Thoughts on my possible lens purchase

[blamkin]

Hi all, very new here and a new weekend photographer as of last year.

Decided to take the plunge and buy a DSLR, and I've spent several hours researching cameras and lenses. Thought before I pulled the trigger I'd get some opinions from the experts.

I will use this new camera almost entirely while hiking and canoeing; I love to do the typical shots and what I call artsy close-ups; I'm sure you know what I'm talking about and working on getting better at.

The biggest reason I'm buying a camera is that last year I took 4000 pictures over 16 hikes, and really have just fallen into loving that great shot - but I'm just not happy with the sharpness of the images from my girlfriend's kodak easyshare (it's been a truly great camera for $200, really).

In any case, it's camera and lens time. Here's what I'm thinking and I'd love any and all negative or positive feedback.

1) Nikon D50. I don't post process very much at all.
2) Most of my shots are from telephoto, so I'm going to spend the most on this lens. Right now I'm thinking the sigma 70-200, but would love other suggestions.
3) I think I will buy the D50 plus the 18-70 lens that comes with the D70, for the closer pix.

Ok, that's my thoughts. Of course I'll buy extra batteries and mem cards, but my budget looks like $500 from the camera, about $650 for the tele lens, and however cheaply I can buy the second (closeup?) lens -- looks like about $1400 at this point

(here's an ebay item with a new D50 and the 18-70 for $750).

I'm willing to go up to $1750 to *maybe* $2K for the whole shlameel.

As I see it, options for that $400 - $600 are:

1) instead get the D70s + 18-70 kit (+$250)
2) stay with the D50 but buy a better tele zoom
3) stay with the D50 and Sigma 70-200 and get something better for closeups.

Any, and trust me all, opions are welcome.

OH I would like these lenses to last a while - no plans on upgrading in the next few years, only maybe adding longer lenses or a 'prime.'

THANKS!

--Bill

[coldrain]

Well, the lens you are thinking of, the 70-200 f2.8 from Sigma, is a really great lens. But you do have to go handle one in the shop for yourself, because it is rather heavy. It may be too heavy for your uses (hiking/canoeing).
So, while picture quality wise the Sigma is top notch, you may want to look at something less heavy.

Canon has a 70-200 F4 L, but that will not do you much good on the D50. So your options in the light weight category are limitted somewhat.

The Nikon 18-200VR is a bit more expensive than the 650$ you mention, but it will cover the range the 18-70 you were comtemplating about too. For its type it is a very capable lens, and on the long end the VR may come in handy.

Another lens you should consider is the Sigma 70-300 APO DG. It will give you a welcome extra 100mm reach, has quite surprising image quality for a lens this cheap, and will save a bundle in weight for your hiking and such.

So, while the Sigma 70-200 is amazing for the money, check it out in person first. The Nikon 18-200VR and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG are two very different options to consider.

[Payne]

You will love the 18-200VR

[blamkin]

thanks coldrain and Payne...

... I already like the option of just the VR, that's awesome.

Maybe that and a prime for closeups and call it done 'til I want some crazy long telephoto.

Perfect suggestion, thank you.

Clear pictures. Worth it to me.

[erichlund]

thanks coldrain and Payne...

... I already like the option of just the VR, that's awesome.

Maybe that and a prime for closeups and call it done 'til I want some crazy long telephoto.

Perfect suggestion, thank you.

Clear pictures. Worth it to me.

I too like the 18-200VR, although coldrain's other suggestions were also good choices. (coldrain - please don't keel over dead on me )

For a while, you could actually find the 18-200VR for $650, but I haven't seen it at that for a while. These days you will pay $750, but you shouldn't pay more. Of course, if you buy on ebay, anything can happen. I'm talking about retail. You might be able to find a returned lens for less if you are in a big market. Some guys will buy this lens and then return it when it doesn't match up to their 70-200VR. Uh...$750 for one, $1500 for t'other...duh.

[Payne]

There's one cheap and very good prime, the 50mm f1.8D and another not so cheap but excellent prime, the 85mm 1.8D

[Vich]

In my experience, the Sigma 70-300 APO DG doesn't compare with top notch lens'. I have one (Canon mount) and it's really only good for it's Macro capability. I know ObiJuan has made a very nice macro portfolio with his copy. Also; my poor performance complaints are mainly at 300mm, but I'd say what's the point of 300mm if its results are poor.

Example:
Sigma:


Tamron 28-75 (even at ISO 1600 it's far better)


I like the sounds of going prime. They make for a light load, and shooting with primes can force your creativity albiet missing shots requiring a different length.

[Bullitt]

Could a guy be just as happy with the Nikkor 18-200VR lens and it's quality, compared to having both the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens?

I have seen some photos on this site with the Nikkor 18-200VR and they seem pretty good, also saving the hindrance of changing lenses all the time.

Does the Nikkor have a metal mount like the Sigma's, that is a concern of mine also...

[blamkin]

Tamron 28-75 (even at ISO 1600 it's far better)


I like the sounds of going prime. They make for a light load, and shooting with primes can force your creativity albiet missing shots requiring a different length.

Of course the comparison makes me want the tamron -- but is there an equal (or better) quality lens that goes maybe 17-70?

It's looking a lot like, for the quality I want, I'm going to have to carry a short prime (20mm?) for 'closeups,' of flowers and such, a 17-70 length lens, then some sort of high quality 70-200 (300?) lens.

At this point, I'm seriosly leaning towards just buying the D50 body, the lens that comes with the D70 (17-70), and then just keep on researching until I find that perfect 70-300 lens.

Looking at comparison pix, it's just so hard to know when someone's doctored up a picture. Some of the shots of the 17-200 look amazing, others look like nothing special. Ditto on the sigma 70-200.

It's mainly 'clarity' I'm talking about; crisp focus and well -- there's probably already a better term for it

--Bill

[blamkin]

Could a guy be just as happy with the Nikkor 18-200VR lens and it's quality, compared to having both the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens?

Exactly what I was wondering.