Opinions on my potential buys

M

mrmahoosive

Suspended / Banned
Messages
225
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to rid the kit lens (18-105mm) from my D90, and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 i've got to make way for:

Walkabout lens:
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM

Zoom:
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
or
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS

Wide:
Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX DC HSM
or
Sigma 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHERICAL HSM

Flash:
Nikon SB600

What's everyone's opinions on these choices?

One question too.... From looking at the wideangle choice: The 10-20 would be good for the D90's small sensor, but if I wanted to go full frame it wouldn't work too well - is that correct? I'll be looking to upgrade the body later this year too....

Cheers.
 
Ok, from my point of view,
24-70 sigma is a great lens. I am really pleased with mine.

Why go from the 70-200 2.8 to IMHO a inferior lens, I went from the 70-300 sigma to the 70-200 2.8 and have not looked back, all I intend on doing is getting a 1.4 tc to get the extra reach.

I have the 10-20 sigma and love this lens too. As you day will not work on full frame properly.

Sb600 is great maybe look at a secondhand sb800 or the sb900, which is absolutely awesome.
 
I've got the Sigma 70-200 macro, and find it a little frustrating for sports stuff. I kind-of bought it in error not realising what I should have bought.

I wanted to sell it to clear funds for the other stuff. Zoom is not a priority, and the money from that sale will go towards funding the other lenses/flash.

sb900 is an option, but i will probably get a 600 for now, and then a 900 when I have the need for multiple flashes.

Thanks for your opinion.
 
I hardly use it, and in all honesty, I don't need it. I hardly ever require zoom, so getting a cheapy is just to fill a void.

I did consider the 16-85, but wanted the f/2.8 of the sigma.
 
As someone who has just upgraded from a Canon 70-300 IS to a 70-200 f/2.8, I can't really see why you'd want to go the other way! I'd prefer to crop a little at 200mm than not be able to get the shutter speed up high enough! Personally I'd suggest:

Sigma 10-20
Sigma 24-70
Sigma 70-200

Unless you're definitely going full frame soon, in which case I'd say go for the 12-24!
 
chris321 said:
As someone who has just upgraded from a Canon 70-300 IS to a 70-200 f/2.8, I can't really see why you'd want to go the other way! I'd prefer to crop a little at 200mm than not be able to get the shutter speed up high enough! Personally I'd suggest:

Sigma 10-20
Sigma 24-70
Sigma 70-200

Unless you're definitely going full frame soon, in which case I'd say go for the 12-24!
Click to expand...


Ha, to fund the rest. I'll probably end up buying a 100-300 f/4 - it may just be a temp fill in until then.

I will go FF soon, so think the 12-24 will be the one...
 
I'm a big fan of the Sigma 12-24mm. I have a Canon fit one and it has HSM and you get a case with it too.
 
Hmmm, it seems the cheapest 24-70's are the Macro ones, probably a bit too soft for an all rounder.

I'll have to consider the 28-70mm f/2.8 by Sigma then.... Opinions?
 
mrmahoosive said:
Hmmm, it seems the cheapest 24-70's are the Macro ones, probably a bit too soft for an all rounder.

I'll have to consider the 28-70mm f/2.8 by Sigma then.... Opinions?
Click to expand...

Why would the macro versions be soft?
 
I've owned at least 4 of the lenses on your shortlist, so I'm probably in a position to give decent advice. This is my advice:

You sound like you're in a state of flux. Upgrade plans for lens, body, lens, body... and making quite a few purchases along the way. Be sure of what you want, rather than risk a morsel of buyer's remorse. If you don't use a longer zoom, get rid altogether. Just because you have your SLR, don't feel you need to be a 'focal length collector'.

Also, lenses are often a law of diminishing returns. Pricier is nearly always better, but double the price isn't always double the lens. So, if you really want the best walkaround, then go for it. Nikkor 24-70. Sell the longer lens to help fund it. Take it from there.
 
24 - 70 macro isn't soft, it's as sharp as a tack and lovely to use.
 
danbroad said:
I've owned at least 4 of the lenses on your shortlist, so I'm probably in a position to give decent advice. This is my advice:

You sound like you're in a state of flux. Upgrade plans for lens, body, lens, body... and making quite a few purchases along the way. Be sure of what you want, rather than risk a morsel of buyer's remorse. If you don't use a longer zoom, get rid altogether. Just because you have your SLR, don't feel you need to be a 'focal length collector'.

Also, lenses are often a law of diminishing returns. Pricier is nearly always better, but double the price isn't always double the lens. So, if you really want the best walkaround, then go for it. Nikkor 24-70. Sell the longer lens to help fund it. Take it from there.
Click to expand...

Stonking advice, cheers... State of flux would be bang on. Unfortunately I couldn't justify the Nikkor's price.

You're bang on, I don't need zoom, I will ditch it until i do. Then i'll rent....

If people are saying the 24-70 macro are sharp, then I might consider it again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top