Is this lens good for the price range and for a beginner on a budget?

[dohlfhauldhagen]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0012X43P2/ref=s9_simh_gw_p23_i1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1MA6Y9CP4X5EGCRJV560&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846]Amazon.com: Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SLD DG Macro Lens with built in motor for…[/ame]

I've been looking at some telephoto lenses, and these are pretty cheap at the moment. I have a Nikon D5000 and am just looking for something cheap and efficient. I will probably pick up something like this after I get a telephoto:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-AF-S-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1278799073&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics[/ame]

Are both of these decent pickups? Thanks for any advice!!!

 

[Flash Harry]

They'll do the job, the 35mm 1.8 is good glass, the sigma is just a cheapy tele zoom, nikons own are probably better quality and little price difference. H

 

[Stephen.C]

I do not know about the sigma, but I recently tried the 35mm at my local photography store and it is a very nice lens.

 

[greatest335i]

i love my 35mm but i hate moving too much ahhaha lol

 

[abnormalreply]

That's the standard price for that 35mm. That sigma is **** though. It has no internal system to counteract camera shake (OS [optical stabilization] on Sigmas.) The lens goes up to 300mm, and at that focal length you NEED some kind of stabilization system (if your camera doesn't have an internal one.) At least, for hand-held photography you need one. If you plan on using a tripod, then it should be fine. In really bright daylight, it's okay for hand-held, but in non-bright light situations, it's really crippling.

 

[shutterbugsdesign]

I have the 35mm myself, decided to purchase that instead of the 50mm because of my budget and the range is just perfect.

I have a post on my blog regarding the 35mm. You will see some sample shots I took as well.
My Second Lens from Henry’s Camera : Shutterbugs Design
you can check that out if you want. Hope that helps!

 

[myfotoguy]

The 35mm is a sweet littlle lens, I recently received one as a gift - I really like ti so far. I say go for it!

For a tele - stabalization would be nice, but is not an absolute neccessity for all people. It depends on what conditions you are shooting in. With that said, I really do like stbalization on my tele lenses. I have owned the Nikon 55-200 VR and the 70-300 VR, btoh are great, felt the 70-300 was the greater of the two. The optics seemed better and the VR much better. But, for the price, the Nikon 55-200 VR is a great lens. You can get factory (Nikon) refurbished from Adorama at a pretty good price too (they had them a couple weeks ago).

Back to the Sigma you linked. I have no experience with it. NO VR (OS on Sigma) is not the end of the world if you use a Tripod or if you are in good light with plenty of shutter speed. I seem to remmber it getting good reports for the price you pay, but I really can't say much about it.

 

[supraman215]

Hands down the 35.

Save for the Nikon 70-300 VR.

 

[tirediron]

That's the standard price for that 35mm. That sigma is **** though. It has no internal system to counteract camera shake (OS [optical stabilization] on Sigmas.) The lens goes up to 300mm, and at that focal length you NEED some kind of stabilization system (if your camera doesn't have an internal one.) At least, for hand-held photography you need one. If you plan on using a tripod, then it should be fine. In really bright daylight, it's okay for hand-held, but in non-bright light situations, it's really crippling.

Rubbish!

300mm, hand-held, hazy day, from a moving ship! Image stabilization (by whatever tradename it's maker calls it) is nice, but NOT essential by any means.