Posted: 5/23/2006 2:37:10 PM EDT
|
Nikon 70-300 f/4-5.6G AF Nikon 55-200 ????? Sigma 70-300 super macro Which of the above? Lens will be used on Nikon D series digital and N series film camera. |
|
The Nikons are much better than the Sigma, however the Sigmas aren't bad and unless you are going to really big enlargements, you probably won't see the difference, and almost certainly not worth the price difference for the amateur. Do all big zooms are physically large and as noted relatively slow. What other lenses do you have? a "normal" and one of the listed is not bad if all you have are two lenses. I found that for years I carried two lenses and bodies, a 28-70 on my Minolta XD and a 70-220 Soligor on my SRT-102. One usually had slide film and the other print film. Swapped as necessary. If I had it to do over, I think I would have bought a slightly slower and no macro 70-220, because going for the higher speed and 1:1 macro (yep 1:1) made for a big bulky lens. |
|
If you plan to use the lens with a dslr and a film camera don't get the 55-200 as it's meant for use with the digital camera's smaller APS-C sensor. You will get dark edges on shots taken with the film camera. You didn't say what kind of pictures you'll be taking. Personally, to get the best bang for the buck, I'd rather get a used Nikkor 80-200 2.8 AF ED two ring. |
| Given the information you stated, I think the Nikon 80-200 I suggested or a Sigma APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM would be a good choice, unless you need the addtional range of the 300mm zoom or these lenses don't fit your budget. If that were the case, I'd take the first lens. |
|
If you think speed will be important (both focus and aperature) I would go with the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 If speed is less important that I would suggest a 80-400 OS or a 50-500. These two lenses are ahrded to take pictures with and require a learning curve to get used to. My advice on glass... You get what you pay for. Invest in quality the first time Check out www.fredmiranda.com and www.dpreview.com |
 If you're interested in a used lens, I've got a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF IF for sale. It's probably a dozen years old and has been used quite a bit by me in some fairly extreme conditions, but it still produces shots that are good enough for magazine use. I've used it on an F4s, F5s, a D2H and a D2X over the years so it's perfectly compatible with your cameras. I'm asking $500.
|
|
www.kenrockwell.com This guy knows a thing or two about Nikon lens. I've just purchased a D70s and an SB-600 flash. The lens I bought was an 18-200 mm f3.5 with the vibration reduction which is suppose to allow hand holding two additional stops. The lens is a 27 - 300 mm 35 mm equalivant which ought to cover 95% of my needs and keeping one lens on the camera helps to keep dust off the sensor. The x1.5 lens factor is going to turn those 300 mm lens into a 450 mm equalivant. |
| The 18-200 VR is a great lens for a 11x zoom. It will pretty much cover you for most normal picture taking situations. It's a good alternative if you want a light, compact single lens solution for travel and convenience. If you want the best picture quality though, the other zooms will be a little better. You need to decide what your needs are and get the appopriate lens. |
That guy is the most ridiculed hack among pros. |
Not to mention amateurs who know what they're talking about. |
That will depend on the lens and camera. On Nikons that isn't a problem but the made for digital lenses project a smaller image circle for the APS-C sensor and won't cover the entire image circle on a film body. |