream.
The AF-S 70-200/ 2.8 VR is the one you can do portrait in poor lit, handheld.

just as the butler said.....work with me, sir

Just as an experiment of thought:

70-200 4.5-5.6 VR, just get the 80-400 VR....I would fo with the faster 2.8 lens anyways. VR can solve some problems, but good glass is good glass regardless.

I had my camera sitting n the seat next to me and just couldn't resist. I didn't even use the viewfinder. I generally leave the 70-200 on set in A mode, f2.8. I just picked it up and clicked off about 5 shots without even looking......silly eh??

A

atencati wrote:70-200 4.5-5.6 VR, just get the 80-400 VR....I would fo with the faster 2.8 lens anyways. VR can solve some problems, but good glass is good glass regardless.

I had my camera sitting n the seat next to me and just couldn't resist. I didn't even use the viewfinder. I generally leave the 70-200 on set in A mode, f2.8. I just picked it up and clicked off about 5 shots without even looking......silly eh??

A

So am I, it stuck on my D2h and I can't remove it anymore! love to have that way

One of the things I note in these discussions, is the hard core group of VR enthusiasts and/or Nikon glass enthusiasts (you know who you are ) who, whenever a question of this type is asked, always respond in the vein of "the VR is better, no contest" and/or "Nikon glass is best".

Can't argue with the truth of these statements where pure performance is the measure. However, if you take price into account, IMHO, other lenses, including non-VR and even non-Nikon, can provide a better cost-benefit outcome.

For example, while we all agree that a fast VR is ideal, its very expensive, unless you can get one second hand - and I can't see too many people rushing to part with their 70-200VRs Even though Birddog helps us as much as possible , not all of us can raise the required funds and/or justify the expenditure for the absolute best lens on the market, especially if we're hobbyists rather than pros. We have to make trade-offs. So we consider either slower VR lenses, or faster non-VR lenses, and sometimes we consider Sigma rather than Nikon. When we ask questions about lens choice, we're trying to get a sense of how much of a trade-off we're making - ie just how much short of the "perfect" lens, is the cheaper one we're considering.

I know that the two lower end Sigma lenses I have are not perfect, and not as nice as my Nikon lenses (particularly the 50mm 1. but they were more affordable than Nikon, they're crisp when well focussed and steadily held, and when they're not, this my fault not theirs

Although I've not used the lenses you're considering, I had a similar dilemma to yours when purchasing my most recent lens and ended up choosing a 24-135 F2.8-4.5 Sigma, over the Nikon 3.5-5.6 24-120VR.

It's true that, particularly at the long end of my Sigma, I sometimes have camera shake that the Nikon VR would have solved, but as well as being faster glass, the Sigma lens is quick to focus, and IF, so I'm happy with my purchase.

If you look on the net, particularly in places like http://www.trekearth.com, you'll see shots taken with a range of Sigma lenses (you can search on lens type), that are just as stunning as the ones taken with the range of Nikkors.

In my opinion (and I'm not a VR expert), the VR can assist in low light when your subject is stationery (ie, if a tripod would have helped your shot, then so will VR). If, however, your subject is moving, and you want to freeze that movement, no amount of VR will replace the need for lens speed. So in your wedding/party example, supposing you can't afford or justify the cost of the 70-200VR, if you're mostly taking posed photos, consider a slower VR (supposing either 80-400 or 24-120 was a suitable length). If, however, you're looking at taking more shots, where people are unaware of the camera and are therefore moving about, consider faster non-VR glass.

I went for faster glass rather than VR because I take lots of shots of moving things in less than ideal light, and while I can always use a tripod or monopod to get extra stability, I can't make a slower glass perform like a faster one.

If you take photos for a living rather than a hobby and/or you can afford fast VR Nikon glass without quibbling, then there's no contest.

If you're a hobbyist and have to make trade-offs (like me), I'd suggest slower (and therefore cheaper) VR glass if your subjects are mostly stationary and the fastest glass you can afford (regardless of brand), if they're not.

I hope none of the VR/Nikon glass enthusiasts is offended by this post. I envy those of you with fast VR glass to bits. However, I also think that we need to recognize that that's not a viable option for everyone and when there's a choice between speed and VR, although VR would be the better choice for many, if not most people, it may not be the better choice for all. For example, people photographing small active children in lower light would be better served by faster glass than VR, IMHO.

In my experience, and from my lens research, while Sigma glass is not as good as Nikon (except for one or two rare gems), its by no means rubbish (in general).

One last thought - the Sigma OS 80-400 weighs around 300g more than the Nikon 80-400VR, which itself is not what you'd call lightweight at over 1.3kg. Unless you have the opportunity to handle the lens, and find that it's beautifully balanced (like the Nikon 70-200 VR - thanks for letting me play with yours, CD) it seems to me that the OS in the Sigma 80-400 would merely overcome the difficulties inherent in a heavier lens and would not therefore provide any overall benefit over a non-OS lens.

Disclaimer: - all the users who recommended VR and Nikon glass are far better and more experienced photographers than I am.

RU32day,
Good post with some fair points. I think I know what you mean, I used to see posts on DPReview which when someone asked for a lens to photograph basketball in a stadium everyone chimed 70-200VR, then the poster states he is a 16yr old student buying from his pocket money and it is obvious a second hand 80-200 would be better.

I will say in defence of the VR club, that many members have been the route of buying cheaper lenses then finding deficiencies so upgrading. I think that there is a bias towards Nikkor, probably for one reason, on balance many of them are better, especially on a Nikon. That was said by one who has bought one Sigma this year and a second on order. The other point is most post on personal experience. I am at the age where I buy it once, buy it right, so don't have much experience with current stepping stone lenses. I actually agree and think we should give people a range of options, especially price wise. If someone has experience with alternative lenses lets share it. I sometimes mention my older s/h lenses as they are within budgets. When you see only one opinion, that could be because that solution is universally acknowledged as the best solution. A case would be the SB 800, it works so well with the D70 no one talks about other options. Another case would be the 70-200, it is universally acknowledged as a 10/10 solution and often described as best in class. Anyone in that range should consider it and compare any alternative against it. Or the Nikkor 50 1.8 for $200, an absolute screaming bargain. The other VR favourite here is 24-120 but I dont think you will see that championed as much because there is another good alternative which most have here, the 18-70DX. There are only six VR lenses in the Nikkor range, and only three (bar Birddogs 200-400VR + Robw soon to be 200-400) are owned by members. I dont believe anyone has the 200 or 300 VR. The 80-400 lens is a sitter for VR. I have a 400 5.6 lens (which you are welcome to try, it is listed in my post about lenses I am happy to lend) which is difficult to handhold. Would I suggest someone buy an 80-400 lens which is obviously a walkaround lens, not a tripod long lens, without VR? No. Of course if you want a 200-400, you have the Tamron at about $900 or the Nikkor VR at $7500 so the comparison is not worth talking about. So as you can see in the three cases VR is discussed, one is because it is almost mandatory in a walkaround lens of that length, one is because that lens is best in its class both optically, AFS, etc and the other is really not discussed as much. But it must feel like we talk more about VR. No one should be offended by your post. Your point is well taken about speed versus VR, and is correct.
This initial poster in particular was a hard post to respond to, as he asked us to compare lenses which didn't exist. I didn't want to put my brain through gyrations about imaginary things (I save that for after a few reds ) so my stock answer came out, the 70-200 is best in class.


I actually thought on this subject tonight on tripods. Anyone says tripod and we all say Gitzo or maybe Manfrotto. I was thinking of starting a post on tripod options say from 0-$100, $100-$500 ander over $500. Members could post their opinions and ratings on their tripods, this would be a handy resource for those comparing.

Interesting you bring up your Sigma, I didn't even know it exists, as I am happy with the kit and primes I have in that range. How much did it cost? Do you have the kit lens? Does it focus as fast? Why don't you write a review on in the equipment section? I for one would be interested in reading it.

A point to all members, if you have an alternative viewpoint or option, throw it in to the mix, no one will bite your head off here. It is nice to know other options. I have often found my point of view to be wrong and welcome corrections or alternative viewpoints.

RU32day,
Glen has said it all, please read the original post and give the original poster an answer as per his request on your opinion narrowing with his question.
My previously replies are based on his posts and he repeated his posts with a non exist lenses in Nikon range.
I never opposed any other users with any lenses they prefer, each of us has difference view, taste and opinion, same as experiences which are recommended to other members and I never post anything which I don't have in my hand to try or evaluation.
VR or non VR, Sigma or Nikon or Tamron, those equipments are just the tools for us to play with and enjoying our life, if you can afford them, that's the way to go, the reason not so many talking about much other brand or model cos none of us has all the lens of Sigma and Nikon, if you have some experience about your new Sigma lens, please post your experiences and review in the equipments review section for members to read and learning more.
I knew a member, he was very happy with his Bigma, since he tried on the 80-400VR, he signed a cheque and got it on the spot within 20 min. I didn't think he made a wrong decision in doing that but he can see the pros and cons in between.
So, go to VR or non VR is your judgement of the day and none of us said before the non VR is a rubbish lens, I do have few non VR and non Nikon brand lenses in my inventory and still loving them

Glen and ru32day,

thanks for your thoughts on the matter, this is exactly what I need to make up my mind. Being a hobbyist, I do have to consider cost vs effect. There are not many store here in the Netherlands that lend you a lens to try it out....

Halfway through the discussion I thought I was loosing you all when it came to my original question....

I really don't know the relative benefits of eiter VR/OS to a really fast lens

I just assumed Sigma was as known to you all just as it is to me, simply because this brand has also it's fair share of prices won in the field...it's popular in the Netherlands anyway...

I originally bought a D70 kit, but in stead of a Nikkor it came with a Sigma DC D 18-50mm F3.5-5.6, which I like but has it's own limitations (it cost $140 US dollars/105 euro's), I bought another telelens: Nikkor 70-300 AF F4-5.6 G. For poor lighting conditions I wasnt too happy about it. I always have to use a monopod and even then manage to screw up some shot's. Maybe this coloured the picture for me to search for offbrand lenses

I, indeed, do not want to move around or be in the faces of people I shoot, hence the tele range is for me the best solution. I also like to shoot macro, so therefore my wish for a lens that doesn't exist yet (except for in my dreams, Birddog114)

I recently bought a Sigma EX DG 28-80 F2.8, an SB-600 and a Sigma 2x teleconverter (eBay from Hongkong:590 euro's where local store would have charged 970!!!)

I am very happy with the new Sigma but have not had the chance to compare it with a Nikon (ignorance is bliss???)

So true what you mentioned about prices: compared to off-brand the Nikons are very expensive, but seem to be defended 'at all cost' (is it purely a 'typically male thing' to keep on defending our big expenditures?: btw I'm male also)

SO bottom line for me is: how much extra do I get for buying the Nikon, if it's just a few percent, then I will certainly buy off brand, if it's considerbly better, I'm all for

buy it once, buy it right

and will go for the Nikon 70-200 VR

I never really considered someone could be offended by my posts, I hope you all see that (cry for help...maybe, but it's a 'typically male thing' not to admit to that either...)

Thank you all for your posts/thoughts, I need to earn some money first an it will take a few months arghhh...when I do I'll let you know, maybe surprise you with a Sigma OS?? and write a review........thanks again down under...

I recently bought a Sigma EX DG 28-80 F2.8, an SB-600 and a Sigma 2x teleconverter (eBay from Hongkong:590 euro's where local store would have charged 970!!!)

I am very happy with the new Sigma but have not had the chance to compare it with a Nikon (ignorance is bliss???)

Sigma EX DG 28-80 F2.8 is only can be compared wiith/ to Tamron 28-75/ 2.8 Di and can't match or compared to the performance of Nikkor AF-S 28-70/2.8 which I have both of the Tamron and Nikkor.

What are you going to use the 2 x TC for? on the 28-80?

The Nikkor 70-300G is praised by a bunch of our members Down Under, I've seen lot of nice shots/ pics same as its clarity, and you can't ask too much (AU$150.00) for its performance in comparison with other Nikkor tele lenses in non ideal lighting.

ru32day wrote:One of the things I note in these discussions, is the hard core group of VR enthusiasts and/or Nikon glass enthusiasts (you know who you are ) who, whenever a question of this type is asked, always respond in the vein of "the VR is better, no contest" and/or "Nikon glass is best".

Can't argue with the truth of these statements where pure performance is the measure. However, if you take price into account, IMHO, other lenses, including non-VR and even non-Nikon, can provide a better cost-benefit outcome.

It's not that simple, I'm afraid.

Quality of glass is somewhat subjective, and in my experience, the off-brands simply don't cut it.

Likewise on build quality, although Tamron comes pretty close. Sigma? I'm sorry, not even in the ballpark.

Why in the world would I want to pay for a lens that isn't going to give me acceptable image quality, or stand up to a little bit of abuse?

And if I want to shoot through a Coke bottle, then I'll go and buy a bloody Coke bottle!

Ask Onyx about dropping a kit lens onto a parking lot road surface; I've dropped Nikons, and Bronicas onto similar surfaces, and both of those plus Canons onto much softer surfaces. While the Nikons and Bronicas certainly show the scars from their past lives as wedding photographer cameras, they are all still fully functional and serviceable.

The Canons were too.

After much softer landings, and trips to the repair shop to repair lenses bent out of alignment, shutter issues, and problems with the power winder.

I have no reason to believe that Sigmas would have survived where Canons have failed to perform, and that's an important issue for me.

To me, looking solely at price is false economy; what one needs to examine is value for money - or one's perception of it - and make your decision accordingly.

I see little value in buying a $1200 Coke bottle when for an extra couple of hundred dollars I can have a Nikkor.

zdDog wrote:I just assumed Sigma was as known to you all just as it is to me, simply because this brand has also it's fair share of prices won in the field...it's popular in the Netherlands anyway...

Be cautious here. Never make the mistake of confusing popularity with quality. The two are rarely related.

So true what you mentioned about prices: compared to off-brand the Nikons are very expensive, but seem to be defended 'at all cost' (is it purely a 'typically male thing' to keep on defending our big expenditures?: btw I'm male also)

No, it's not. It's a matter of priorities. My priority is to have an image where I can recognise the subject of the photo that I've made. Nikon glass permits me that simple indulgence, whereas IMHO, most off-brand glass doesn't even come close.

SO bottom line for me is: how much extra do I get for buying the Nikon, if it's just a few percent, then I will certainly buy off brand, if it's considerbly better, I'm all for

buy it once, buy it right

and will go for the Nikon 70-200 VR

I never really considered someone could be offended by my posts, I hope you all see that (cry for help...maybe, but it's a 'typically male thing' not to admit to that either...)

As others have said, we're not going to be offended by your posts; there's nothing at all wrong with asking questions, seeking information.

But you shouldn't simply be looking at the question of buying Nikkor or off-brand glass. Consider too the fact that, in buying a Nikon body, you've bought into the Nikon system.

That's a most important part of what you've done, and you should be cogniscant of the fact that much of the glass is actually more expensive than your camera body. You should be looking towards maximising your investment in the system, rather than restricting its capabilities.

Gary if your comments about Sigma not cutting it, relate to all their lenses then I cannot agree with you. I have the Sigma 50 - 500mm and couldn't be happier with it. If I posted some images taken with it and said that it was taken with a Nikon lens, I would bet that no one would argue

Oneputt wrote:Gary if your comments about Sigma not cutting it, relate to all their lenses then I cannot agree with you. I have the Sigma 50 - 500mm and couldn't be happier with it. If I posted some images taken with it and said that it was taken with a Nikon lens, I would bet that no one would argue

I've seen images taken with a Sigma 50-500 and the only thing about that lens that impresses me is the dent it leaves in my leg when it's dropped on my ankle. Of course, one wouldn't do that with this lens, because one would be concerned about being able to collect all of the pieces as they rolled all around the floor as the lens fell apart.

Seriously, it lacks contrast and acuity. Recent images I've seen, taken with an example of this lens at full extension failed to resolve simple textual elements within the image to a degree of clarity that I felt even approached acceptable. Saying the lens appeared soft is being very kind, and by way of contrast, my 80-400 Nikkor, at full extension, has been able to resolve the chain wire on a chain wire fence at a distance of about a kilometer away.

The owner of that particular Bigma recently upgraded to a Nikkor, btw. Perhaps that tells you something?

So, while you're welcome to your opinion, and I respect that, the Bigma remains (literally) a soft option, and nothing more.

Ouch

Pity I now can't test my theory because everyone knows the lens I have

Gary,

first of all, thanks for your thoughts, but statements like:

And if I want to shoot through a Coke bottle, then I'll go and buy a bloody Coke bottle!

make me wonder...

I don't really know you at all, so please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it feels like you tried a Sigma many, many years ago, didn't like it and from then on disregarded the 'whole concept' of anything else but Nikon. Don't get me wrong, I value your input, but would rather hear from someone that has hands on experience with many brands and types (ouch...), shooting regularly with all types including the latest models....(they may have improved by now?)

Buying into the concept of Nikon doesn't really do it for me. Like I said, I'm a hobbyist, but am aware it's far better to spend money on lenses rather than the body, however : in the hands of the master (who is?...I'm certainly not..) even a pinhole camera can give a phantastic result...in the end it's all about composition, not a chance encounter, right?

The difficult part in choosing a lens, if your not able, like me, to test and buy, is to cut through the mumbo-jumbo info by the makers themselves or the reviewers with obvious ties to the makers, test that can be bought and all the other conspiracy like tactics to put their names in the right places, just to sell by spin etc...hence I turn to you users


I use the TC2x for my nikkor 500mm F8 mirror (MF, of course) and future buys.

I too am very happy with my lowly Sigma 70-300mm APO and have taken many great images with it already ( gotta love that coke bottle glass )...

There was no way I could justify paying >$1500 for a VR lens with similar reach and the reason I chose a Sigma over a Nikkor basic lens was the macro ability of the Sigma.

In the same way as I cannot fully appreciate the sound quality difference between a B&O hi-fi and a Panasonic one, I cannot (yet) fully appreciate the difference in image quality between VR & non-VR lenses and Nikkor vs. other brands.

Perhaps we should organise the lens equivalent of a blind tasting at one of the mini-meets. Take the same image with different lenses at the same focal length and compare the quality of the resulting images...


I'd love to own a VR lens some time in the future, but in the meantime I'll continue having fun with my Sigma zoom & the kit lens...

People

I have nothing to add to this discussion that hasn't already been said since I am of the 'buy once buy right' brigade so I have Nikon glass and a 70-200 VR (almost).

I had to post though to say that this thread is one of the best examples I have seen of the quality of this forum. We have had a range of well considered and reasoned posts with opposing viewpoints on what can be an emotional issue yet there are no harsh words, flames or insults. In some other forums I doubt ru32day would even have considered posting for fear of being shouted down yet what she (?) had to say added considerable value to the discussion.

You should all take a bow. Makes me proud to be a d70 forum member.

Well said Peter. The main reason I like it so much here

hear hear,

I'm off to catch some sleep, I suppose you all suddenly went to work ey?

Stubbsy, you said it all, well considered and respectful posts, from many varied points, with no flames or attatching egos to ones point of view

ZZdog, uou offended no one, we enjoy robust discussion here I didn't respond to imaginary choices because numbers often dont tell the story. A lens can have good specs but only be average in performance.

Leek, interesting idea about a blind test, but often the story is more about obtaining the shot. Eg I have a 70-210 f4-5.6 Nikkor which produces good images stopped down. At F8 it would be hard to pick at a glance between it and the 70-200 VR. When I got my 70-200 I travelled to Kempsey and tested out the VR from the passenger seat of the car over smooth and bumpy roads. I got good shots which would have been a blurred mess with the 70-210. The same would be true with low light. Now you can see it is not only image quality, but capturing that image at all. I don't have a 24-120 Vr, but would never talk someone out of one, especially at its present modest price, as the VR would have to enhance someones keeper rate. At the next meet have a play with my or someone elses 70-200 and take a few shots moving it, you will be surprised.

I have followed this thread with great interest as being a person that has used all manner of lens over the years.

One point I would like to make is this:

It is not always the equipment that makes the photographer famous but more the photographer him/herself.

We have had photos posted on this forum from members that encompass not only Nikon glass but Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.

I myself, have received praise for one shot taken with the 12-24mm Sigma along with Glen, and Stubbsy has had praise for a shot using the Nikon 12-24mm DX Nikon.

We have had photos posted from people (including me) who have been into photography for years and they hardly get a response and we have had photos from newbies that have been acclaimed. In many cases we are unaware of the glass used. In many cases we don’t really care what glass was used because we are emotionally taken with what the photographer has shot.

When Schumacher wins a grande prix we know he drives Ferrari but do we ask the question - what tyres, petrol, who makes the metal that makes up the engine - the simple answer is NO. What we interested in is the man first, the car second. If Schumacher drove for Williams he would still probably win!

Photography is first and foremost about the person behind the camera and not the equipment he/she uses.

The Nikon, Canon and Sigma stabilisation systems are fairly new and yet this did not stop photographers 20, 30, 40 years ago from taking memorable photographs. This also applies to many other in-camera systems now available including auto focus, matrix metering etc.

Another example of being a photographer is the case of the lightning shots posted a short while ago by one of our members - he did not use a Manfrotto or Gitzo tripod with a markins head etc, he used a jumper(!) rolled up on the window frame of his car - the result - stunning shots.

Here endith my rant

zdDog wrote:Gary,

first of all, thanks for your thoughts, but statements like:

And if I want to shoot through a Coke bottle, then I'll go and buy a bloody Coke bottle!

make me wonder...

I don't really know you at all, so please forgive me if I'm wrong,

You're forgiven, and yes, you're wrong.

Not that you being right or wrong - nor me being right or wrong - is a factor in this discussion.

but it feels like you tried a Sigma many, many years ago, didn't like it and from then on disregarded the 'whole concept' of anything else but Nikon.

No.

Not just a Sigma, but quite a few. Over a number of years.

I've only been involved in photography for around 30 years or so, using Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Fuji, Pentax, Ricoh, Practika, Mamiya, and Bronica, so make of that what you will

My impressions of Sigma were very poor quality optics, and very shoddy build quality. As I said, if I want to shoot through a Coke bottle, I'll go and buy a bottle of Coke!

Don't get me wrong, I value your input, but would rather hear from someone that has hands on experience with many brands and types (ouch...),

10 brands of camera isn't enough?

Lenses by each of those manufacturers? That's 10.

Let's add Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Chinon and Cosina to the mix. Perhaps that helps you a little?

Oh yes, I used to run a photographic business, shooting weddings and portraits ....

And, as I said, I have seen very recent images taken with the Bigma. Very recent, as in within the last two months or so, with a brand new lens.

And the simple, and the sad, fact remains that the images that I saw, taken with that lens, within the last couple of months, were, putting it as kindly as I can, soft.

Contrast was poor, acuity was poor.

How many ways should I tell you that this less than two month old image, taken with a less than two month old lens, was soft?

shooting regularly with all types including the latest models....(they may have improved by now?)

Yes, they may have. Tamron certainly have. But this example of the Bigma showed me nothing to demonstrate that it's optoical quality was anything better than a Nikkor 70-300 series G.

Actually, I make a point of regularly playing with toys. wandering into camera shops to see what they have, and tofondle the goods. Birddog has a better toy collection than any shop that I've visited, but there are many toys that he doesn't have: I can't fondle a 20D at the meet tomorrow, for instance? Have you played with one yet?

Buying into the concept of Nikon doesn't really do it for me. Like I said, I'm a hobbyist, but am aware it's far better to spend money on lenses rather than the body, however : in the hands of the master (who is?...I'm certainly not..) even a pinhole camera can give a phantastic result...in the end it's all about composition, not a chance encounter, right?

Being a hobbyist or a professional is not the point.

And if you're not into the concept of buying into the Nikon system, why did you buy a D70? I'm curious: what were the salient points that swayed you towards Nikon over Canon, Pentax, Minolta, or Olympus?

Careful: that's a trick question.

The difficult part in choosing a lens, if your not able, like me, to test and buy, is to cut through the mumbo-jumbo info by the makers themselves or the reviewers with obvious ties to the makers, test that can be bought and all the other conspiracy like tactics to put their names in the right places, just to sell by spin etc...hence I turn to you users

There is nobody who will come down harder on the bullshit proferred by marketers and salespeople than me; I'm a software developer, with an accounting background.

And the most cynical person I know.

Asking users for their opinion, through venues such as the facility that we
provide here, is not a luxury that I had 30 odd years ago.

When you're asking for an opinion, though, you need to seriously consider the answers given. I accept that the cost factor is significant; I can't afford the 200-400, as much as I'd love to have one for the Melbourne F1GP in three weeks time. It ain't gonna happen. But there are a number of good lenses in the Nikkor range that are eminiently affordable, regardless of the budget that you're on.

Let me put this another way - you have a US$1000 camera body, but its job is to merely record the image that you're making. The difficult task - the refraction of the light onto the sensor - is done by the lenses.

Why do you want to make that part of the job even more difficult than it already is?

At the end of the day, the body is but the cheapest part of your kit. Don't shackle it with poor quality optics.

And, as Chris so correctly states, it is not the equipent that makes the image, it's the photographer.

But having the best available tools helps.

Hi Gary,

I've only been involved in photography for around 30 years or so, using Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Minolta, Fuji, Pentax, Ricoh, Practika, Mamiya, and Bronica, so make of that what you will ......

10 brands of camera isn't enough?

Lenses by each of those manufacturers? That's 10.

Let's add Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Chinon and Cosina to the mix. Perhaps that helps you a little?

Oh yes, I used to run a photographic business, shooting weddings and portraits ....

And, as I said, I have seen very recent images taken with the Bigma. Very recent, as in within the last two months or so, with a brand new lens.

Point taken.....

And, as Chris so correctly states, it is not the equipent that makes the image, it's the photographer.

true, since I mentioned earlier

.... it's far better to spend money on lenses rather than the body, however : in the hands of the master (who is?...I'm certainly not..) even a pinhole camera can give a phantastic result...in the end it's all about composition, not a chance encounter, right?

note the glassless optics...hahah

And if you're not into the concept of buying into the Nikon system, why did you buy a D70? I'm curious: what were the salient points that swayed you towards Nikon over Canon, Pentax, Minolta, or Olympus?

trick answer: I guess we all know Steve's Digicams site with reviews....and uh...I owned a coolpix 990 before this one(ouch..I DID buy into the nikon concept??) and was most impressed with the results, even Macro (minimal object distance of 20mm!), review of the D70 mentioned even improvements on some points in comp.w. the D100...Mmmmm, and price of course.

I can't fondle a 20D at the meet tomorrow, for instance? Have you played with one yet?

I do have a brother in law who lives just down the street and has a D10. I'm not sure about the optics, but my particular note on this is that I seem to have more colour noise than he has....despite a ISO setting of 200 (don't know his post-processsing details)

Cynical is OK Gary, but just stating the coke bottle without motivating it, made me a little cynical in response, but now I read your motivation, I can do more with that.....