Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 12, 2005, 8:46 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Default

Well the title say's it all, i just sold my Nikon 8800 to get a Rebel 350D.

Now how does the quality of the Nikon Lens compare to the lens I am looking at getting, which is the Sigma 18-125mm F/ 3.5 - 5.6. I know I am loosing some on the Telephoto end, but how about image quality generated?

The nikon had a 35 - 350 mm = 10 time zoom, but I rarely ever used the long end, unless I had a tri pod.
pikkashoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 12, 2005, 8:53 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Ewok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 142
Default

I'd recommend something like the 50 f/1.8, for the first few months. Get used to what you can do with a dSLR, and learn the wonders of RAW, then decide what lens(es) to get.
Ewok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2005, 10:09 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
TheGhost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 103
Default

Check out the PBase database for user shots with this lens, it's pretty decent
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/1...5-56_dc_if_asp

While this covers the expected quality of the lens, there are other features to consider. The lens is not fast at the tele end (F/5.6), it does not have HSM auto-focusing (this just means it focuses slower and a bit louder), and it doesn't come with any image stabilization (if you're into that sort of thing).

Other Sigma lenses you can look at:

1) Sigma 24-135 F/2.8 – 4.5
- Trade off some of the wide end for the tele end
- Optically a tiny bit better
- Faster lens than the 18-125.
- A bit more $$$
PBase: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/24135_28

2) Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 EX
- Tradoff on both the wide end and tele end
- Much faster than the previous lenses
- Optically superior to the previous lenses.
- A bit more $$$
PBase: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/2470_28_ex_dg_asp_df
TheGhost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 13, 2005, 4:41 PM   #4
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i would recommend the sigma 18-200 over the 18-125.. it does not suffer from the vignette of the 18-125 and is quite sharp up until about 170 or so.. (i have seen a few examples from a pro friend of mine, and they are great, he loves this little lens, and keep in mind he has all L besides this) its actually quite a good little walkabout lens and one that i would consider buying for a travel lens..
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 9:31 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Default

I also considered the 18-200.

No one answered my question though, the one I am more interested in, how does the Sigma lens compare in terms of sharpness, color and overall picture quality to the lens my 8800 had which such a large focal range. Can i expect better overall picture quality, or is the lens the 8800 of very high quality.
pikkashoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 10:59 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Default

One last question, do point and shoots have a crop factor. Like in the 8800's case is the 35-350mm the actual focal length. Im guessing there is no crop factor, but I am not sure.
pikkashoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 11:04 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

pikkashoe wrote:
Quote:
One last question, do point and shoots have a crop factor. Like in the 8800's case is the 35-350mm the actual focal length. Im guessing there is no crop factor, but I am not sure
Yeap - It's already figured in!
-> the true focal length of the 8800 is only 8.9 to 89mm (explaining the shallower DOF)


To answer your other question is harder since the 18-200 will be wider @ ~28mm which will capture more of an image than the 8800 would
(BTW the 18-200 is an 11x zoom even though it does go as far as the Nikon), secondly the resulting image on a dSLR is tied to the better quality of the sensor and not just the lens...
Also it depends at what EV value :idea:

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 6:36 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Default

NHL im confused?

Ok so the Nikon's focal length is 8.9 to 89mm, wouldnt 8.9 mm be a wider angle than 18 mm on the Sigma? Also how come the actual focal length is less than what is advertised by nikon of 35 to 350 mm.

So having a better sensor typically will result in a better overall picture quality over the Nikkon? Well I cant wait to get my Rebel tommorow!

Going to play around with the kit lens first, then decide on upgrading, got my eyes on that 70-200 f4 L, but the price tag is quite high for me, considering I dont take that many pictures, but of course I am always the one to have the best toys, so I might end up with it in the long run.


pikkashoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 8:06 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

wait a minute there. I think you got confused... but you said it already...

well, i'm also a little confused...

anyway! 35-350 advertised by nikon is probably the 35mm equivalent... those small numbers... (8.9-89) are the actual focal lengths Because of the build itself.... the sensor and lens are sooooooooo tiny compared to an slr, so try imagining if the focal length WAS literally 35-350... not good... instead you can make the components super small and put them closer together to get a focal length which is equivalent to some other focal length in the slr world.

if you get the rebel and the sigma 18-200, because of the multiplication factor... (the sensor is smaller than 35mm and will magnify the focal length), the lens will act like 18-200 x 1.6 = 28.8 - 360mm ...

comparing to the nikon's equivalent of 35-350, the sigma's wider.

yes, a sensor and lens combo determines the overall quality... but i think the main advantage for dslr sensors is ISO control rather than actual quality.
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 16, 2005, 9:08 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5
Default

Ok so i got it, the sensor in the nikon is alot smaller than the sensor in the canon.

So if the sensor in the nikon was the same size as 35 mm film, then the 35 to 350 mm focal length would apply, but since its tiny, the 8 to 89 mm applies.

Now one last question, so when comparing focal length for telephoto shots, i would assume to use the 350 designation to compare to the sigma's 200 mm ( or actually after crop 320 mm, - - how did you come up with 360mm??? - - )

Now the wide angle question has been answered, its comparing 35 mm to the sigma's 18 mm.


pikkashoe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:27 AM.