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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 15, 2014, 12:30 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff View Post
Thanx for responce. Hmm...sigma 17-70 wasn't on my wish list...I'll definitely think about that lens too. And what about nikon 16-85? Bit wider, maybe is the best choice of all? Mahy people were satisfied.
The Nikon 16-85 is a very good lens, but it's also much more expensive. I mentioned the 16-85 in my initial response to this topic, but in your scenario, money seems to be more limited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff View Post
And for 55-200, I know that isn't excellent lens, and not tooo far, but it's so cheap with kit...it's less than 120$ new!!! For that price, it's hard to beat...tamron is more than 200$ used! And I'm more into regular zoom, just starting and exploring long tele lens...55-200 is good start I think? Quality I search is in regular zoom...better to spend more on that, am I right?
The Nikon 55-200 isn't bad, but for "light sports ... nature, animal shots" it wouldn't work as well as a longer lens.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 15, 2014, 6:04 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,157
Default

TCav is right, the Nikkor 16-85mm is a great lens, but you pay a price for that. And, even though you say it has a greater focal range than the Sigma 17-70mm, you'll have the that focal range covered with a 70-300 or the Nikkor 55-200mm.

By the way, there is a refurbed Sigma 17-70mm on their webste with a Nikon mount for $269USD.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/17...sm-refurbished

With the cost savings of the refurbed lens, perhaps you'll reconsider the 70-300mm instead of the 55-200mm.

Anyways, good luck with whatever you decide.
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 9:56 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 11
Default

Thanx for advices...I'll probably order that sigma...it's good price. But I'm interested is 70-300mm significantly better for shooting moving subject than 55-200mm...because that's important to me, for shooting my kid while running or so...?
Duff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 6:00 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duff View Post
Thanx for advices...I'll probably order that sigma...it's good price. But I'm interested is 70-300mm significantly better for shooting moving subject than 55-200mm...because that's important to me, for shooting my kid while running or so...?
The reason most people buy a dslr camera is exactly the reason you stated.
The kids are growing up and you want to take action shots of them running, playing schools sports and if you have a daughter, gymnastics, dance etc.
It is in this area of photography, most people get frustrated. That 55-200mm is priced right, sounds like it certainly will do the job. What most people don't realize, until they buy the 55-200mm is that it is slow to focus, doesn't focus really well in poorly lit indoor gymnasiums and often times you need to use a longer focal length than 200mm because you are too far away.

If, your primary motivation is to take pictures of your children running, playing and growing up then get the lens that will allow you to do just that:
The Nikkor 70-300mm VR lens is the one that will put a smile on your face.

I don't have enough personal experience with the tamron 70-300mm to recommend it.

Zig.
__________________
http://scortoncreekgallery.smugmug.com/

So you want to be a better photographer? Open your eyes and take a look at what is all around you.
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2014, 6:39 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

The 70-300 is a better range for outdoor sports than the 55-200, especially if you're shooting from the stands. It's also better for wildlife photography.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav 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 9:10 AM.