Bad Sigma, Nikon better?
InsuredDisaster
Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
I've got the Sigma 10-20, and I like this lense quite a bit. However, I can't stand the Sigma 18-200 OS that I have. To me at least, things seem very soft all the time. Of course, its all relative. And here's what I gots to compare it too. A nikon 35 f2, 50 1.4, and the 70-200 VR (yep, the really expensive one.) But of course, after I use the Sigma, which is less and less, I think that I'd have been better served to have chucked it off a bridge and just stuck with the better stuff. Screw ease of use and laziness!
So, maybe the sigma has gotten kinda bad. I can and will find examples later, maybe even do comparison shots of things with the different lenses (so I know at least its not in my head). Or maybe I got a bad sample, or maybe it just sucks to start with? I don't know.
I regret not going whole hog ealier and just getting the nikon instead in the first place. So I'm going to get rid of the Sigma. I really don't like it, and find that while the 35 is good, for me, Its often too narrow for me. I'll often just shoot with the 10-20 anyway.
So I really want a zoom to fit between the 1020 and the 70-200. Now, if I spend the money on the Nikon Superzoom, do you think I'll find it soft, and low quality compared to the primes and the super expensive nikon glass that I've got? Or do you think that I'd be better served to just save me green up and get one of the more "Pro" level zooms. Oh, I do appreciate the wider aperatures so the fact that IIRC, nikon has a couple of zooms in the range I want that are 2.8's makes me think that saving and blowing on a pro level rather than the super zoom (which isn't cheap either of course)
Thank you. And yes, I'm sure this is all very subjective, so yes, your opinions please?
So, maybe the sigma has gotten kinda bad. I can and will find examples later, maybe even do comparison shots of things with the different lenses (so I know at least its not in my head). Or maybe I got a bad sample, or maybe it just sucks to start with? I don't know.
I regret not going whole hog ealier and just getting the nikon instead in the first place. So I'm going to get rid of the Sigma. I really don't like it, and find that while the 35 is good, for me, Its often too narrow for me. I'll often just shoot with the 10-20 anyway.
So I really want a zoom to fit between the 1020 and the 70-200. Now, if I spend the money on the Nikon Superzoom, do you think I'll find it soft, and low quality compared to the primes and the super expensive nikon glass that I've got? Or do you think that I'd be better served to just save me green up and get one of the more "Pro" level zooms. Oh, I do appreciate the wider aperatures so the fact that IIRC, nikon has a couple of zooms in the range I want that are 2.8's makes me think that saving and blowing on a pro level rather than the super zoom (which isn't cheap either of course)
Thank you. And yes, I'm sure this is all very subjective, so yes, your opinions please?
0
Comments
Since you have the Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR, and you have the very nice Sigma 10-20mm, f4-f5.6 EX DC HSM (even though it is not constant aperture), the Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX or Nikkor 24-70mm, f2.8G ED AF-S would be the next recommendation.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
If you are looking for a non-pro lens, the Nikkor 18-200mm, VR is not a bad option. While not in the same class as the pro zooms, it is a nice, light, all-around lens with pretty good performance. I've heard it outperforms the Sigma. I grab mine when I'm on vacation and want to travel light.
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm probably going to look at constant aperture. I like the wide open look on lenses, and of course, I'd rather have the same light response all through the zoom range.