ok, so i'm researching the rearrangement of my equipment...
in a previous thread i asked for some input on some nikon lenses, but in looking closer at my finances, its very apparent that i cannot afford the nikon glass at this time, which is unfortunate....
that said, i'm wondering what the overall build quality & image quality is of the other lens makers vs. nikon glass....
i think i've zeroed in on the sigma 10-20 dx for my wide angle needs, but am still in need of a good dx lens in the moderate telephoto end. i currently have only the d70 kit lens (18-70dx) which i find to be a great lens, but doesnt have the range i'm looking for overall... now at 1st i was thinking i should get a 18-200 but it seems that each of the makers in this range have their problems, so i've shifted to a 3 lens idea... get an super wide (the sigma), keep the kit lens, and grab a tele-zoom....
so in trying to save money, will i have a significant drop in image quality by buying a lens or two from sigma, tamron, or tokina?
sorry for the long post, hope you can help. thanks in advance.
I've got a D70s also with the kit lens. I bought a used 70-210 Nikon lens for about $170 and I'm very happy with that. The better lens I think is the used 75-300 Nikon lens. That one will run you probably around $300 on ebay, etc. I've heard nothing but good things about that lens and I'll probably buy one of those in the near future.
Lots of folks here are using the Tokina 12-24 f4. It gets consistent high reviews from its owners here and in magazine reviews. I have the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 AT-X Pro SV. I like this lens very well, but its not a perfect all around lens for a crop sensor camera. However, the image quality is very high and its a very well built lens.
I'm a cannon user, so I can't comment on the Nikon specifics, but in the cannon world, the 3rd party low cost zoom telephotos focus much slower than the canon ones of the same type.
In the Canon world, I use a Canon 17-40 f4L, Tokina 28-70 f2.8, Canon 50mm f1.4 and Canon 70-300IS. What I've found is that I'd like a 17-50 f2.8 for the majority of the time (40mm is too short) and an ultra wide. But I've only got so much money, so I'm using what I've got.
Of course, if you compare a low-price 3rd party lens to a top of the heap nikon lensm build quality and image quality will be crappy. But just look at the Nikon 70-300 G, and you'll realize that Nikon also makes "cheap" lenses.
I have researched on cheap telezooms a bit as well (I wonder what your budget it, though, maybe my solutions are too cheap for you, I don't know). Anyway, I now have a used Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 (NOT 70-300, and NOT 4-5.6!) lens, and for the price I paid I'm very happy with it even though AF is slow and noisy (be careful about the CPU version though, I had one version that did not AF on my D50!). The above mentioned old Nikkor 75-300 lens is said to be slightly worse in terms of image quality, however, it has a tripod foot and a focus limiter, both of which are of course excellent features.
If you can afford a bit more, there are the Sigma 70-300 APO DG (which offers 1:2 Macro) and the Nikon 70-300 D ED for more or less the same price (at least here in Switzerland). As far as I know, both are ok in the 70-200 range, but a bit weaker above that.
It all depends on the budget... more expensive than the above lenses, there are the 70-200 2.8 zooms, which are of course very nice. I doubt that for example the Sigma version is optically much worse than the Nikkor (which, however, has AF-S and VR, but I guess is also more expensive).
I have been looking at the Sigma 70-200 EX APO HSM for a while now. Image wise its right up there with the Nikon version (some have said it is better) but like was mentioned, it doesnt have VR (but if youre shooting from a tripod how cares) and the focusing is slower, and its no where near built as well (plastic for the sigma and metal for the Nikon), but ha its more then a grand cheaper here in Canada
I have asked about the 3rd party companies before on other forums and have gotten good reviews on all three. One thing that was constant was everyone said make sure to get the Pro versions.
budget wise, i'm not really sure what my exact budget is... suffice to say that if the right lens were available i'd do what i could to grab it... but realisticly, i'm guess, i have about $800 to spend, but i'm hoping to get 2 lenses for that money, which could be tough...
again, i'm not a pro shooter, but would consider myself a serious amateur.... although the amount of time i have available for photo seems to keep diminising...
i think for the wide angle i'll probably end up with the sigma 10-20 or the tamron 11-18, both of which are about $500, so that probably leaves me with $300 for a telezoom, which may not be enough. we'll see... my father does have plenty of connections in the industry, so hopefully he'll come thru again with a great deal!
One thing I forgot to mention was upgrades later one. One thing you do have to keep in mind for the future is the resolution of your next body. These lenses may look great on you 6MP D70, but how would they look on a 12MP D200? That one thing to keep in mind. If you KNOW for a fact you have no intensions of upgrading your body for a long while or that you know you will have the money to not only upgrade you body, but also replace lenses then I guess you really dont have to worry.
no, most likely, i'll be upgrading to at least a D200 (or whatevers next) within a year... so thats a good point... i'm obviously not looking for a crappy lens, nor a pro $5000 lens... but something in between... sharp images, with good contrast, and color tones...
Since you are using Nikon, you can take advantage of the long history of Nikon lenses predating the current spectrum. As long as it's at least Ai you can use it, though with few of the automated functions available through using current Nikon lenses with your D70 or successor. I'm using a 30-year old 105mm Micro as my principle macro lens, for example. If you use the D series lenses, you won't lose much at all.
There are some sincere bargains available on Nikon's former top-end lenses. It was hard to beat their glass even when they replaced them with more modern versions with electronic capabilities. For the firsst three years I shot digital I used the D-series lenses I had come to love with film (20-35 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8). I've since picked up DX lenses, but there's no way I'm turning loose of my D-series. They are simply too good, but no one is willing to pay me what I think they are worth.
Lots of other folks felt differently and parted with their D's when switching to DX. As a result they are readily available on the used market and startlingly cheap compared to image quality.
Buying the right used Nikon lenses is a good way to get superb glass while saving a few bucks, potentially paying less than you will for new Sigma, Tokina or Tamron.
thanks hank... as i mentioned my father in fairly connect in that sense, and has gotten me some nice deals before... i'll probably come up with a plan with him based on my spending range. he'll probably suggest this same idea.... good glass is definitely a plus.
If you are able to stretch his connections far enough, it would be very worthwile to shoot candidates side by side on a trial basis. My experience with S,T & T is old, not reflective of current models. But based upon my early experiences I developed a decided bias for the big N.
Discussion
10 repliesin a previous thread i asked for some input on some nikon lenses, but in looking closer at my finances, its very apparent that i cannot afford the nikon glass at this time, which is unfortunate....
that said, i'm wondering what the overall build quality & image quality is of the other lens makers vs. nikon glass....
i think i've zeroed in on the sigma 10-20 dx for my wide angle needs, but am still in need of a good dx lens in the moderate telephoto end. i currently have only the d70 kit lens (18-70dx) which i find to be a great lens, but doesnt have the range i'm looking for overall... now at 1st i was thinking i should get a 18-200 but it seems that each of the makers in this range have their problems, so i've shifted to a 3 lens idea... get an super wide (the sigma), keep the kit lens, and grab a tele-zoom....
so in trying to save money, will i have a significant drop in image quality by buying a lens or two from sigma, tamron, or tokina?
sorry for the long post, hope you can help. thanks in advance.
I'm a cannon user, so I can't comment on the Nikon specifics, but in the cannon world, the 3rd party low cost zoom telephotos focus much slower than the canon ones of the same type.
In the Canon world, I use a Canon 17-40 f4L, Tokina 28-70 f2.8, Canon 50mm f1.4 and Canon 70-300IS. What I've found is that I'd like a 17-50 f2.8 for the majority of the time (40mm is too short) and an ultra wide. But I've only got so much money, so I'm using what I've got.
I have researched on cheap telezooms a bit as well (I wonder what your budget it, though, maybe my solutions are too cheap for you, I don't know). Anyway, I now have a used Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 (NOT 70-300, and NOT 4-5.6!) lens, and for the price I paid I'm very happy with it even though AF is slow and noisy (be careful about the CPU version though, I had one version that did not AF on my D50!). The above mentioned old Nikkor 75-300 lens is said to be slightly worse in terms of image quality, however, it has a tripod foot and a focus limiter, both of which are of course excellent features.
If you can afford a bit more, there are the Sigma 70-300 APO DG (which offers 1:2 Macro) and the Nikon 70-300 D ED for more or less the same price (at least here in Switzerland). As far as I know, both are ok in the 70-200 range, but a bit weaker above that.
It all depends on the budget... more expensive than the above lenses, there are the 70-200 2.8 zooms, which are of course very nice. I doubt that for example the Sigma version is optically much worse than the Nikkor (which, however, has AF-S and VR, but I guess is also more expensive).
Basil
I have asked about the 3rd party companies before on other forums and have gotten good reviews on all three. One thing that was constant was everyone said make sure to get the Pro versions.
budget wise, i'm not really sure what my exact budget is... suffice to say that if the right lens were available i'd do what i could to grab it... but realisticly, i'm guess, i have about $800 to spend, but i'm hoping to get 2 lenses for that money, which could be tough...
again, i'm not a pro shooter, but would consider myself a serious amateur.... although the amount of time i have available for photo seems to keep diminising...
i think for the wide angle i'll probably end up with the sigma 10-20 or the tamron 11-18, both of which are about $500, so that probably leaves me with $300 for a telezoom, which may not be enough. we'll see... my father does have plenty of connections in the industry, so hopefully he'll come thru again with a great deal!
thanks again, and keep the opinions coming!
One thing I forgot to mention was upgrades later one. One thing you do have to keep in mind for the future is the resolution of your next body. These lenses may look great on you 6MP D70, but how would they look on a 12MP D200? That one thing to keep in mind. If you KNOW for a fact you have no intensions of upgrading your body for a long while or that you know you will have the money to not only upgrade you body, but also replace lenses then I guess you really dont have to worry.
There are some sincere bargains available on Nikon's former top-end lenses. It was hard to beat their glass even when they replaced them with more modern versions with electronic capabilities. For the firsst three years I shot digital I used the D-series lenses I had come to love with film (20-35 f/2.8, 35-70 f/2.8 and 80-200mm f/2.8). I've since picked up DX lenses, but there's no way I'm turning loose of my D-series. They are simply too good, but no one is willing to pay me what I think they are worth.
Lots of other folks felt differently and parted with their D's when switching to DX. As a result they are readily available on the used market and startlingly cheap compared to image quality.
Buying the right used Nikon lenses is a good way to get superb glass while saving a few bucks, potentially paying less than you will for new Sigma, Tokina or Tamron.