Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4 DG or Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6 VR

ppp

ppp

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,671
Edit My Images
Yes
Is this lens any good?

I am considering it to use at my step sisters wedding (my Dad is official tog), so it will be for general pics and candids on the day.

I will be getting a 50mm f1.8 to take as well

Many Thanks
 
My other option is the Nikon 24-120 f3.5-5.6 VR lens, would this or the Sigma be better? The Nikon has VR but the Sigma is 2.8-4. Surely the VR would compensate. Which is faster/better focusing?

Thanks again
 
I've got the non DG version of the sigma on my minolta and I love it. I've found it soft on occasions when wide open sometimes but that could be down to me as much as the lens so I tend to keep it atleast f5.6 or 6.? minimum.
 
Ok so now i am thinking is it worth paying nearly twice as much for the Nikon 18-200mm VR or go for the Nikon 24-120mm VR at half the price??
 
I wouldnt go with either to be honest. You will be waiting months for the 18 - 200 VR and the 24 - 120 VR on a DX format SLR doesnt cover a very usefull focal range as far as I am concerned. In that price range the OEM's offer what I consider inbetween lens'. They are not quite pro grade and they are not budget. Kind of an irretating inbetween.

For the money, and you need a little reach then consider the new Sigma 50-150 EX DC HSM f2.8. It sits around the £500 mark I think. Being an EX gold band lens it is considered a pro grade and if it is anything like the 70 - 200 f2.8 EX DG HSM Macro then it will produce some fantastic results.

King.
 
Only problem is I think that the 50mm end of the 50-150 (75mm with crop factor) will be too long, I really need something to cover the kit lens range or close to it so i can ditch the kit lens and not worry about the wider angle shots.

I tried the 18-200VR on my Dads D2x and it seemed great, but the 24-120VR is half the price?

Time wise as long as i have it within a few months thats fine cos i would have to save up the extra for the 18-200 if i went that route anyway.

Or is there a better option in that focal length area (the wider end is more important as i have a 70-300) that is better value or a better lens?

Thanks
 
The 50-150 is a DC (Digital Camera) lens. It projects a smaller image circle so the crop factor doesnt apply, as far as I am aware.

If you are looking for a kit lens replacement then you could look at the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC lens or something similar but to be honest what your looking for really, is quite hard to find. Alternatively you could invest in the 17-55mm f2.8 DX Nikkor. Can be had for £800 on some sites.

King.
 
Although it is hard to find, how would you rate the 18-200?
 
King_Boru said:
The 50-150 is a DC (Digital Camera) lens. It projects a smaller image circle so the crop factor doesnt apply, as far as I am aware.
Click to expand...

While it is a DC lens the optical focal lengh is still 50mm - 150mm
Since focal lengh is independent of the sensor format the the crop factor calculations will still need to be made :)
 
Thanks for the great input guys

I think that narrows it down to:

Nikon 18-200 VR f3.5-5.6 (IIRC) @ £500
Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 @ £130

or anything else with roughly that focal length. (my head hurts, i can't afford to buy a crap lens cos i don't have the money to waste although i know i am not spending pro lens money, i really need best of this price range.) Thanks :)

Your Thoughts?
 
There is a HUGE difference between what you have specced above. One is a budget consumer grade lens and the other a quality lens. The quality difference is going to be substantial. You do point out you dont want a 'crap' lens but you are comparing an investment with a £370 price tag difference.

King
 
i understand what you are saying but the Sigma is the only lens i could find in that price range that got fairly good reviews. Unless there are any lenses people can recommend other than those two i would probably save up and buy the 18-200 VR
 
What about the Sigma 24 - 70 f2.8 EX? With the crop factor you will be looking at 36-105mm f2.8, which isnt bad!
 
problem is that is one of the lenses with a poor review, along with the 28-70 as well both are nearly unuseable at wide open and most people say they need to be used at f4 or more so why pay the extra for the 2.8.
 
petemc uses the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 wide open lots, allbeit with perhaps slightly unpredictable results.
 
Dont know where you read those reviews, I have seen countless reviews praising it for its quality. Mind you that was for the newer DG ASP MACRO version. I have just ordered one to replace the 18-70 DX. Looking forward to getting it.

King.
 
Cool thats good to know, i will have a look at the newer version cos that would be ideal.

Where did you get yours from?

Thanks again guys.
 
One-Stop Digital, best price I could find. I would get a filter from them too as they are quite cheap, downside is that this lens uses an 82mm thread, which sets you back a few bob for a polarizer.
 
Cool many thanks, think i will probably end up with the Sigma as well, looks good and half the price of the 18-200, plus i don't really need over the 70mm anyway.
 
@ King Boru, did you get your lens yet? What is it like, any pics? ta
 
Havnt had a chance to play with it yet, got a few personal problems to overcome before I can get out and about with it. Ill make thread when I can.

:)

King.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top