Berto Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM As much as I want to stay true with Nikkor. This looks like a banging deal. 18-250mm with macro I've been meaning to get rid of my 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses and I've been wanting a Macro, this has it all. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/18-250mm-f35-63-dc-macro-os-hsm.cfm?utm_source=aug_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=monthly_email I have the sigma 10-20mm and in general I am very happy with it. It has considerable chromatic aberration on the edges but on a wide angle like that most lenses do. decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted August 2, 2012 Report Share Posted August 2, 2012 its not a true macro its a 1:3 If im reading right. You can get a a true macro for about the same price. The Tamron 90 runs around 400 and the Sigma 105 is a touch higher, closer to 500, both are true 1:1 macros. If you want to replace the two lense for an all around lens, this look slike a decent option, but its not a macro lens in the true sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 OK so decision day (so to speak) has come upon me. I am itching to buy a new lens. I keep going back and forth between this lens the Sigma 18-250 ($500) and the Nikkor 18-300 ($1000). The biggest reason for me to get the mega-zoom is to not have to switch back and forth between the 18-55 and the 55-200. Specially while out on vacation, sometimes I find myself missing a shot because I don't want to switch lenses, or I might be in a dirty environment and don't want to get my sensor dirty. The extra focal length is also very very nice. My natural choice is the Nikkor because the quality is decent (for a mega zoom), has an extra 50mm on the Sigma. However it is double the price. From everything I've read the Sigma is actually a pretty good lens and in some aspects I hear better than the Nikkor. On the other hand these are both zooms with a huge focal range, so just in that matter I can't really expect awesome quality photos from either of them (love my 35mm prime). With that said knowing that with a huge zoom like this the quality is not going to be spectacular, is it worth the extra $500 investment? I do have a sigma 10-20 which I am really pretty happy with, it has pretty mean CA, but from what I hear the nikkor equivalent had it too, just the nature of the ultrawide zoom I guess. Nikkor Pros: - 50mm extra focal length - 'nikkor quality' but still is a huge zoom so relative - lower F-stop up top (5.6) - vibration reduction Negative: - Heavier - double the price Sigma 18-250 Pros: - bit lighter - from what I've read quality is pretty decent in some aspects better than nikkor - HALF price - Sigma's vibration reduction system - Pseudo Macro functionality Negative: - 3rd party lens - 50mm less focal length - higher F-stop up top (6.3) I just can't decide! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 For me.. the Fstop would be the decision maker. Does MPEX have them in stock? Can you go up there and try them out to make the decision? Side by side is the only way i coudl do it. Any reason the Nikkor DX 18-200mm VR II isnt on your list? *edit* not the 18-200... sorry the Nikkor AF-S 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR If your gonna spend a grand.. might as well throw that out there.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 the 28-300 isn't really recommended for a DX application What is MPEX? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I'm not familiar with Nikon offerings but have you looked at the 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM APO Lens for Nikon F ? $1,100 that gets you a nice fast lens good for portraits. Doesn't have the reach you want but worth looking into. 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM for Nikon is another decent option for $1,300. Hate to sound like a broken record, but you need to bite the bullet and get a fast lens so you can enjoy all it can bring you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 ok so the 28-300 Nikkor does work on DX, which is a nice benefit because if I ever do go full frame the lens will be compatible. Thing is about the 50-150 and the 70-200 suggested is they are huge, which is expected for an f2.8 lens. and my focal range is limited, aka have to still swap between lenses. I guess the other question is would I really use anything in the 200mm+ range? uggggggggggggggggggh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Or i'll just keep swapping lenses save my money and get the D7100 when it comes out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Or i'll just keep swapping lenses save my money and get the D7100 when it comes out? honestly, you'll get 100x more out of a good lens than you would even if you had a D800 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fynz Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 I guess the other question is would I really use anything in the 200mm+ range? uggggggggggggggggggh I had a slow 70-300, I think somewhere around the f6 range, and as I started getting paid to shoot sports I went for the (Canon) 70-200 2.8. What I lost in range I easily gained back by being able to drop iso and crop in later and still have a better image the the slow 300mm. I have just recently really started making decent money with photography, so I can understand the apprehension to dropping serious money on glass. My first real money drop was on my $1800 70-200 2.8 but that is the lens I pick up 90% of the time, and it has more than paid for itself. All this rambling boils down to a vote for a shorter focal length, faster lens. Even with the added weight, you will never regret it. Also, mpex is the local camera shop on high street. mpex.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbotrio Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Thing is about the 50-150 and the 70-200 suggested is they are huge, which is expected for an f2.8 lens. and my focal range is limited, aka have to still swap between lenses. I have a 50-150/2.8 non-os that you can borrow if you want. It is tiny compared to the 70-200's (Which is why I originally bought it). Jeff Edit: Skip the super-zooms IMO. Get a 18-50/2.8 to go with the 50-150/2.8 and if you want a Tele get a 300/4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 OK ok you've talked me off the ledge. I'm going to wait a bit since I don't really need it. However, if polaris has another factory clearance event I might end up with something that goes off road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrs.cos Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sorry i walked away for a bit.. Full Frame, i have rarely needed over 200, (I'm sure i have WANTED to have over it while i was at Limerock over the weekend, but it was a want more than a need) Do you PLAN to go Full Frame anytime soon? Sorry MPEX is Midwest Photo Exchange on High in Clintonville. (otherwise known as mpex.com) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berto Posted October 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Sorry i walked away for a bit.. Full Frame, i have rarely needed over 200, (I'm sure i have WANTED to have over it while i was at Limerock over the weekend, but it was a want more than a need) Do you PLAN to go Full Frame anytime soon? Sorry MPEX is Midwest Photo Exchange on High in Clintonville. (otherwise known as mpex.com) I don't know really. waiting to see what my options are hoping for a d7100 to see what is offered. The D600 looks fun too. I think it'll be another year or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tractor Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 I wouldn't want a lens that goes out to F6.3 at 250mm myself, but it depends on what you shoot with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.