PDA

View Full Version : sigma lens question



wilson44512
10-12-2008, 10:34 PM
can some one tell me if this lens will work with my D40. or does sigma make one like this for it? and do you think it would be better then the Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro

http://i35.tinypic.com/30uxogn.jpg

TheWengler
10-12-2008, 10:42 PM
Didn't you have a 55-200 VR? That's probably better than both of these. I used to have the Tamron (in a Pentax mount) and it had lots of purple fringing problems.

wilson44512
10-12-2008, 10:55 PM
i was looking for some thing with a little more reach and the tamron aint working to good

Visual Reality
10-12-2008, 11:24 PM
You will need to find a Sigma lens with "HSM" to autofocus on the D40.

K1W1
10-13-2008, 12:09 AM
can some one tell me if this lens will work with my D40.


Yes it will work.
No it won't autofocus.

If you really want one I have one at home with very little use that is doing the paperweight duty at the moment. Ordinary is how I would describe it's performance. The 55-200VR Nikon is streets better and if you need 300mm reach I recommend paying the extra money for the Nikon 70-300VR if you can afford it.

Dread Pirate Roberts
10-13-2008, 03:02 AM
On macro it's only 1:2 magnification too.

Looking to photograph microscopic birds Wilson?:D

K1W1
10-13-2008, 04:48 AM
And the so called macro function only works with the lens extended between 200 and 300mm which is exactly where it is soft which sort of defeats the point of macro IMO.

wilson44512
10-13-2008, 07:27 AM
On macro it's only 1:2 magnification too.

Looking to photograph microscopic birds Wilson?:D

wow how did you know thats what i wanted to do with it.

wilson44512
10-13-2008, 07:32 AM
On macro it's only 1:2 magnification too.

Looking to photograph microscopic birds Wilson?:D

wow how did you know thats what i wanted to do with it.:)

i posted the wrong lens. its this one. and it does say for nikon. see im on a very tight budget. because im on disabilty. and it would be very hard to save $500-$600 bucks for the nikon 70-300VR.:( that is why i was looking at the sigma


http://i33.tinypic.com/x25jt1.jpg

mugsisme
10-13-2008, 08:07 AM
The Nikon lens is not that much. http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?item=NK70300VR
I got mine from Abes of Maine. I was very happy with them, and they did not try to hard sell me anything else (except for the filters, which I got elsewhere).

Not affiliated. Just a happy customer. (I have ordered from them twice. I also got my SB400 from them. They gave me a code to get $10 off my next order. You may want to google and see if there are any codes you could use, and I think they have free shipping as well.)

Visual Reality
10-13-2008, 08:35 AM
70-300 VR is $479.95 and a much better option.

Rooz
10-13-2008, 03:29 PM
70-300 VR is $479.95 and a much better option.

+1.

sell your tammie and forget the sigma, that should bring you in line with your budget. just go with the nikon 70-300VR. faster AF, better IQ and it has VR. remember at 300mm, VR starts to become quite important. not sure what disability you are on but if it effects your hand/ body stability in any way at all, this will seriously effect your shots at 300mm so i would think that VR would be essential.

erichlund
10-13-2008, 04:08 PM
I can remember when the general consensus was that the Sigma APO 70-300 was the best thing since sliced bread. How times change.

Rooz
10-13-2008, 04:11 PM
as a tight budget option i think it still is.

K1W1
10-13-2008, 04:20 PM
I can remember when the general consensus was that the Sigma APO 70-300 was the best thing since sliced bread. How times change.

So can I and it was a big improvement over the Nikon 70-300G lens that I got "free" with my D50 then sold for $150. :D
But as you say times change.
I would be reluctant to buy the new HSM version of the Sigma without seeing some very positive reviews of it AND without being able to actually try one on my camera because if it hasn't improved optically since the earlier version it will be a disappointment. CA was TERRIBLE.