Lens Selection

jacob12_1993

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,941
Name
Jacob
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to upgrade my kit to compliment my new D7000, the lenses I am looking at are the:

-Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM
-Sigma 24-70 f2.8
- a wide angle maybe sigma 10-20

Would this be a good selection? I can get these three together for sub £1000, does anybody have any views on any of these lenses? Also I have gone for the FF lenses (Except the UWA) so I can use on my F5 too :)

Jake
 
It's a good collection I think but there is however a gap between 20 and 24 which may be more of an issue than that between 50 and 70 if you were to get a Sigma 18-50 / Tamron 17-50.

Do note that there are a number of versions of Sigma lenses. I have the 10-20 (original) rather than the newer f3.5 and by all accounts the original is the better one.
 
It's a good collection I think but there is however a gap between 20 and 24 which may be more of an issue than that between 50 and 70 if you were to get a Sigma 18-50 / Tamron 17-50.

Do note that there are a number of versions of Sigma lenses. I have the 10-20 (original) rather than the newer f3.5 and by all accounts the original is the better one.

If im honest I very rarely shoot between 20-24mm anyway, so for me I don't see this as a massive issue, but i do see your point.

I have noticed that there is a lack of quality control with sigma lenses and that is an issue i wish to check before accepting any lenses.

Jake
 
I used to have a Nikon 17-55 but went for a Tamron 28-75 as I prefered the longer length. Now have a Nikon 24-70 and while it is better than the Tamron, it does cost 4 times as much!!
 
You'd be much better buying one great Nikon lens on that budget - probably second hand (!) - and save for others later.
 
You'd be much better buying one great Nikon lens on that budget - probably second hand (!) - and save for others later.

Yes this would be the best possible option but im going to thailand for 5 weeks in approx 2 months and need to get a complete as possible kit. The reviews of the lenses I have read especially the 70-200 are that they can compete well with the Nikon/Canon equivalent considering they are 4x cheaper :)

Jake
 
You'd get great shots withoout weighing yourself down with a Nikon 24-70 - way better than the Sigma stuff.
 
I'd always suggest quality over quantity. You'd get great shots with the 24-70 - no lens changes to worry about - travel light - it's my most used lens I think. There's a reason Nikon lenses cost what they do.
 
the Nikon 24-70 is slightly longer and narrower than the Sigma 24-70. The main issue with the Sigma IMHO is that it takes 82mm filter
 
Nikon 17-55mm is also excellent on a crop sensor body.
 
Never tried a Tamron and never likely too. Can't beat Nikon as far as I'm concerned. You get what you pay for. It's a great lens.
 
I kind of agree with the whole "you get what you pay for", but I've got one L lens and have used three different Sigma EX lenses and I don't think they're as bad as Andrew is making them out to be (no offence intended). They're well made and sharp and cheap. They might not be as good as lenses several times the price, but you're getting value for money.

I would go for the three you've chosen myself, seems a versatile kit. I have a favourite walkabout lens, sure, but it's nice to know I've the other lenses to use if I need them.

I know Sigma get a bad reputation for quality control, but all my Sigmas have been sharp and well built.

I say go for what you picked!
 
I also used a few Sigma Lens, 10-20, 12-24 and a 24-70 which at the moment I'm happy with the results. I also agree that Nikon Lens are sharper in comparison which I noticed when I upgraded from my Sigma 70-210 f2.8 to my Nikon 70-200 f2.8, in time I will be replacing my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 with the Nikon version. So what I'm trying to say is that I have produced some great images with my Sigma Lens over the years, but it is nice to have the quality of Nikon Lens in the end.
 
Back
Top