Firstly, I dont have an interest in one area of photography more than any other, I just love taking photos.
I currently have a Nikon D90 with 18-105 kit lens which Ive been using happily for a while. Recently I decided to expand my range of lens so I purchased and a 35mm F1.8 which is great. Im now looking to buy a telephoto lens partly because Im planning on a trip to Canada in the summer, but it will also be used frequently anyway. Initially I was looking at the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 which is about what my budget was (approx. £350-400). Then I read about the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 which also looks good and comes in a few pounds cheaper. However, now my budget has changed slightly so I have a few more options. These include the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 (£650ish) or the Nikon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 (£700ish).
So, my first question is; aside from the additional length of the Sigma, is the extra money of the last two lens justified in the potential quality of the image compared to the first two cheaper lens?
Secondly, would it be a better choice to get one of the cheaper 70-300mm lens and then perhaps a Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 (£450ish) as well?
Finally, 400mm on the Sigma or 300mm on the Nikon/Tamron and a 1.4 teleconverter?
If anyone has some answers to those questions or advice, it would be appreciated.
I currently have a Nikon D90 with 18-105 kit lens which Ive been using happily for a while. Recently I decided to expand my range of lens so I purchased and a 35mm F1.8 which is great. Im now looking to buy a telephoto lens partly because Im planning on a trip to Canada in the summer, but it will also be used frequently anyway. Initially I was looking at the Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 which is about what my budget was (approx. £350-400). Then I read about the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 which also looks good and comes in a few pounds cheaper. However, now my budget has changed slightly so I have a few more options. These include the Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 (£650ish) or the Nikon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 (£700ish).
So, my first question is; aside from the additional length of the Sigma, is the extra money of the last two lens justified in the potential quality of the image compared to the first two cheaper lens?
Secondly, would it be a better choice to get one of the cheaper 70-300mm lens and then perhaps a Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 (£450ish) as well?
Finally, 400mm on the Sigma or 300mm on the Nikon/Tamron and a 1.4 teleconverter?
If anyone has some answers to those questions or advice, it would be appreciated.
