Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Hello everyone, I'm starting to get better in photography and it's time for me to upgrade my glass. I currently own D90, nikon 18-200mm vr and 28mm 2.8.
Planning to shoot mostly nature, sports, portraits and some candid shots of my family and friends.

So... I am planning to sell my 18-200mm lens which will bring me up to a budget of +-$1500

There are 2 options I am considering

1. Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR and maybe 50mm 1.8

2. Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 + Sigma 24-70mm 2.8

What are your thoughts and suggestions?

Thanks!

Did you mean $500 for your 18-200? Photoprice.ca lists a new one at about $750.

http://www.photoprice.ca/product/02862/ ... price.html

With the things you're planning to shoot, which is practically, everything, I'd suggest you'd get a general focal length lens, perhaps the 17-55/2.8?

http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00072/ ... price.html

Disclaimer though, I don't shoot with system N, so my advice may not be best with respect to lens performance. However, focal length wise, for a crop camera, the 17-55 range is ideal for general purpose photography.

Yep, $400-500 is how much I'm hoping to get for the lens and it will bring me to total budget of +- $1500



17-55 2.8 is a great lens but I doubt it will cover anything more than animal shooting at the pet store and ping pong competition Even for the portraits I would much prefer 50mm prime lens or 70-200mm if distance will allow. And I'm hoping in the future to get Helios 40-2 recently discovered Russian beast manual focus lens If anyone is looking for interesting portrait lens with crazy bokeh you should definitely check out that lens http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=9989

I appreciate your suggestion but 17-55 is definitely not what I am looking for

Between the Nikon and Sigma glass it is simply this: At least 95% of the time the Nikon glass will be sharper, and the lens will focus faster. How much is debatable and how much you'll notice is even more debatable, not a slight at you, it's just the way it is. Remember that when you consider the Nikon stuff will be more expensive by a fair chunk. Only you can determine if that extra cost is worth it to you. If someone has to tell you it is because you don't know for yourself, it isn't.

you have a crop sensor so the 70-200 is a long lens. Great lens but if you plan on shooting people, etc. close by, you might have a bit of trouble.

Maybe the 24-70 2.8 Nikkor? It's a beauty.

Thank you for your responses. I realize that Nikkor lens is much better than Sigma but it also 2x or 3x price in some cases, considering that this gear does not bring me any income I don't know if it is worth for me spending that much on Nikon. I was debating on 24-70mm as well but I just love the idea of having longer lens for wildlife and sports. The reason I'm considering Sigma 1st I probably wont tell much difference 2nd I'll be able to afford Sigma 24-70mm which for me will be another fast "pro" class lens

Should that be ~$1500?

It would be unfortunate if you ended up with the low end of -$1500 out of +/-1500

It seems you've already made up your mind to get Sigma lenses then.

so, what's the question again?

I guess you are right. But for me its a big investment, so I wanted to hear what people think

Go for the Sigmas then. They are not BAD lenses by any means. I'm happy with the three I have. If you do have focus issues with the copies you get Gentec is in Markham and easy to deal with. Plus you have a 10 year warranty on the EX stuff too. Nikon doesn't offer that do they? If you're shooting on a budget that warranty can come in handy. All that said, if I had the budget I would take the Canon L equivalents in a split second over them, but I know why exactly and have developed that desire from experience. I'll never sell my 70-200 Sigma. It has a heap of sentimental value to me and I've gotten some of my favourite shots with it. For the amount I'd get for it and how well it performs it's a keeper.

I would go with the Nikon 24-70. I just got one and I love it. Great AF and way way sharper at 2.8 than my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8.

I cannot comment on the Sigmas cause I didn't have one yet. But if you are looking into nikons, I would suggest getting the 70-200VR1 + 35 1.8. I tried the 35 1.8 and it is an excellent lens expecially for indoors. I got my 70-200 VR1 on craigslist for $1200 and it has been with me for a year with no troubles.

Having had both the sigma HSM/nikon 24-70.. I would go for the nikon if you have the $ for it.

Focus is faster, images are sharper (understandably) a much better lens overall. The sigma I used maybe 3 times after purchasing it, the nikon having now owned it for 2weeks will most likly be on the body 95% of the time.

70-200 like everyone says is probably too long on the d90.

Not all sigma's are bad - Up till the 24-70 the sigma 50/1.4 was a permanent fixture on my d700.

Not everyone says that. I love the range of my 70-200 on my crop sensor.

Thanks everyone for the info... now you guys got me debating even more. I am now considering 3rd option

Nikon 28-70/2.8 + Sigma 70-200/2.8 its a bit over my budget but what can you do...

I want range of 70-200 regardless.

What are your thought on this option?

I'd actually get something wider. Your 18-200mm is much wider than the 24mm+ options you're proposing. Unless you never shoot wide, you'll certainly notice the loss in wide angle ability. On a cropped body, using a 24mm+ lens is rather inconvenient for things like group shots, etc.

Also, I think you need to ask yourself: What did you find limiting about the 18-200mm VR? That would certainly help figure out what lenses would be best for your kit.

Definitely not shooting wide much, mostly 50-200 range on my 18-200 lens. I'm not a big fan of wide angle/fish eye lenses so I'm sure I won't miss 18-24 range. If I will ever decide to go wide ill purchase wide angle lens for those purposes.

What I find limiting is 18-200 is not fast enough, doesn't perform that well in low light and has absolutely no bokeh. It's a great lens but I want something better

You can't get bokeh at 200mm?

I'd suggest getting the Nikon 70-200 and the 50/1.8.

You're kidding right? The bokeh from the 18-200 may not be as nice as a 24-70, but you can still produce some pretty good looking one from this lens.

But if you have a $1500 burning a hole in your pocket get the 24-70. If I'm not earning income from my equipment I would stick with the 18-200 and get a flash SB700 or SB900.

Bokeh is not the same thing as shallow DOF, contrary to popular confusion.

Vistek is moving, and you can rent gear for a week at the 1 day rate..
go rent all the lens you asked about - play with them for a week (8days?). I don't think they rent sigmas though - but at the least you'll know what focal range you like/want.

A small investment to ensure you really are going to use what you'll be buying.

Good point



Already have SB-600, which is more than enough for my needs



Even at 200mm you get sharp OOF background, nothing close to a nice creamy looking bokeh.



My question is, is it really worth paying 2x price for the Nikon rather than getting less expansive Sigma even when its not going to bring any income? Can you really tell THAT much difference between them 2 besides having VR on Nikon? Thanks

Most of the reviews I read on Sigma 70-200/2.8 and Nikon 70-200/2.8 say yes Nikon is better but then again if I was pro sports photographer of course I would spend more money on Nikon simply because it pays off. People that own Nikons say Nikon is better. People that own Sigma say Sigma is amazing and well worth the money and they would buy it again any time.

I don't mean to start big discussion. Just wanted to hear hands on worth double the price or not really?

This is why your question is useless to ask us. It's for you to answer, we can't answer that. Sigma is fine, they make good stuff for the money. But they're not as good as the top range stuff from Nikon/Canon for the most part. There are pros that shoot Sigma and shoot Sigma well. And, again, I like mine, they get me by, but I'm at the point where I've compared both side by side and yes my $600 old 70-200 is not as good as the latest Canon 70-200 that costs over $2k.