Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by dmora, Jul 19, 2004.
Or should i even bother and just get a photostitching app?
nikon 12-24 is a sweet lens.
Personally I'd just use the kit lens. 18mm ~= 28mm in the old scale which is a decent wide angle. If you need wider than that then just stitch the photos
the 18-70 has a bit of pincushion distortion at 18mm but none at 25mm so set it to 25mm and take 2 photos for stitching and it'll come out better since you don't have lens effects to correct for.
The purist in me likes using a genuine wide angle lens for wide angle shots but the student in me really doesn't feel like paying AU$2000 for it (US$1k for you guys). Unless of course you do a LOT of wide angle photography (ie, you specialise in landscapes)
I'd love to specialize in it.
maybe come xmas time.
What about the Sigma 12-24mm? It can be used on a full-frame body as well.
significant malfunction? sure
when I buy my D70 I'm only buying nikon lenses
dmora: simple answer = photostitch until you're eyeing off a 12-24mm f/4G and can afford it
Well, in general you get what you paid for when it comes down to optics, but that doesn't mean all Sigma lens are crap.
For 70-200mm, I had take the Nikon 70-200mm VR no doubt, even when it cost more than 2 Sigma 70-200mm combined.
However Sigma does offer some lens that is not found in the Nikon line-up. For example the 50-500mm Bigma, I also believe that the 70-300mm MARCO APO SuperII is better than the Nikon 70-300 ED.
So, while I do agree with many Sigma lens sucks. There are a few Sigma I would consider.
Sigma is the best of the 3rd partiy manufacturers, but you do get what you pay for.
For the 70-200, Canon has an F/4 for 550, F/2.8 for 1100 and F/2.8 IS for 1600, while the Sigma F/2.8 is like 600. So most compare the 2.8 sigma and the Canon F/4, which is pretty good, considering the Sigma is not real useable at 2.8, (Just not very sharp), while the Canon is quite useable at F/4, so you basically have the 2 as equals. Except that the sharpest F-Stop is usually 2 stops form wide open, so on the Canon it's F/8 while on the Sigma it's F/5.6. And the Sigma is gonna be bigger and heavier since its a F/2.8.
So which one would you go with (if you needed a canon mount?) Most end up with the Canon, not because of any of the reasons listed above, but because the Canon lens is white and gives the $$$ and power factor, while the sigma is a boring black lens.
I'd always go for an L lens over a 3rd party lens. Which one can you sell for pretty much the same price as you paid for it, assuming it's in perfect nick?
The genuine brand, that much is certain. TCO is lower even if it costs more to begin with, assuming you don't drop the thing and break it.
I hope you are being sarcastic.
I don't shoot Nikon, so I don't know the price difference between Sigma and Nikon, I'm simply giving an example.
I wish. As a pro photo student, I see it everyday
No way, shit....
I thought we were just comparing 3rd party lenses and genuine brand lenses.
At this stage in proceedings I fully intend to buy only Nikkor lenses when I get my D70. The kit 18-70 is supposed to be great, and something in the ~80-200 range will be next. Probably an older 70-210 but I haven't decided yet.
Possibly I'll spot a ripper bargain and buy a 3rd party lens but even Nikkon have lenses that are priced very cheap for what they deliver.
That is exactly why I wouldn't buy the sigma. There's no point in buying an f/2.8 lens if it's unusable at f/2.8. You're just carrying around a shitload of glass you can't use. Rather have the L at f/4 and be able to use it wide open and get great shots
Although the Sigma would have the Canon beat at it's sharpest point by a full stop, which is pretty big. As long as you have a tripod or TONS of light, it wouldn't be an issue
what you mean..
If I had a tripod or tons of light I wouldn't be stressing over a 2.8 lens.. I'd use an f/4 lens or an f/11 lens or a shoebox, who cares