DSLRUsers.com

I purchased my D70 1 month ago and it came with a sigma 18-50mm DC lens which I love for normal photography and low power zoom.

I have just bought a Nikon 28-200mm lens and it covers most of the range the sigma lens covers with the exception of the 10mm down low.

I am thinking of getting rid of the sigma lens and keeping the nikon lens as the all rounder and when I want to get into heavier duty macro / zoom then get a specific lens for that purpose.

The nikon lens provides an effective macro of 1:3.1 which although not massive can be used to start off with.

Thoughts ?

Rathalian, which 18-50DC? There are two, the 2.8 rated highly, much better than the Nikon and the 3.3-4.5? (from memory), which I have seen liitle about but obviously isn't as good as the 2.8.

Glen wrote:Rathalian, which 18-50DC? There are two, the 2.8 rated highly, much better than the Nikon and the 3.3-4.5? (from memory), which I have seen liitle about but obviously isn't as good as the 2.8.

The later - 3.5-5.6 so both the nikon and sigma have the same 'speed' ranges. It takes great pics but is overlapping with the nikon (I guess I am answering my own question) but would appreciate your feedback.

rathalian wrote:I am thinking of getting rid of the sigma lens and keeping the nikon lens as the all rounder and when I want to get into heavier duty macro / zoom then get a specific lens for that purpose.

Are you thirsty? The Sigma will do double duty as a sports bottle for when you go hiking or cycling.

IOW, yes, sell the Sigma, keep the Nikkor, and never darken your dorrstep with non-Nikkor glass again.

Sorry Rathalian, don't have either lens, in fact I don't know if any here have the 18-50 3.5 - 5.6 so answers may be thin. A few have the nikon, do a search, they may be able to help.

Maybe keep both if the Sigma gives better pics in its range?

Glen wrote:Maybe keep both if the Sigma gives better pics in its range?

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Oh shut up, Dad.

*server disconnects*

gstark wrote:

rathalian wrote:
IOW, yes, sell the Sigma, keep the Nikkor, and never darken your dorrstep with non-Nikkor glass again.

Rathalian, Gary as you may have realised is stuck in the 80s when Sigma made crap lenses. Some models now are gems. Some aren't. Unfortunately Nikon has decided to make some crap lenses also now. Choose carefully and ask advice here as many have been on your journey before. One rule which is often, though not always, correct with lenses is "you get what you pay for"

Nnnnsic wrote:Oh shut up, Dad.

*server disconnects*

Never met you Leigh but you are my kind of person

gstark wrote:

rathalian wrote:I am thinking of getting rid of the sigma lens and keeping the nikon lens as the all rounder and when I want to get into heavier duty macro / zoom then get a specific lens for that purpose.

Are you thirsty? The Sigma will do double duty as a sports bottle for when you go hiking or cycling.

IOW, yes, sell the Sigma, keep the Nikkor, and never darken your dorrstep with non-Nikkor glass again.

Man thats harsh LOL

Gary is a hard man when it comes to non Nikkor lenses

rathalian,
If you keep talking about non nikon lens, the the servers will be disconnected! we experiences before

Birddog114 wrote:rathalian,
If you keep talking about non nikon lens, the the servers will be disconnected! we experiences before

MM...I'll have to try my new hybrid tamikonigma lens

rathalian wrote:I am thinking of getting rid of the sigma lens ... Thoughts ?

If you love the lens, keep it. If you can't afford the 28-200 without selling the 18-50 then how much do you want the long focal lengths?

Questions about lens quality aside, that 10mm you're talking about losing covers a lot of ground. (Still converting from 35mm, does the maths: 18-28mm equates to 27-42mm...)

Yep, if you've any interest in landscape work (particularly) you'll likely regret discarding the wide end of the range.

It's all a question of personal style and taste, but I make a lot of images on the wide side of that 28mm. If I couldn't have both lenses I'd take the wide end of the range...

HTH

K

Ordinary K wrote:

rathalian wrote:I am thinking of getting rid of the sigma lens ... Thoughts ?

If you love the lens, keep it. If you can't afford the 28-200 without selling the 18-50 then how much do you want the long focal lengths?

Questions about lens quality aside, that 10mm you're talking about losing covers a lot of ground. (Still converting from 35mm, does the maths: 18-28mm equates to 27-42mm...)

Yep, if you've any interest in landscape work (particularly) you'll likely regret discarding the wide end of the range.

It's all a question of personal style and taste, but I make a lot of images on the wide side of that 28mm. If I couldn't have both lenses I'd take the wide end of the range...

HTH

K

Re the wide angle thats a fair comment and the reason why I haven't sold the sigma yet. I can afford to keep both.

I guess for now I'll cupboard it and use it for indoor stuff and landscapes.

When looking into this I looked around at the 'mulitplier' effect as that was one of the reasons I got an 18xX lens in the first place.

This is a good article with some defined measurements:

http://www.lonestardigital.com/multipler.htm

Cheers..

Glen wrote:Rathalian, Gary as you may have realised is stuck in the 80s when Sigma made crap lenses. Some models now are gems.

I've seen some very recent images - certainly since the start of D70users.com - made with brand spanking new Sigma glass, that leave me totally underwhelmed. The absence of acuity is disappointing, albeit unsurprising.

The bottom line for me is the sharpness of the image. I do see some fine images coming from some Sigma shooters, but I can only wonder at how much sharper those images might have been if shot with a good Nikkor.

rathalian wrote:

gstark wrote:

rathalian wrote:I am thinking of getting rid of the sigma lens and keeping the nikon lens as the all rounder and when I want to get into heavier duty macro / zoom then get a specific lens for that purpose.

Are you thirsty? The Sigma will do double duty as a sports bottle for when you go hiking or cycling.

IOW, yes, sell the Sigma, keep the Nikkor, and never darken your dorrstep with non-Nikkor glass again.

Man thats harsh LOL

I call it as I see it.

I always thought that the noun ”acuity” was defined as keen sight. A synonym being 20/20 vision.

Which suggests that Gary loses sight when looking at anything taken with a lens other than a Nikkor

gstark wrote:

Glen wrote:Rathalian, Gary as you may have realised is stuck in the 80s when Sigma made crap lenses. Some models now are gems.

I've seen some very recent images - certainly since the start of D70users.com - made with brand spanking new Sigma glass, that leave me totally underwhelmed. The absence of acuity is disappointing, albeit unsurprising.

The bottom line for me is the sharpness of the image. I do see some fine images coming from some Sigma shooters, but I can only wonder at how much sharper those images might have been if shot with a good Nikkor.

I personally think it has a lot to do with post-processing. Realistically there wont be many photos straight off glass that are 100% HQ, doesnt matter whether you shoot nikkor, sigma or whatever brand.

Chris

sirhc55 wrote:I always thought that the noun ”acuity” was defined as keen sight. A synonym being 20/20 vision.

Chris,

From dictionary.com

acuity

n 1: sharpness of vision; the visual ability to resolve fine detail (usually measured by a Snellen chart) [syn: visual acuity, sharp-sightedness] 2: a quick and penetrating intelligence; "he argued with great acuteness"; "I admired the keenness of his mind" [syn: acuteness, sharpness, keenness]

Does visual only relate to eyesight?

vi·su·al (vzh-l)
adj.

1. Of or relating to the sense of sight.
2. Seen or able to be seen by the eye; visible.
3. Optical.


Source: The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Clearly, the answer to the latter question is "no", and acuity may be used in a number of contexts, one of which will be the resolving ability of a lens, be it a camera lens, a spectacle lens, or the one in your eye.

Chris,

cordy wrote:I personally think it has a lot to do with post-processing. Realistically there wont be many photos straight off glass that are 100% HQ, doesnt matter whether you shoot nikkor, sigma or whatever brand.

PP is just another in the arsenal of tools that we have at our disposal.

As the other Chris and Kerry Pierce both prove, it's not the lens that's the issue, it's the person behind the camera.

I'm not as gifted as they are, so I need a head start, and that's the Nikkor glass. Too bad it still doesn't help, eh?

Gary - you crack me up and all I can say is bloody dictionaries: mine (dictionary.com) did not even mention an adjective