D80 Critique my lens choices

[drama]

Hi guys

getting my first dslr soon

These are the lenses I have chosen
1 18 70 kit lens
2 70 300 sigma
3 50 1.8

I do a lot of teleshots, so I need the reach
My s3 wasnt cutting it for indoor shooting & with the teleconverter, images were turning out too soft

Any ideas or suggestions welcome
My flickr page is linked in my signature

[Rooz]

welcome to the dark side drama. :) looking forward to your moon shots with the 300mm. can't argue with your lens choices although there will be some alternatives like the 17-70 sigma or the 70-300 nikkor VR.

you mentioned indoor photo quality in your post...have you considered an sb-600 flash ?

[tcadwall]

I'd be dizzy if I bought that much stuff at one time!:D Whew!!! My kids wouldn't see me for days... They would get sick of seeing the front elements of all the lenses though!

I don't know much about the Sigma, but others have been happy with that I believe. I am sure they will post on it - and I believe there are a lot of impressive samples on this board if you look around.

As you likely already know the 18-70mm is a great kit lens. And you can't go wrong with the 50mm f1.8

What are you taking photos of with the tele?

Are you talking about the APO lens? (sigma)

[wrestlingreport]

cmon expert hes screaming for a 80-200 f2.8 and you talk sigma
get real

[jcon]

Rooz was dead on with the flash suggestion. Either an SB-600 or SB-800 should be on that list somewhere.

[jcon]

cmon expert hes screaming for a 80-200 f2.8 and you talk sigma
get real

I do believe the OP mentioned Sigma. Also, mentioned he wanted more reach, 300mm or 200mm, gee, I wonder which one is longer? Lets ask the experienced wrestling photogprapher...


Drama, dont mind the wrestling jerk, he really is lost, tryin to find his way and probably wont last long here with the way hes treating members.

[tcadwall]

The OP appears to be looking for a longer than 200mm lens.

Are we even sure which Sigma he was talking about since there is an APO and non-APO.

Knowing this, along with what subject matter he shoots at the long end, would probably help know what he is "screaming" for.

[coldrain]

The 18-70 is a very popular lens, and not bad. I personally would not get it though, for a few reasons:
It has considerable distortion at the wide end.
It has the zoom ring at the end of the lens, the focus ring on the side of the body. This is exactly opposite what most lenses have, which I would find myself to confuse all the time.

But, it still is an ok lens, and many like it.

Alternatives I would consider:

Nikon 18-55mm. It has less distortion, and it is built less good. It also costs a lot less, and its optics are quite good. You will not miss the 55-70 gap.

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 Macro. It is as good optically as the 18-70 from Nikon, but less distortion at 17mm I think. It is a bit more light sensitive, offers comparable build quality, has a macro mode that lets you closer to the subject. The Nikon focusses more silent.

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro. Has f2.8 over the entire range. Good quality optics, macro mode. Well built. You will not really miss the 50-70mm gap.

Tokina 16-50mm f2.8. Same as the Sigma blurp, minus the macro mode.

The Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro is the best lens in this class. If you want to have a better lens you will have to go for the more than twice as expensive Nikon 70-300 VR ED. The Sigma offers an 1:2 macro mode, the Nikon image stabilization.

Nikon 50mm f1.8: NO question about it, get it.

[Rooz]

good question about the apo. knowing drama likes his moon shots, (the moon in the sky that is :D), i really think you should be seriously considering the extra flexibility of having VR especially at that 300mm end, you will get alot more keepers imo. judging from the clarity and colours of the photos on this site, that lens is a real gem.

[wrestlingreport]

Yes 300 indoors is much better if you need to shoot belly buttons in a arena
otherwise get a nikon 80-200 f2.8
or let the expert snow u on sigma lens since he cant afford nikon
This must be the twilight zone forum where normal rules dont apply
Must me the experts.
but what do I know
started in the late 50 and havent looked back
But you need to here

[swgod98]

Yes 300 indoors is much better if you need to shoot belly buttons in a arena

Maybe, just maybe he WANTS to shoot belly buttons in an arena. Have you thought about that? :rolleyes:

You know, people might actually treat you with some respect if you gave them the same honor.

[britkev]

Yes 300 indoors is much better if you need to shoot belly buttons in a arena
otherwise get a nikon 80-200 f2.8
or let the expert snow u on sigma lens since he cant afford nikon
This must be the twilight zone forum where normal rules dont apply
Must me the experts.
but what do I know
started in the late 50 and havent looked back
But you need to here

Not really comparing like with like here: the Sigma is pretty much generally accepted as the best of the bunch when it comes to cheap long zooms... it sells for a little over $200, beats the slightly cheaper Nikon 70-300G on image quality, and more than holds its own with the more expensive Nikon ED version... the 80-200 you suggest goes for three times as much.

[drama]

Hi guys
thanks for the responses :)

Rooz
Thanks for the welcome & the suggestions :)
I will definitely pick up an external flash later

Clarifying on the Sigma zoom, I was talking about the apo DG version, I am looking for the Nikkor VR version too
I generally use a tripod for the moon shots & dont use IS on my S3 now
I was thinking along the same lines

jcon
thanks :)

Tcadwall

I am very lucky to be able to afford all this stuff in one go
Have been wanting to make the jump for a while, well I am jumping :)

Cold Rain

Thanks for the detailed break down of the lens
I will look in to getting the 18-55 instead of the 18-70, good optics plus less money sounds good :)
I am also looking for the sigma 18-70, may be a bit difficult to pick up here
The 18-50 2.8 sigma sounds very good too, may be later

My moon set on flickr, taken with an S3
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dramanow/sets/72157594417158995/

My sentimental favorite
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/109/310955006_55f18ce5e8_o.jpg

A more recent one with a TC
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/406934040_f792390a16.jpg

[Rooz]

well i'm glad you now have a d80. sort out the settings and then teach me how to take a damn moon photo will ya.:D

[achuang]

This is my best moon photo. Btw I've got a D70s. My usual settings for taking shots of the moon is ISO 200 (lowest ISO on D70s), f/8 and a shutter speed ranging from about 1/160 to 1/320....depends on the situation. I had to crop this one a fair bit as 300mm isn't quite long enough for moon photos.

[wrestlingreport]

and more than holds its own with the more expensive Nikon ED version... the 80-200 you suggest goes for three times as much.

Yes welcome to the twilight zone. Where the 70-300 sigma more than holds its own to the 80-200 f2.8.
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING
Keep buying cheap glass instead of saving for the right glass and you end up with a bunch of cheap glass.

[drama]

Rooz
:)
sure

Achuang
That looks pretty good to me, it needs white balancing & has to be slightly underexposed
The full moons usually dont give much detail, interms of craters etc
BTW, what lens did you use ?

wrestling report

I will buy good glass later but a 200mm lens is not going to be very useful for me

[jcon]

Yes welcome to the twilight zone. Where the 70-300 sigma more than holds its own to the 80-200 f2.8.
YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING
Keep buying cheap glass instead of saving for the right glass and you end up with a bunch of cheap glass.

Youre not some 8 year old that signs on under his dads name to play jokes on people, are you? Because what you say makes absolutely no sense! Who ever said the Sigma 70-300 was just as good as the 80-200mm F2.8? In fact, if you re-read the thread, you will see the opposite.

Really man, or kid, or whatever you are, give it a rest. You serve no purpose here. If you actually have some useful information to share then by all means do so, but if you're here to just cause problems for the ones that do offer worth while help, then just keep your mouth shut.

[jcon]

Now, back to the real thread and to Drama,

If you do plan on shooting in alot of low lighting and need fast glass(sports) you will want atleast a lens with an aperture of 2.8. That type of glass can be quite expensive, especially if you need the extra reach. If you have a flash, this can help if youre close enough to the action. VR lenses can also help with this, somewhat.

I would suggest to look into renting some glass before you buy and see how it performs in your shooting conditions. If you dont have any local shops that rent, let me know and I can provide you a couple links to online rental sites.

Dont let the jerks(wrestlingfaker) get you down, you buy what you want/can and enjoy using your gear. We all gotta start out somewhere. A couple months ago all I had was Sigma glass, and Sigma does make some very fine glass, so dont listen to the negative losers, you get what will make you happy!

[wrestlingreport]

Youre not some 8 year old that signs on under his dads name to play jokes on people, are you? Because what you say makes absolutely no sense! Who ever said the Sigma 70-300 was just as good as the 80-200mm F2.8? In fact, if you re-read the thread, you will see the opposite.

Really man, or kid, or whatever you are, give it a rest. You serve no purpose here. If you actually have some useful information to share then by all means do so, but if you're here to just cause problems for the ones that do offer worth while help, then just keep your mouth shut.

First off read post 12 of this thread.
Thats what I responded to.
I have every right to be here.
I posted 3 times and got rude remarks all 3 times.
I have been into photography since the 1950's I don't need some wannabe getting rude because I offer a different view.
I was told I need to show seniors respect.
HA HA HA
I taught college courses before they could talk.
The so called help they lend is the worse advise you can give.
Bye cheap glass for now?
Thats just plain stupid.
Bye a cheap Nikon 50 f1.8 and save for the next lense.
You can bye a used good lense from adorama for the price of garbage sigma glass. I bought a demo 70-200 f 2.8 for 525 and It was beautiful. I already have one, but i dont pass up on a bargin. That lense in 10 years with be worth exactly the same, or more.
In 10 years sigma is worth 15 bucks.
Until you learn to read punk keep your mouth shut.

[coldrain]

First off read post 12 of this thread.
Thats what I responded to.
I have every right to be here.
I posted 3 times and got rude remarks all 3 times.
I have been into photography since the 1950's I don't need some wannabe getting rude because I offer a different view.
I was told I need to show seniors respect.
HA HA HA
I taught college courses before they could talk.
The so called help they lend is the worse advise you can give.
Bye cheap glass for now?
Thats just plain stupid.
Bye a cheap Nikon 50 f1.8 and save for the next lense.
You can bye a used good lense from adorama for the price of garbage sigma glass. I bought a demo 70-200 f 2.8 for 525 and It was beautiful. I already have one, but i dont pass up on a bargin. That lense in 10 years with be worth exactly the same, or more.
In 10 years sigma is worth 15 bucks.
Until you learn to read punk keep your mouth shut.
Very nice. You like to shoot half naked men playing some silly act. Well, have fun making photos of that. And have fun doing that with a compact Leica noise monster.

You can bye yourself, we will not mind.... And take a course in spelling your own language, even I, who is Dutch, speaks better English.

It is a bit silly to tell someone to get a 200mm lens, when they are looking for more reach. And taking someones budget into account really is not a strange thing to do. And if you can only think of shooting half naked men doing a silly fake routine feeling eachother up, then also understand that is not everybody's use for a camera. Ok?

[tcadwall]

OP,
If you are considering the Nikkor 70-300mm VR, you would probably be happier with it over the Sigma. Earlier I had assumed that you had already considered it, but decided it wasn't within budget.

JCON,

At least now we understand the problem. It appears to be that wr is not going to respect anyone because he is not only senior in how long he has been shooting wrestling (noone else here has probably been shooting wrestling since the 50's), but he is just simply senile. He has somewhat stated that himself (if I read into it the way he apparently reads into everyone else's posts). Senility can cause some people to really become cratchety and look for opportunities to be a kill-joy.

I have only been active on these boards since September. But during that time I have never seen anyone as disrespectful as this wr guy.

I can't think of anyone else here during my time, that has been un-teachable because of their pride. Most of us do pay attention to what people are asking - enough to recognize if they are trying to meet budget constraints, what their level of experience is, what they are used to if they have come from film, what types of shooting they are doing, etc.

For instance... Someone shooting @ 300mm, ISO200, f/8, and shutterspeeds less than a second. Why would they need the fastest glass? Now, the 80-200 f/2.8 or the 70-200 f2.8 VR would definitely be some of the best glass for many reasons. But since the focal distance is *150mm less than what the poster is looking for, and the poster actually could use more length but is willing to settle for *450mm, paying more for a shorter length doesn't really make much sense.

*crop factor adjustment.

[Prospero]

First off read post 12 of this thread.
Thats what I responded to.
I have every right to be here.
I posted 3 times and got rude remarks all 3 times.
I have been into photography since the 1950's I don't need some wannabe getting rude because I offer a different view.
I was told I need to show seniors respect.
HA HA HA
I taught college courses before they could talk.
The so called help they lend is the worse advise you can give.
Bye cheap glass for now?
Thats just plain stupid.
Bye a cheap Nikon 50 f1.8 and save for the next lense.
You can bye a used good lense from adorama for the price of garbage sigma glass. I bought a demo 70-200 f 2.8 for 525 and It was beautiful. I already have one, but i dont pass up on a bargin. That lense in 10 years with be worth exactly the same, or more.
In 10 years sigma is worth 15 bucks.
Until you learn to read punk keep your mouth shut.

First of all, the rude replys you got after posting your views were not rude. It is not rude to have a different opinion than you. It does not matter that you are such a big-shot photographer with more than fifty years of experience. That kind of crap does not make your opinion more valuable than that of any of the other posters here.

Especially on internet fora it makes no sense to boast with experience. Anybody here can claim to have 50+ years of experience; there's no way anybody can find out wether it is true or not. So, post some of your professional, high-quality wrestling photographs before making any claims on your experience.

I think it is you who has a problem reading. Britkev does not say that the 70-300 of Sigma is the best lens, but merely the best of the cheap 70-300s. The 80-200 is a lot more expensive than that.
To add to that, the 80-200 is clearly not the lens the OP is looking for. The OP has stated he needs a reach of at least 300mm. Of course, you could use a teleconverter on the 80-200, but in that case you might as well buy a 70-300, since the quality of such a lens is not that much worse than that of the 80-200 with TC.

The only thing you have said here that makes the tiniest bit of sense is that it is better to go for the expensive glass straight away. I agree, in the long run it might be cheapest. However, if you don't have the money or are not willing to spend that much in one go, it makes no sense to buy only a 50 f/1.8 and wait until you have enough to buy the expensive glass. The reason for that is that during the time you are saving money, you do not have a kit you can be happy with. If you shoot tele a lot, there's no way you are going to be happy with only a 50 f/1.8.

Sure, the Sigma won't be worth anything in 10 years, but what does matter. If you want to upgrade the Sigma, you won't lose all that much anyway, given that it is cheap glass. Also, I own the Sigma, and I really don't give a thing that the value of this lens is depreciating. With the lens I can take the pictures I want to take with a, to me, acceptable quality. And that's all that matters.

However, should the OP follow your advice (I wouldn't recommend it :) ) and go for the expensive glass straight away, here's a list of lenses he could consider:
- Nikkor 80-400 f/4-5.6VR
- Sigma 50-500 f/4-6.3
- Sigma 80-400 f/4.5-5.6OS
- Sigma 100-300 f/4
- Sigma 120-300 f/2.8

These lenses do have the reach the OP wants, and are more practical than the high end Nikkor tele primes.

Finally, could you please move to another forum, there are plenty on the internet: www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com) , www.fredmiranda.com (http://www.fredmiranda.com) , www.stevesdigicams.com (http://www.stevesdigicams.com) , www.photo.net (http://www.photo.net) and many more. You are only ruining the pleasant atmosphere this forum used to have.
________________

Drama, I think either the Sigma or the Nikkor with VR will suit you well. You can always upgrade if they don't meet your requirements, after all. Sure, you will lose some money, but relative to the price you have to pay for the expensive glass, it's really not all that much.

The Nikkor with VR is definitly better in performance than the Sigma. Also, the VR can come in really handy. The Sigma's macro mode is also very nice, though. You can take great macros with it, even in low light where you can just use the onboard flash without the lens causing shadows on your subject.
Given that you come from a S3 which has a great macro mode, the Sigma may be well worth the money for you.

[drama]

I am in India, the Nikon VR is not available, just found out
I am hoping the Sigma stays available

Any second opinions on cold rain's suggestion to get a 18-55 & 50 1.8
Instead of the kit 18-70 lens, I was thinking of doing this & picking up a SB600 too ?

prospero
Thanks for the tips
I do enjoy an occasional macro, so + for the sigma

I am indeed budget constrained for now, so for now
1 18 70 kit or 18 55 + 50 1.8
2 sigma 70 300 apo
3 +/- SB 600
4 Lowe pro sling shot 200

[lightinsky]

drama, I think your choices for your lens cover most things you want to do.. And actually, very similar to what I have in mind for my D80. Unfortunately, I didn't have all the money to get everything at one shot.. So I started with the 50 1.8 to get a feel for the limitation and what I need... here's what I have to share..

Depending on your usage... the 18-55 might not cover a walk-around/travel lens... I was walking around NYC with my 50 ( I know its not a walkaround lens)... and found that on too many occasions, I need to go either wider or longer... so for me, I'm considering skipping the 18-55 to get a longer range, prob an 18-135? (does anyone have any views on this?? and suggestions??)

18-55 and 70-300 do cover pretty much the whole range, but does not provide a walkaround... (not sure if you considered this or if this is an issue)

[coldrain]

I have a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and it is quite a nice walk around lens.
I rather have to switch a lens anyway though, than have a comprimised all in one lens.

18mm is plenty wide normally, and 55mm is quite long.

So.. I would, if I were to buy a new Nikon on a tight budget, go for the 18-55 +70-300 APO DG Macro combination.

Of course one can consider the 18-70, but that lens is just not my thing.

I was "walking around" Greece with the 18-50 (and sometimes using a 70-200, but not often)... you judge for yourself how well that went.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29674

[tcadwall]

If the choice is 18-55mm AND 50mm 1.8 or the 18-70mm I am not sure what I would do.

I don't think that you are going to notice an optical difference between the 18-55mm adn the 18-70mm. You would more likely miss the range IMO.

The 18-70mm converts to 27-105mm for 35mm.
The 18-55mm converts to 27-83mm for 35mm

Portrait - type shots often fall between 85mm and a litte over 100mm.

Because of this, the 18-70mm is a pretty convenient lens for wide angle as well as portraits. It isn't the *best* portrait lens, but it is good.

The 50mm is a great lens, and CAN work for portraits, but you have to get REAL close to the subject to get a full headshot for instance.

But hey... I would say get the 18-70mm and the 50mm (too bad you don't list that as an option)

[lightinsky]

Why is the 18-70 more expensive than the 18-135?? (with the same ED-IF AF-S DX) at least according to B&H....

[coldrain]

Actually, portrait range is more like 80-135mm traditionally... but 75mm or 70mm will do ok too.

So, the 55mm falls nicely in that portrait range too.

The main reasons for me not liking the 18-70 is the very bad distortion at 18mm and the reversed zoom and focus rings.

As I tend to use wide angle quite often, that would be a BIG bother, that bad barrel distortion. And you will still have the Sigma 70-300 to cover the 105mm-135mm longer portrait stuff when wanted.

[coldrain]

Why is the 18-70 more expensive than the 18-135?? (with the same ED-IF AF-S DX) at least according to B&H....
That 18-70 has probably better optical elements, and will show less CA.
The 18-135 had a lot of barrel distortion too at 18mm.

For tests, look here:

www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

[Prospero]

It's definitly a tough choice. I think the main pro of the 18-70 is the range. Also, in terms of build quality this lens is definitly superior. However, you can easily crop a 55mm image to match a 70mm image.

In your first post you said that one of the reasons for going dSLR was because the S3s performance in low light did not satisfy you. In that case I think you shoud definitly get the 50 f/1.8, because the other lenses you picked are not really low light performers.

[tcadwall]

All good points. CR is right on the stated portrait range... I wasn't intending to give a full range, but see that my post does seem to read that way. I was merely saying that *most* fall between 85mm and a little over 100mm (35mm angle of view). Anything over the 105mm would typically be a headshot, and give you plenty of space between camera and subject.

I have taken a few portraits with my 50mm but most subjects would find that too close for headshots. Group subjects would probably be fine with a 50mm, but even for a couple (framed as headshot only) would still require pretty close positioning.

The 18-70mm by all comparison reviews that I have found, is optically superior to the 18-135mm. That said, many people still like the 18-135mm.

Regardless of which shorter zoom you get, you would still never regret having the 50mm f/1.8 available. Heck it will fit in your pocket (maybe with a slight bulge), so you won't be without it in case you need it.

You could even mount it, to get into an event that limits lens size (and have a zoom in a hidden compartment).

[Kellie]

Why is the 18-70 more expensive than the 18-135?? (with the same ED-IF AF-S DX) at least according to B&H....

That 18-70 has probably better optical elements, and will show less CA.
The 18-135 had a lot of barrel distortion too at 18mm.

For tests, look here:

www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Also, the 18-70 has better built quality. It has a metal mount and distance scale while the 18-135 has a plastic mount. You can definitely feel the difference. However, I actually prefer the lighter feel of the 18-135 for a walk around lens. I rarely use the wide end, so the distortion has not bothered me yet and I also have yet to notice much CA (although, I don't have a trained eye like some). I have used the 18-135 outdoors pretty much every day since I got it and have been pleasantly surprised. I do plan to upgrade to better optics someday, but for now this is definitely serving its purpose. (And no, I don't feel like I am wasting my money on cheaper glass because if I didn't have this lens, I wouldn't have all of the fantastic pictures I have taken of my children who change every day.)

Edited to add for anyone who doesn't know this - the ignore feature works quite well. ;)

[Prospero]

Heck it will fit in your pocket (maybe with a slight bulge)


Is that a 50 f/1.8 you're carrying, or are you just happy to see me? :D

I agree with your point about portrait, the 50 f/1.8 is not the most suitable lens for that. For headshots you not only have to be very close, but (from what I have heard) it does not compress the perspective as much as the 85, which may lead to a slightly larger nose. But, like Coldrain said, you can easily shoot the portrait with the 70-300.

[tcadwall]

Is that a 50 f/1.8 you're carrying, or are you just happy to see me? :D
LOL! but heck if that was the effect I was trying for, I would stick a 80-200mm f/2.8 in my pocket - at least that would make for a more powerful impression.

you can easily shoot the portrait with the 70-300.

I am not trying to disagree - but I do somewhat. I understand the point. I am merely point out that with a 18-55mm and a skip to 70mm, it is really a skip from 83mm to 105mm in 35mm equivalent.

So, while your headshots could be covered by the 70-xx zoom, you are still missing the range that many portraits fall into. The 70-xx zoom depending on available space (how far back does your studio / shooting space allow you to get) may not enable you to do much more than a head-shoulder shot.

I am merely pointing out that portraits shots may require more work to get framed the way you desire if you are missing that range. Maybe the OP doesn't even care about portraits! - honestly it wasn't mentioned.

[coldrain]

This is my main objection to the 18-70... the 18mm distortion. It is really not all that pretty, and I happen to care about that though... especially in wide angle architecture photos.

Nikon 18-70mm:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1870_3545/18mm_distortion.png

Nikon 18-55mm does quite bit better:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1855_3556/18mm_distortion.png

This is what my Sigma 18-50 f2.8 does:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28/dist/18mm_distortion.png

The Nikon 18-135, about as bad at the 18-70:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_18135_3556/18mm_distortion.png

And my Tokina 12-24 at 18mm... almost no barrel distortion! :
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1224_4_nikon/18mm_distortion.png

The Tokina at 12mm even beats all the others at 18mm with lower barrel distortion... why is that? :eek:

Source: www.photozone.de

[drama]

If I can get the Nikkor 70 300 VR, I might end up picking up a 18 55 to go with it
Initially when I was planning to pick up the d80, the 18 135 was well reccomended by several D80 users, as a walk around
I am not sure the 18 70 kit is available here, all users here seem to be pushing the 18 135
So I may end up with 18 135 & 50 1.8 (definitely picking up)

I would like to do some portraits too, these efforts so far have been seriously hampered by the S3's indoor performance
What is the reccomendation for using TC's with the sigma, any one try it ?
Just for my info, how do these lenses compare with the S3?

Cold rain, love the greece pictures :)
I might just pick up a 350D with a good 2.8 18 55 :D
I cant open open the photo comparisons

[Prospero]

If I can get the Nikkor 70 300 VR, I might end up picking up a 18 55 to go with it
Initially when I was planning to pick up the d80, the 18 135 was well reccomended by several D80 users, as a walk around
I am not sure the 18 70 kit is available here, all users here seem to be pushing the 18 135
So I may end up with 18 135 & 50 1.8 (definitely picking up)

I would like to do some portraits too, these efforts so far have been seriously hampered by the S3's indoor performance
What is the reccomendation for using TC's with the sigma, any one try it ?
Just for my info, how do these lenses compare with the S3?

Cold rain, love the greece pictures :)
I might just pick up a 350D with a good 2.8 18 55 :D
I cant open open the photo comparisons

I'm sorry to say that the recommendation on using a TC with a Sigma 70-300 is not to do it. The f/5.6 will become f/8 (with a 1.4 TC), so it will only be practical in very good light. Also, the optical quality of the lens will deteriorate.
It is possible though. You should use Kenko or Nikkor converters, not the Sigma converters because they only work with a select number of EX-line lenses. You may lose autofocus.

I'm not sure how the lenses will compare with the S3 lens. I assume favourably. Perhaps Coldrain has some facts and figures ;).

[drama]

Prospero

Thanks for the heads up on the TC
I will try the sigma & hopefully that will serve my purpose

[drama]

Went lens hunting today
Saw a 18 50 Tamron 2.8 for 400 $, was offered a trade in for my Niokn Kit lens plus 100 $
How is the Tamron 70 300 LD, saw somw reviews on fred miranda, rated similar to the sigma, any one here familiar with it?

[XaiLo]

Hey drama how goes it. :)

[drama]

Hi XaiLo
Planning up a DSLR :)
Any suggestions ?

[achuang]

Rooz
:)
sure

Achuang
That looks pretty good to me, it needs white balancing & has to be slightly underexposed
The full moons usually dont give much detail, interms of craters etc
BTW, what lens did you use ?

wrestling report

I will buy good glass later but a 200mm lens is not going to be very useful for me



Hey Drama,

hope the lens search is going well. Don't let wrestlingreport scare you off, because most people on this forum are very friendly and very willing to offer advice. I agree the moon does look quite orange/yellow, but that was the colour of the moon that night. That's why I didn't correct the whitebalance because it is accurate. You're right about underexposing a bit, it is a bit too bright. Thanks for the comments.

oh btw, the lens is a Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6....don't buy one. From what i've seen and read the sigma is a far better lens. The tamron is quite soft at most focal lengths, but especially at 300 is where it is worst.

[coldrain]

The Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro is better than the Tamron, especially at 300mm.

The only two 70-300's I would consider are the Sigma and the expensive Nikon 70-300 VR.

[XaiLo]

Drama I sent you a PM. :)

[drama]

Achuang & Cold Rain
Thanks for the heads up on the tamron, will look for the sigma
I would love a 70 300 VR

XaiLo
Have pm'ed you :)

[drama]

I ended up spotting both the DG & APO versions of the sigma 70 300, what is the difference, the DG version is 50 $ cheaper

[Prospero]

I ended up spotting both the DG & APO versions of the sigma 70 300, what is the difference, the DG version is 50 $ cheaper

The APO version is also a DG lens, and it is much better than the non-APO one. The APO version is the latest version and it has APO-glass elements, which reduces chromatic abberations and improves the sharpness.

[coldrain]

No, if you actually found not too old versions there are two versions:

Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO DG Macro
Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DG Macro

The difference is that some glass elements of the APO version are better quality, and it makes a difference.

The DG stands for that these have a new coating, to reduce purple fringing for digital cameras. Both are "DG", only one is "APO".

Sigma DC lenses are like the DG lenses (special coating) but are APS-C only.

Go for the APO DG version, it is only $50 more afteral.

[tcadwall]

LOL! Thanks to WR this question was PROBABLY overlooked when I asked it at the beginning of the thread... and then re-iterated it in response to some of the crap that WR was saying...


The OP appears to be looking for a longer than 200mm lens.

Are we even sure which Sigma he was talking about since there is an APO and non-APO.

Knowing this, along with what subject matter he shoots at the long end, would probably help know what he is "screaming" for.

[drama]

Prospero & Cold Rain

Thanks for the heads up on the APO version, will pick it up thanks :)

[leyo04]

Hi guys

getting my first dslr soon

These are the lenses I have chosen
1 18 70 kit lens
2 70 300 sigma
3 50 1.8

I do a lot of teleshots, so I need the reach
My s3 wasnt cutting it for indoor shooting & with the teleconverter, images were turning out too soft

Any ideas or suggestions welcome
My flickr page is linked in my signature

drama, this is the set-up I have currently with my D70s.

For the 70-300 I got the sigma APO with MACRO. it's a good lens.

Just add the sb-600 and you are good to go.

[drama]

Leyo
Glad to know you are using a D80 too :)
Thanks for the info

I am a bit confused on
Tamron 17 50 vs the kit Nikon 18 70 + 50 1.8

[leyo04]

Leyo
Glad to know you are using a D80 too :)
Thanks for the info

I am a bit confused on
Tamron 17 50 vs the kit Nikon 18 70 + 50 1.8

mine is D70s. :D

[drama]

Leyo

oops my bad :D

[drama]

I got a Nikon Sb s22s, as a gift from a friend, can I sue it with my D80

The other issue I havent resolved is the 18 70+ 50 1.8 vs the 18 50 2.8 Tamron

Have ordered the Sigma APO 70 300

[drama]

Major update

The D80 I was being offered was not warrantied, so picked up a 350D with warranty instead
Along with the following lenses
1 Sigma 17-70 f2.8 to 4.5
The excellent macro mode in this was the deciding point over the
Tamron 18-55 f2.8

2 Sigma 70 300 APO DG

3 Canon 50 f1.8 II

Pretty happy with the setup, getting used to the switch over
Thanks everyone :)

[jcon]

You changed your mind because it didnt have a warranty? You could have gotten the D80 from somewhere that included a warranty. Seems kind of strange to choose a different camera because of that, but anyway, enjoy your new camera!

[XaiLo]

I believe drama lives outside of America, his local options maybe limited.

[drama]

jcon

I am in India, the difference in price between a warrantied & unwarrantied product is nearly 80 % here
If I had gone for a warrantied D80, the body with kitlens would cost as much as the 350D with the three lenses, I bought

[longroad]

Strange
I got a double warranty with my D80 for no extra cost, in fact I paid even less than the regular price.