Got to do a wedding this Sat., so I decided to pick up Sigma's new 17-70 f2.8-4 lens. Ordered through Amazon prime and it should be here on Fri. Now I will be able to sell the D7000 as a complete kit.
Any takers? :D
This lens came out on 2006 or has it been updated?
One thing to watch with the original version (and maybe the update if there is an update) is that the f2.8 was a tiny bit of marketing spin. F2.8 ONLY applied at 17mm focal length. Move the zoom even a fraction off 17mm and you lost the 2.8 aperture.
I don't know there Falcon. It appears that the Nikkor 18-105 has a little sharper optics. If the objective is to squeeze out 2/3 of a stop then it makes sense, I guess. But, compared side-by-side, the image quality seems to be a tad lower on the Siggie, and that is using a 16MP sensor. The D7100 may really tax the Sigma's capabilities. From what I've seen, the 18-105 seems to do a respectable job with the 7100.
Personally. I like having the extra 35mm FL to play with without having to change to the 55-200 (or the 70-300 Tammy in your case).
On the other hand I look forward to your shots with the new lens. :)
P.S. I've decided to quit buying consumer glass, and just take the time and save up for pro quality. As DSLR's move to higher density and full frame sensors it's become apparent that consumer glass cannot take full advantage of the newer sensors. Additionally pro grade glass retains its value, so... fer now I'll try to get the best out of what I have.
Will try to post some soon. I did want the extra 2/3 stop of speed. Preliminary shots look quite good. TWT.
Emeka, the musician I met in Central Park (New York)
Nice shots of the collection Chris.
That is the better of the shots Dread. Album cover for sure. When will we see some additional "holiday" shots?
As smaller cameras improve in quantum leaps and DSLR development largely stagnates the gap in IQ for most applications is now minimal and reducing with each new model. If you are after absolute perfection with every shot then yes a full frame DSLR and mega expensive lens is what you need but are you really after that or even capable of achieving it and will you have the right equipment with you when you need it?
As Rooz and I and many, many others have discovered smaller, lighter cameras and lenses have huge advantages in many ways. I now carry two cameras in my bag every day and both combined weigh less than a 70-200 f2.8 lens, considerably less in fact. I would put the IQ of the X100s against any Nikon DX camera equipped with a similar lens any day and I know which would win.
Rather than going head long into a collection of heavy and expensive glass that is a pain to carry and tends to be left behind most of the time consider options that are both less expensive, more portable and will encourage use rather than just increasing the income of your chiropractor.
Rooz's image of the two macro lenses above is a classic example. Look at the relative size of the Nikon 105 vs the Olympus 60 (120mm equiv) and have a good look at macro images from both. In many ways the Oly smokes the Nikon and I for one can see no possible argument that larger and heavier is better for macro photography.