[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

 

Dragon Boat Canada


IDBF


Canoe Kayak Canada

8 Guests, 0 Users

[clm10k]

im looking at buying a couple new lens' for my dslr in the near future.  currently own a nikon d50 and wondering everyone's opinions on a third party lens.  do you prefer a sigma or tamron?    or should i just ante up and get a genuine nikkor lens??    are nikon lens significantly better?

thanks! 

[kryssee]

I currently have a dslr as well (Canon Rebel XT) and was able to use my sigma lens from my old film slr. It's a good lens, not digital, but works fine with my rebel. I've heard there are better telephotos, but mine has worked for me thus far. I would reccomend getting a lens that's more fitted to nikkon, rather than a "generic" one, better to have a really good one than a mediocre one and invest more money for a better one later. JI don't know much about Nikkon, other than the majority of their lenses are interchangeable with the majority of the cameras available. Just my 2 cents!

[rightarm]

More often than not, genuine Nikkor lenses will be better than whatever sigma, and especially tamron, have to offer.  Having said that, there are many factors which determine whether or not the "better" lens is better for you, including your purpose for using the lens, your budget, the results you expect (ie, are you shooting for high quality prints for resale or are you just wanting nice shots for your weblog), etc.  For the same price as high quality nikkor with variable, slower aperture, you can generally get a comparable sigma with a fixed, fast aperture...  the best thing for you to do really is to go to a local camera shop (Broadway camera, kerrisdale cameras, leo's, etc... stay away from futureshop, best buy... anything big box), and try on the different lenses for size, see what fits better with you and all of these things.  Because you have a d50 already, you can see the results right there.

From my own experience, until just recently, I had only ever owned nikkor lenses... call it brand bias, but i've never had any issues with any of my lenses and since i do try to make a modest income from my photography habits, i need the results to be good.  Having said that, just recently i expanded my horizons with my first non-nikon lens, a Sigma 15mm 2.8 fisheye, which has proven to be an excellent lens in all aspects.  will i continue to purchase more sigma lenses? probably not anytime soon, but if there comes along one that meets my needs better than a comparable nikon, i'll definitely consider it.

What lenses are you considering? 

EDIT: re Nikkor lenses being interchangeable amongst most nikon bodies, yes that's true, to a certain extent.  any modern AF lens and AF body should be completely compatible, some older AF lenses may have limitations on metering, and any of the old MF lenses won't meter on the entry level nikon AF bodies... meter coupled MF lenses are still usable, but you'll be using your brain to figure out the exposure.  Backwards compatability can be different... for instance, if you bought the kit lens with the D50, its AF-S, which won't be compatible with most of the older AF film bodies, if you plan to shoot film... something again to ask about at the store, if that matters to you.  Or a lot of that information is available online as well, if you do a google search for lens compatability charts, etc

[Lethal Weapon]

Hmmm
I am a "L-Choholic" (One addiected to the acquistion of Canon L class $$ lens) but after eating KD and Tuna for a year to afford some of thier lens I have also gone through a few non Canon lens as well (to see what range I really need)
I do not make much of a living selling pictures  but still enjoy the thrill of the shooting you turkeys!
IMO I believe Sigma is the next best choice if you want the range but also enjoy eating and buying new jeans every now and then. Like Canon, Nikon lens (the VR and faster lens) are not for the weak of wallet, I've owned or played with Most of Sigma's offerings (10-22 4.5,18-55 2.8, 24-70 2.8,70-200 2.8, 120-300 2.8, 50-500 4.5) and while they are MUCH cheaper than the comparable Canon offerings, Picture quality wise they are pretty close and unless you are super picky and you get a sharp copy (of the Sigma) then it is pretty hard to differenciate the 2 lens. Mind you its hard to compare a 70-200 Is 2.8 (Canons version of image Stabilization (like Nikon's VR) with the SIgma 70-200 (no IS) but for $1300 difference I can learn to shoot better or use a monopod!
Hope this helps!

Photog is the man for Nikon, maybe he can help?

[clm10k]

i appreciate the replies..thanks!    was planning on getting the nikon 18-200mm 3.5 vr lens (been on a waiting list for 3 months and counting)       but found out sigma just released their own version of it for much cheaper.  $500 vs $900.  only concern is the quality.. its essentially double the price so trying to figure out if the nikon is worth the extra money.  no one has it in stock either so i cant rent it out for the day or whatever..      

[rightarm]

well once that lens hits the market it will be interesting to see if it is as good in terms of quality in comparison to the nikkor.  It doesn't appear the sigma has the hypersonic motor (HSM), whereas the nikon lens does, and that's huge in my opinion... I love the fact that its fast, silent, and I can switch between auto and manual focus on the fly without flicking a switch or button.  beyond that I can't comment ont he sigma as I haven't used it, nor do i have experience with their "OS" lenses...

I do however own the Nikkor AF-S 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR, and it is worth every penny, its an amazing piece of equipment

[Photog]

i appreciate the replies..thanks!    was planning on getting the nikon 18-200mm 3.5 vr lens (been on a waiting list for 3 months and counting)       but found out sigma just released their own version of it for much cheaper.  $500 vs $900.  only concern is the quality.. its essentially double the price so trying to figure out if the nikon is worth the extra money.  no one has it in stock either so i cant rent it out for the day or whatever..      

we have 2 of the nikon 18-200's here at work. they seem to be pretty excellent in image quality.
with some of the older sigma lenses, the sharpness and clarity is not very good when the aperture is wide open, though i've heard that the newer sigma lenses have improved in that area.
if money is not an issue then just get the Nikon. I've also heard that Sigma has some quality control issues, meaning that if you are unlucky you might get a lemon.
When choosing a lens, also keep in mind the format. The Nikon DX format lenses won't work in the future if Nikon begins producing full frame sensors in their dslr's.

[rightarm]

When choosing a lens, also keep in mind the format. The Nikon DX format lenses won't work in the future if Nikon begins producing full frame sensors in their dslr's.

That's a fairly big "if" at this point... maybe they will eventually, but probably not anytime soon and knowing nikon, only on the high end pro bodies, which doesn't sound like are this fellow's cup of tea

[Photog]

That's a fairly big "if" at this point... maybe they will eventually, but probably not anytime soon and knowing nikon, only on the high end pro bodies, which doesn't sound like are this fellow's cup of tea

I am sure you are right, but it certainly did not hurt to share thoughts.
I expect to get at least 8 or 9 years out of my lenses.
There certainly are many big "if's" at this point, Nikon could even make a format larger than 24X36mm standard on all of their Dslr's in 8 years. In which case, all of us will want new lenses. Who knows.

[Photog]

Hey there clm10k,
what did you end up getting? if you got the sigma, i'd love to have a look at it if you're around at the adbf. I just recently got a sigma myself.