Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 21, 2005, 3:04 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
cameranserai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 548
Default

I have the 80/200 IFED lens which I have had for 10 years, plus, I wrote some time ago, I dug out the old push/pull 75/300 4.5/5.6 lens which to my amazement worked fine too with the D70. I think I last used that with my F2! I posted some pix of it too. Right, as regards suitability for digital bodies only, well, the DX lenses are supposedly like that, but the 18/70 but for fun I have just put it on the old F90X and it works! Well, I didn't have a film in the camera but you know what I mean. Similarly the old 24/120 which was my everyday lens for years works on the D 70 quite well. So I question whether the Sigma will only work on a digital body - it is only a lens after all. I reckon that for everyday use the Sigmas are perfectly adequate for amateur use, since they are not used to take 100 shots a day normally, but I use Nikon lenses for reliability, plus they are tax deductible! Oh, by the way, the TC14E doesn't fit the 18/70 in case any thought of asking!

NHL, the 80/200 was mostly used for weddings, and was used throughout its range because of the superb sharpness andbokeh when on aperture priority. Yes it is internal focusing, and I believe silent wave. It was a damned sight quieter than the 24/120 anyway! As regards the sharpest lens, please consider the VR effect if it is importantbefore recommending the Sigma 100/300 F4. The 70/200 with TC14E is F3.5 at 420mm equivalent, and I would refer you, as I do everyone, to this review:-

http://www.bythom.com/70200VRlens.htm

I do not decry Sigma lenses at all, since many here seem to have great results with them (a seagull photo recently published comes to mind) but keep things in perspective please.
cameranserai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2005, 9:55 PM   #22
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

cameranserai wrote:
Quote:
NHL, the 80/200 was mostly used for weddings, and was used throughout its range because of the superb sharpness and bokeh when on aperture priority. Yes it is internal focusing, and I believe silent wave. It was a damned sight quieter than the 24/120 anyway! As regards the sharpest lens, please consider the VR effect if it is important before recommending the Sigma 100/300 F4. The 70/200 with TC14E is F3.5 at 420mm equivalent, and I would refer you, as I do everyone, to this review:
Can you do the same and keep an open mind please: http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_85165_3128crx.aspx

BTW the non-VR version is slighly sharper than the 'VR' (ditto with the Canon 'IS' version), and the AF-s is slighly better than the non-AF-s 80-200!
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelef


Also I don't know how you come up with f/3.5!
One stop down from f/2.8 is f/4 with a 1.4x teleconverter... http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm
1. A lens without a converter is always better than another with (plus it's already better without!) :?
2. With your fuzzy math a 300 f/4 with the 1.5x crop is 450 (300 x 1.5), which is slighly better than 420 (ie 200 x 1.4 x 1.5) wouldn't you think??? :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 1:59 AM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 25
Default

the source of my confusion:

the 70-200 VR is too expensive;

the 80-200 2.8 Nikon = 70-200 2.8 HSM Sigma in price (B&H) but does the 80-200 have HSM/SWM? B&H's site does not list that. with a 1.4 TC they can cover teh range i need.

the 100-300/4 is really perfect for meas i shoot between 100-300 when i am using long distnacebut it uses 82mm filters. Ouch. BTW so far even using a slower lens (70-300 f4.5-5.6 ED) I am able to get by without using a tripod at 300mm. At 420/450mm (300 x 1.5) this might change though!

To add to this quandry what wide zoom does one mate the tele zoom with? I would prefer a wide zoom that covers 24mm-80mm and can be used in low light (read f2.8) The Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC will work on the digtial body but will not work on the film body. In addition to thisits fitlers are 67mm!

the choice of zoom will also determine my choice of other lenses.

options: get the 18-50 sigma for the D70 and another 24/28-70/80 lens like the Tamron 28-75 XRDi or Sigma 24-70 EX DG for the film camera and then the 2 cameras only share the tele zoom. this will mean that thetamron 28-75 XR diand 18-50 DC lenses can share 67mm filters. Howwever if i get the 100-300 sigma then i'd have to get the 24-70 sigma so that they can share 82mm filters.

If all 3 lenses are to share filters i'd have to either find

1) an affodable long zoom with 67mm glass

2) wide zoom for the D70 using 77mm glass (for the film camera Sigma has the 24-70 EX DG).

filters and poalizers can add up. so to me this (all lenses share filters) is an important requirement.

At this time I am leaning towards the tamron 28-75 and sigma 18-50 as they share fitlers only i cant find a long zoom that can do the same. The tamron 28-75 is also rated higherand $80 lessthan the sigma 24-70! Right?
navin advani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 7:24 AM   #24
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

navin advani wrote:
Quote:
the 100-300/4 is really perfect for meas i shoot between 100-300 when i am using long distnace but it uses 82mm filters. Ouch. BTW so far even using a slower lens (70-300 f4.5-5.6 ED) I am able to get by without using a tripod at 300mm. At 420/450mm (300 x 1.5) this might change though!
IMO the 82mm is a non-issue
1. It shows how much of a large optic you are getting, and not being skimpy on the glass like on a lesser lens...
2. A UV is probably the most you'll ever need, a polarizer is not as practical on a long tele - first with a narrower FOV there's no large expense of sky or water to maximize this benefit, and two you'll lose 2-stop, can you imagine shooting at f/8?


As to the higher shutter speed, this is a controversial issue and plenty of sites are devoting to this magnification of the shutter speed; However this is just my view: Unlike a teleconverter you are not modifying the focal lenght and the image projected in the mirror box is the same wether a camera is cropped or full-frame hence the focal lenght/distance to the film plane are all identical -> the camera movement/shake is the same as well. Think about it, would an VR/IS system compensates 1.6/1.5 time as much on a cropped camera? Of course not - at the instant the shutter is released the same picture is taken except the 'outside' part is cropped, and not captured by the sensor - ie the relative movement of the camera (cropped or uncropped) is the same: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...dslr-mag.shtml
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2005, 11:13 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 25
Default

oops i seem to have confused myself :-)

I could get by using 82 mm filters and a 67-82mm step up ring. Obviously I could get teh Sigma 24-70 EX DG and hence only need the step up ring with the 18-50. BTW i have read that the Tamron 28-75 XR Di is a better and cheaper lens than the Sigma 24-70 EX DG. So67mm glass need not always be lesser than 82mm glass. Right?

i have an odd way of using UV filters. I leave them on the lens for most of the time but when i am taking photos i take them off unless there is a crowd or kids around me. I do find a significant difference when i do this. the UV filter for me is more to protect the lens than to cut UV even in a sunny country like India.

The polarizer is often useful for cutting out sun glare. I have used it to take photos of lake palaces, flamingo,archtecture set against the skyand the like. I hence needit at 300mmtoo (along with a hood)as one cant get as close as one likes or the right angle all the time.

BTW what is this about changing lenses with the body facing down. I find that back breaking and/or a pain in the neck. My niece does it then she is 20-30 years younger!
navin advani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 7:51 AM   #26
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

navin advani wrote:
Quote:
... BTW i have read that the Tamron 28-75 XR Di is a better and cheaper lens than the Sigma 24-70 EX DG. So 67mm glass need not always be lesser than 82mm glass. Right?
Cheaper yes but not sharper... according to this guy: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470

-> Click on the Compare1,Compare2, and 6Crops images and I guess you already know the 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG also shares the same 82mm filters (ie HUGE optics)!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 8:07 AM   #27
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 25
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
navin advani wrote:
Quote:
... BTW i have read that the Tamron 28-75 XR Di is a better and cheaper lens than the Sigma 24-70 EX DG. So 67mm glass need not always be lesser than 82mm glass. Right?
Cheaper yes but not sharper... according to this guy: http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/sigma_2470

-> Click on the Compare1,Compare2, and 6Crops images and BTW the 24-70 EX DG also shares the same 82mm filters (ie HUGE optics)!
i know see my earlier post.

"options: get the 18-50 sigma for the D70 and another 24/28-70/80 lens like the Tamron 28-75 XRDi or Sigma 24-70 EX DG for the film camera and then the 2 cameras only share the tele zoom. this will mean that thetamron 28-75 XR diand 18-50 DC lenses can share 67mm filters. Howwever if i get the 100-300 sigma then i'd have to get the 24-70 sigma so that they can share 82mm filters"


However 2 sites prefered the tamron over the sigma.

photozone rated the tamron a 4.14 v/s 3.4 for the sigma.





Canon EF 2.8 24-70mm USM L
4.16 (3) = very-good

Canon EF 2.8 28-70mm USM L
4.15 (5) = very-good

Tamron AF 2.8 28-75mm LD XR Aspherical SP
4.14 (3) = very-good


Nikkor AF 2.8 35-70mm D
4.11 (5) = very-good

Nikkor AF-S 2.8 28-70mm IF ED D
4.05 (4) = very-good

Pentax SMC-FA 2.8 28-70mm AL
3.90 (5) = very-good

Minolta AF 2.8 28-70mm G
3.76 (4) = very-good

Tokina AF 2.8 28-80mm AT-X Pro
3.66 (4) = good

Canon EF 2.8-4.0 28-80mm USM L
3.56 (4) = good

Sigma AF 2.8 28-70mm EX DF
3.50 (2) = good

Sigma AF 2.8 24-60mm EX DG

3.48 (3) = good


Tokina AF 2.6-2.8 28-70mm AT-X Pro II
3.42 (5) = good

Sigma AF 2.8 24-70mm EX DF DG
3.40 (3) = good

photographyreview:





TamronAF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di

4.52 of 5
42 Reviews





Sigma24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro

3.67 of 5
3 Reviews
navin advani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 10:09 AM   #28
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

They're based on average... the Tamron is well known and has been available a long time (hence 42).

The Sigma 'DG' is just released (1 bad reviewer out of 3)... you might want to wait a while for the data point...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 11:39 AM   #29
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 25
Default

true. i can wait. 82 mm looks huge. my present lenses are 62mm dia. i just saw a friendds 80-400mm Nikon VR. impressive. He also has the 17-55 Nikon and 28-70 2.8 Nikon. Wow. Nikon does make lovely stuff. just too expensive though.

this same guy (he uses a D100 and F100) told me that instead of zooms lenses i should consider a set of 4 primes. (20/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8) and a 1.4x teleconverter. the pimes can then be used on film or digital and offer sharper images as there are fewer elements. also nikon primes tend to be used by pros so nikon uses better glass on it's primes. The rest can be done by cropping the image.

i asked him why he uses zooms. he said he got them when he was not so learned and they are too expensive to give up. India being Canon country and a low income land there are few who would give him a reasonable resale price on the zooms.

I dont think primes will work for me as must of my shooting is candid. Does his argument hold any water? Thanks NHL.

navin advani is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 2:13 PM   #30
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

navin advani wrote:
Quote:
... 82 mm looks huge. my present lenses are 62mm dia.
The reason 'fast' lens are HUGE is that the max aperture is a ratio: :idea:
http://www.srphotography.co.uk/srpho...read.php?p=340

It's by design that they are larger as comparable to variable aperture zoom where this ratio varies because the lens diameter stay constant while one increase the focal lenght

Prime lenses are always sharper because they are much simpler to design (ie less elements), and also no worry about keeping this aperture ratio constant... Can you live with the inconvenience though? I have an 85mm f/1.2 as well as a 150mm f/2.8 too, but I use them in specialised situations: the 85 is mainly for portraits while the 150 is my macro :?
NHL 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 8:07 AM.