Lens opinion please

[Myrtle]

I'm working on my lens wish list again!!!
I'd like to get what I would term an all in one lens and was looking at a Sigma-28-300mm-f3.5-56.3 DG Mcro as it would cover the focal lengths I want without being too expensive.

What is peoples opinion of this lens as far as quality goes? Is there something with similar focal lengths that would be better? Being the queen of soft images would I better spending more and getting a Nikon VR lens?

Thanks for your help

Linda
Nikon D80 and twin lens kit

[chrisk]

i suppose it comes down to image quality vs flexibility. you can have a do-it-all lens and compromise a bit on optical performance or the other way around.

if you do want the do-it-all, i;d prefer the 18-200VR nikkor. if thats too pricy, maybe look at the tamron 18-250 which is a pretty nice lens from what i hear. the 28-300 sigma apparently has severe lack of contrast and dull colours. besides which, imo 28mm at the narrow end isn't the best for an aps-c sensor. there is also a newer 18-200 sigma with OS. not sure how it performs though.

[phillipb]

You know what they say, Jack of all trades... master of none.
If not having that lens means not getting the photo then yes, get the lens but sooner or later you will sell it for something that gives you better quality. I know I did.

[Myrtle]

Thanks Rooz and Phillip - being new to slr cameras and lenses it makes it so difficult to know the right way to go - you've pointed me in the right direction - spend the money to get the quality!!

Thanks again

Linda

[Flatpick]

Linda,

my sugestion would be to go for the Nikon 70-200 F2.8, maybe also add the 1.7 TCII, a pricey initial outlay but about as good as it gets.

I do not think you could beat the prices that Poon can do on these items, go for as good as you can afford then add a bit.

[Bindii]

Linda I have the 18 - 200 VR lens (used on a Fuji S5pro) and its brilliant.. it costs a little under $1000 (thats in the stores but I am betting its cheaper on ebay etc)... and worth every single red cent....

[TonyT]

Hi

I have the lense used it overseas thailand, Cambodia,Vietnam, New Zealand picture quality is not that bad but the design let a lot of dust into the camera and the senor get very dirty major so
I now own sigma 12-24, canons 50mm, 24-105IS L, 70-200 is L
Quality alway wins

[ATJ]

Linda,

My philosophy is to avoid buying anything more than once. I prefer not to buy a cheaper version if I think I'm going to have to buy a more expensive version in the future.

Think about what lenses you would like to have in the near, medium and long term. Would the 28-300mm be a lens you expect to use for the long term? Are you buying it to fill in a gap that you think you might have only to replace it with a better (optical quality, faster, etc.) lens in the future? Is the zoom range to cover all the ranges you think you need in one lens or would you be happy to have several better lenses?

My longest lens is currently the D70 kit lens (18-70mm). I lust after a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and then maybe go for a 1.4 or 1.7 TC (as Flatpick suggests). I have considered the 18-200mm and while I haven't completely rules it out, I think I am going to hang out until I can justify the expense of the 70-200mm because I know it is the exact lens I want. I may be missing some photo opportunities by not having a long lens, but I am still able to take hundreds of photos with my current lenses. My Micro 60mm f/2.8 has really been the only lens I've had on my D300 and serves me well.

I'm not saying you have to do as I am doing, but simply that you should consider your end game and avoid buying things more than once. Of course, if an interim lens will let you get things you wouldn't otherwise get, it may still be worth it.

[Myrtle]

Thanks everyone - really appreciate your time and thoughts - I think that it will be worth waiting and getting the Nikon18-200VR (after your feedback) and that along with the tamron 90mm I plan to get next month should see me set.

Thanks again

Linda

[Matt. K]

I would not recommend this lens. Better to buy an 80-200 f2.8 second hand. It will serve you longer and better.

[Myrtle]

I would not recommend this lens. Better to buy an 80-200 f2.8 second hand. It will serve you longer and better.

Why's that Matt?

Linda

[dm_td5]

I'd also recommend the 18-200VR. I bought one with my D200 and whist I also have a 70-200 f/2.8 and I've just picked up a 24-70 f/2.8, the 18-200 is a good general lens. Yes it's not as sharp as the others, but it cost a lot less, weighes a lot less, etc.

[chrisk]

better built, much, much sharper, much faster aperture and just an all round pearler of a lens.

on the down side for you, it doesn;t give you the flexibility you're after, you cant use it "every day" or as a walkaround lens, no VR. but probably more importantly for you, it weighs 1.3kg which is around its 2.5 times the weight of the 18-200. and it's 190mm long, more than double the 18-200.

it comes down to what you want to shoot really.

[Matt. K]

Myrtle
The sigma lens covers such a wide focal range that its image quality must be compromised. It will be slow to focus when compared to the Nikon 80-200 F2.8 making action type photography difficult. It's maximum arpeture means that you will be forced to use higher ISO settings or slower shutter speeds resulting in more blurry images...a big negative when using it at the longer focal lengths. It will not produce imagery as crisp and bright as the 80-200. A secondhand Nikon 80-200 f2.8 can be got for around $600. A set of extension tubes for macro work will cost about $130 or less secondhand. This combination will give you professional quality imagery and you will be more likely to never want to sell it. If you remain comitted to photography you will outgrow the Sigma eventually.

[gstark]

if thats too pricy, maybe look at the tamron 18-250 which is a pretty nice lens from what i hear.

I find the 18-250 a little bit on the soft side - we have one here - and it's also lacking the VR. At the longer end of it's range, this is especially noticeable.

Linda, you'd need to go a long way to find better value than the Nikon 18-200VR.

[Bluebell]

I don't know anything about the Sigma you mentioned, but I bought the 18-200VR as a newcomer to DSLR
and while I am moving towards faster sharper lenses as I learn, I still like the 18-200 for its versatility and value for money.
A difficult decision for you Linda which will come down to a personal choice in the end.
If it helps, as I'm nearby I'd be happy to meet up and lend you mine to try out.

[Myrtle]

Once again - thanks everyone for your time and thoughts.
You have all provided me with a lot of food for thought.


Linda

[zafra52]

I have been considering getting a lens like the ones mentioned above (sigma 18 -200 OS or the tamron 18-250 without VC) and received similar kind of advice everywhere so I reached the conclusion that instead of spending that money in a lens perhaps it would be better to buy a smaller big zoom camera for the same price, more or less. The advantages are a smaller camera bigger range and portability; while the disadvantages are yet another camera producing soft images more memory cards and batteries. I guess we cannot have the cake and eat it doesn't matter how hard we try!