"Better" Lenses (for Nikon)

[Eco]

Be prepared...the lens envy never stops...ever...

That's the truth! Plus it's about the only thing that everyone on this forum can agree about.

 

[wjastrow]

Thanks to all who posted. I certainly received some very solid and lively discussion, far more than I expected.

In answer to several points: I selected the D300 for its resolution and speed (at the time, 6fps was astounding) and it was "incrementally" priced compared to the D70 I purchasd in 2003 (when it was introduced) for $1299. So, in my case, I paid $500 for a far superior SLR (40% increase for easily 2x the camera). I chose the 18-200mm lense (and THAT took some thinking) because I was forever changing lenses and ending up with "dust specs" on my sensor and liked the versatility of the 18-200mm. As a hobby photographer (with a slightly higher budget than some), who travels with camera and lenses, I know the fate that awaits them. The D300 is built like a tank and I recognized that it is the lenses that would take the brunt of travel hardships. I can't replace an $800 lense at will but accept that I might have to every few years.

Largely based on your collective postings, I'm content to remain at the level of lense investment I'm at until I reach a point where I can either find a way to make photography pay for itself or I stop travelling. The "side by side" comparison of lenses is perhaps the best advice.

Thanks again.

 

[Village Idiot]

What Lens Rental's chart could also prove is that more people rent those lenses more often so they tend to get beaten around more and those lenses are also large telephotos which are heavier and could also be beaten around in shipping.

It's not a very accurate chart to use to gauge quality unless they have a chart showing how often those lenses repaired are rented. Plus it's only data from one company. Borrow Lenses could have a chart that looks completely opposite to that.

The fact remains--Sigma is the most-repaired lens brand that they carry. And, counter to your comment that it might be that the large lenses get "beaten around in shipping", Lensrentals SPECIFICALLY states :

"Just because we get asked it a lot, I’ll add that the Supertelephoto primes (300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, 500f4, 600 f4 from both Canon and Nikon) are our lowest repair rate lenses. Basically we’ve only had damage repairs for any of them."

Hmmm....so Nikon and Canon supertelephotos, all larger, all bigger than the top-four Siggys, are their "lowest repair rate lenses." Kind of shoots down the theory you've put forth

I've been involved with 35mm lenses since the early 1980's,and Sigma has earned its reputation. Did you see that neat-o post from a while back where the fellow's 70-200 Sigma just snapped at the lens mounting ring? No offense to Sigma, but their lens-building reputation is known far and wide as an "affordable" brand, not as a mission-critical brand. For light-duty use, and for bang-for-buck, Sigma offers good value. And yet, out of the lenses listed above, Sigma has 7 of the 16 most-repaired lenses...

Point is, unless you see actual specifics, numbers can be skewed to show whatever you want them to. Not to say that Sigma quality is better than first party.

I just have to ask... why would you buy a 1600+ camera (D300s, D3x, D700, etc) and then put a third party (inexpensive...cheap) lens on it? It would acutally be smarter to buy a cheaper camera and spend the extra on the lenses. The Glass is where it's at....!!!

Which brings me to another issue... If you purchase Awesome lenses and then put a cheap "sky" filter on the end...what's the point. Anyway.... If you are thinking of doing this proffessionally save your money and go for the brand to brand match. Always get the best glass you can afford. However, if money is a huge factor (it is for me) then get what you can afford and spend more time in the field learning to take better photographs... Maybe, you could sell those images to get better lenses...

Be prepared...the lens envy never stops...ever...

Cheap? No. Third party? Yes.

Some lenses like a 70-200 f/2.8, longer length telephoto zooms, and telephoto primes can be had for much cheaper than first party lenses. I personally wouldn't ever purchase one, but there are people who do.

 

[Tighearnach]

Canon has 5 on the list so 7 for sigma isnt really saying a whole lot especially with 3 of Canons being L series lenses.

 

[GeneralBenson]

Be prepared...the lens envy never stops...ever...

That's the truth! Plus it's about the only thing that everyone on this forum can agree about.

I disagree.

 

[Eco]

Be prepared...the lens envy never stops...ever...

That's the truth! Plus it's about the only thing that everyone on this forum can agree about.

I disagree.

I predicted that response when I posted my comment

 

[djacobox372]

You're not going to be able to cover the same range (18-200mm) with a higher quality lens. But you will find that fixed f/2.8 aperture lenses will offer significantly better quality then your 18-200.

A tamron 28-75mm is probably your cheapest option for a high quality zoom lens. It won't completely replace your 18-200, but it would cover the most commmon focal ranges.

Later you can add a 70-200mm f2.8 and a wide angle like a 18mm nikkor prime to cover the rest of the range with pro-level glass.