I have the Sigma (for Nikon) bad boy F2.8 70-300 the quality of my shots is like 100x better than any other lense I own.. HOWEVER I find myself using my sigma 17-70 1:2.8-4 72mm wide angle zoom, all the time... Quality ok but nothing like the big lense... SO Can someone suggest a lense that has the distance and width of the 17-70 but has MUCH has the quality of the big lense?? My cameras are Nikon d90's
Thanks I'm a dummy when it comes to figureing out lensey things!! LOL
Nikon 17-55 F2.8? That many be your best bet. I've noticed the used price of them have been dropping a lot since so many people are going full frame. Some definite bargains to be had.
That's actually a harder question than it seems like it should be. I spent the last several months trying to answer the FX equivalent of the very much the same question (although I also wanted something light enough to travel with), and ended up after a lot of trial and error with a $1000 24-120 f/4, which I'm finally quite happy with. For DX, the problems are similar. The fast, high quality lenses tend to be heavy and have limited reach (Nikon 17-55). Lenses with better reach tend to be slower and lower quality.
That said, you might go to the store and try the Nikon 16-85. It's slow, but it's on the high quality end of slow, and the price is very reasonable, especially if you can find one used. Depending on your needs, that may be okay....
Good suggestions... Ann yeah Craigs list is avaible to me, I'm in MO USA... but... if I'm paying good $$ for a used lense, I want a guarentee or someone smarter than me to give it the once over!!!
Good suggestions... Ann yeah Craigs list is avaible to me, I'm in MO USA... but... if I'm paying good $$ for a used lense, I want a guarentee or someone smarter than me to give it the once over!!!
If you're not comfortable evaluating lenses yourself, then you're correct, it's worth it to spend a few $ extra to buy it from someplace where you can return it. I did get a used flash that didn't work from adorama once, but I didn't have any trouble returning it.
There may be a focusing issue with the wide zoom that you have now. I would give it a very close inspection for any smudging, esp on the rear element. Another thing that could be affecting the images is focus error, and I think you can do a focus test, and adjust for that with your camera settings.
With the APC D90, you would get similar results with the Nikon 18-105 VR, which is the kit lens that came with the D7000, though it's not as fast for low light and bokeh is probably not as nice as the 2.8. It kicks butt for sharpness though.
There may be a focusing issue with the wide zoom that you have now. I would give it a very close inspection for any smudging, esp on the rear element. Another thing that could be affecting the images is focus error, and I think you can do a focus test, and adjust for that with your camera settings.
With the APC D90, you would get similar results with the Nikon 18-105 VR, which is the kit lens that came with the D7000, though it's not as fast for low light and bokeh is probably not as nice as the 2.8. It kicks butt for sharpness though.
Melon, no there is no issue, it's just a cheapish kit type lense and I adore the color n clarity of the more exp lense I have, but would like this same type of zoom, wide angle, etc that this sigma offers.
lreynelsg I went n looked at that and whent WHATTTT same lense, then re-read your post... So you think its da bomb?? Yeah I love my lense for everything except the glass just could be a better quality..
While some people knock it, I really love my 18-200 VR Nikon. I shoot it wide open all the time with great results. Plus great range.
I've bought many more expensive lenses since that one (my first Nikon lens). Other than the 70-200mm VR II lens, nothing really "beats it" by a big enough margin in image quality and usability to be worth it.
I recently downgraded my D600 to the D7100 to use the 18-200 on my next trip (since it's so much lighter than the 28-300).
I wish it were wider though...but I also carry the 10-20mm and 10.5 fisheye, and the three together make a good travel kit (just over 5 lbs total with the D7000).
For a single lens that goes wider, the Nikon 16-85 sounds a bit tempting, but you lose one the long end.
These portraits were done with the 18-200...I always smile when asked what lens I used for those shots (elsewhere):
For something this expensive, especially when none of the available options is an obvious fit for your needs, it's worth renting the main candidates for a day or two and taking them out shooting.
That would have saved me from having an albatross of a 24-85 VR sitting on my shelf (good lens, but not a good fit for me).
edit....I agree with Neil. The 18-200 wasn't my best lens optically (my Tokina 12-24 blew it out of the water where they overlapped) but it was good enough that it was the only lens I ever took when I traveled with my D300.
lreynelsg I went n looked at that and whent WHATTTT same lense, then re-read your post... So you think its da bomb?? Yeah I love my lense for everything except the glass just could be a better quality..
When I asked to include the new lens on the site list, they did the same "It's already there!" but then they double-checked and saw it was different... :)
Yes, I'm very impressed with the quality of the lens and how good it feels. Really sharp at any distance in the range and colors are great. I have been using it for the last weeks and I'm really happy with it. I'd recommend you to take a look at it. If you already love your current Sigma 17-70, most probably you'll love this new improved version.
