Nikon D5000 Lens options.

[jcrob33]

So.

I'm new here and I have a D5000. Love it, does everything I need it to and then some. Now I would like something with a little more Zoom, what would you suggest for a newbie?

I was thinking about this one (cheap and close) Sigma 70-300mm zoom lens

Or something like this
http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-55-200mm-...era_Lenses&hash=item20b5fb6107#ht_10526wt_924

but what about something new? There is just so many options I can't seem to thread through and find a relatively cheap but solid one.


Thanks.

 

[impulsive1]

It will all depend on what your willing to spend. The Sigma looks to be a good deal. I would definitely take your camera with you to try it before handing money over.

 

[sobolik]

I had 2 sigma lenses and then bought a Nikon lens. I compared results and immediately sold the Sigmas. BUT BUT BUT I did wedding photos with those Sigmas and after using Photsop elements 5.0 to sharpen them the results recieved rave reviews. If you need to save money you can use any lens as this article testifies. Dirty lens article If money is not a concern then buy Nikon. I have a Tokina 12-24 and 2 Nikon lenses. But I am cautious about non-Nikon glass.

 

[jcrob33]

Yeah I would.

What about just a Nikon 55 - 200mm lens? with the VR?

Most people get those when they order the 5000 but my package didn't include it. Is that a solid lens?

Honestly I will be using the camera for everything from studio photo's for SR. Photos to a day of 4wheeling with my Jeep...

 

[jcrob33]

I had 2 sigma lenses and then bought a Nikon lens. I compared results and immediately sold the Sigmas. BUT BUT BUT I did wedding photos with those Sigmas and after using Photsop elements 5.0 to sharpen them the results recieved rave reviews. If you need to save money you can use any lens as this article testifies. Dirty lens article If money is not a concern then buy Nikon. I have a Tokina 12-24 and 2 Nikon lenses. But I am cautious about non-Nikon glass.

Well that answers some of my questions. A Nikon lens is best...

 

[KmH]

There is also a thriving market in used gear, sold by highly reputable online camera stores:

Used Nikon Zoom Telephoto 80-200mm f/2.8 D-AF ED-IF 1985 B&H

and there is refurbished, that comes with a 90 day warranty if it was refurbished by Nikon: Used Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED 2161B

 

[adversus]

I have a D5k and both the Nikon 55-200 VR and the 70-300 VR. I haven't used the Sigma so I can't comment on it.

The 55-200 is decent for the price, but it comes down to how much you want to spend. The 70-300 VR Nikon is a non-DX lens, which is one of the reasons I bought it (I paid $599 for mine but the price is slowly coming down). It'll work on a full frame camera very nice without getting cropped down like the 55-200 would.

Bottom line, if you want to spend $200-240, get the 55-200 VR Nikon. If you can afford it, the 70-300 is freaking fantastic. I love it. Well worth the purchase.

Most camera shops will let you test the lens in the store (at least mine around here do), so try out the 200 vs 300 and see which you like best.

 

[jcrob33]

I have a D5k and both the Nikon 55-200 VR and the 70-300 VR. I haven't used the Sigma so I can't comment on it.

The 55-200 is decent for the price, but it comes down to how much you want to spend. The 70-300 VR Nikon is a non-DX lens, which is one of the reasons I bought it (I paid $599 for mine but the price is slowly coming down). It'll work on a full frame camera very nice without getting cropped down like the 55-200 would.

Bottom line, if you want to spend $200-240, get the 55-200 VR Nikon. If you can afford it, the 70-300 is freaking fantastic. I love it. Well worth the purchase.

Most camera shops will let you test the lens in the store (at least mine around here do), so try out the 200 vs 300 and see which you like best.

Ah interesting.

Well at this point I think I can really only afford that 55-200 so I'll probably go that Direction. But thank you.

 

[NateS]

I would take the APO Sigma over the 55-200 anyday. I actually had both and kept the sigma. Here's a few examples of what can be done with that Sigma (all with a D70 which has less IQ performance than a D5k).

This one with a D90 (same sensor as your D5k)

Some non-bugs...

I honestly regret selling the lens. I thought that the 180mm + 1.4TC would be enough for me, but I miss the Sigma 70-300APO a lot....might even repurchase to use on my D5000 since the 180 usually stays on the D90. Sorry to whore out this thread with pictures, but I can not stress enough....this lens is a HUGE SLEEPER. The image quality that can be produced from it is very astonishing considering it's price....definitely a good pick up.

 

[NateS]

I had 2 sigma lenses and then bought a Nikon lens. I compared results and immediately sold the Sigmas. BUT BUT BUT I did wedding photos with those Sigmas and after using Photsop elements 5.0 to sharpen them the results recieved rave reviews. If you need to save money you can use any lens as this article testifies. Dirty lens article If money is not a concern then buy Nikon. I have a Tokina 12-24 and 2 Nikon lenses. But I am cautious about non-Nikon glass.

Well that answers some of my questions. A Nikon lens is best...

This is just not true...too generalized. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is considered to be the sharpest 50 1.4 out there....it is even compared to the 3 times more expensive 50/1.2. Same can be said in other areas.....the Sigma 150mm f2.8 is preferred over any Nikon offerings very often...the list could go on. A 70-300 VR will be sharper wide open than the APO Sigma, but if you are shooting outdoors or with flash, it is easy to stop down to f/8. This is a big factor considering it is 4 times cheaper on the used market (100 vs 400).

If you could afford it, the 70-300 VR and add a Canon 500d close up lens if you wanted the macro feature would be a better option, but on a budget...and compared to the 55-200, the Sigma is a big competitor with things to offer over the Nikon variant.

 

[jcrob33]

If I can get this Sigma for 75, I'll take it!

 

[NateS]

If I can get this Sigma for 75, I'll take it!

Definitely, but, it is easily worth $100 and I just sold mine a couple months back for that amount. It is $209 (or thereabouts new), so $100 is pretty fair if it's in great condition.

One thing to do, test it out and make sure that it will autofocus on your D5000. There was an older version of the apo (optically the same, and the one I had) that had no built-in motor and wouldn't AF w/ a D5k, then it was updated with the motor...make sure this is the one with the motor and will AF for you. If so, it's a winner in my books.

 

[jcrob33]

She said she used it on a 5000, but yes I'll go handle it and make sure everything works properly.

She also said she'll take $75 so I'm going to check it out today! Sweeeet!


Thanks for your advice.

 

[sobolik]

I had 2 sigma lenses and then bought a Nikon lens. I compared results and immediately sold the Sigmas. BUT BUT BUT I did wedding photos with those Sigmas and after using Photsop elements 5.0 to sharpen them the results recieved rave reviews. If you need to save money you can use any lens as this article testifies. Dirty lens article If money is not a concern then buy Nikon. I have a Tokina 12-24 and 2 Nikon lenses. But I am cautious about non-Nikon glass.

Well that answers some of my questions. A Nikon lens is best...

This is just not true...too generalized. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is considered to be the sharpest 50 1.4 out there....it is even compared to the 3 times more expensive 50/1.2. Same can be said in other areas.....the Sigma 150mm f2.8 is preferred over any Nikon offerings very often...the list could go on. A 70-300 VR will be sharper wide open than the APO Sigma, but if you are shooting outdoors or with flash, it is easy to stop down to f/8. This is a big factor considering it is 4 times cheaper on the used market (100 vs 400).

If you could afford it, the 70-300 VR and add a Canon 500d close up lens if you wanted the macro feature would be a better option, but on a budget...and compared to the 55-200, the Sigma is a big competitor with things to offer over the Nikon variant.

"This is just not true...too generalized. "

Apparently a random poster has determined by some sort of voodoo that I did not own 2 Sigma lenses. I did not buy a Nikon and compare and did not sell the Sigmas.

The funny part is that the voodoo practitioner then launches into generalized commentary. Interesting. Maybe the poster just loves Sigma and sticks up for the brand.

 

[NateS]

Well that answers some of my questions. A Nikon lens is best...

This is just not true...too generalized. The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is considered to be the sharpest 50 1.4 out there....it is even compared to the 3 times more expensive 50/1.2. Same can be said in other areas.....the Sigma 150mm f2.8 is preferred over any Nikon offerings very often...the list could go on. A 70-300 VR will be sharper wide open than the APO Sigma, but if you are shooting outdoors or with flash, it is easy to stop down to f/8. This is a big factor considering it is 4 times cheaper on the used market (100 vs 400).

If you could afford it, the 70-300 VR and add a Canon 500d close up lens if you wanted the macro feature would be a better option, but on a budget...and compared to the 55-200, the Sigma is a big competitor with things to offer over the Nikon variant.

"This is just not true...too generalized. "

Apparently a random poster has determined by some sort of voodoo that I did not own 2 Sigma lenses. I did not buy a Nikon and compare and did not sell the Sigmas.

The funny part is that the voodoo practitioner then launches into generalized commentary. Interesting. Maybe the poster just loves Sigma and sticks up for the brand.

A. I'm no random poster. B. Apparently I as well was too generalized with what I quoted.

If money is not a concern then buy Nikon

That statement is what I meant to be too generalized. There are many cases out there where a third party lens is a better alternative for IQ than the Nikon variant. Even in this situation it's prevalant. The Sigma 70-300 APO is more similarly priced to the 70-300G and the Sigma (in my opinion and tests) is far better than the 70-300G. Saying to buy the Nikon version if money isn't an object (as a generalized statement...as you've done)is just not good advice.

Also, your situation is too generalized. Every single lens is different...some lenses, Sigma is stronger, some Nikon is stronger. Unless you directly compared the two lenses in question (I have), your experiences are moot point. Sorry to be harsh, but seriously giving advice without first hand experience, and then getting offended when somebody says that your statements are too generalized (i.e. not even about the lenses in question)?

Edit: I have no doubt that you did the irrelevant (to this thread) things you've done...and generalized commentary? Only trying to get your narrow mind to understand that Nikon is not always better. I have Nikon glass, Tamron Glass, and Sigma glass...I prefer no brand over another, but do prefer certain brands for certain lenses.....I pick the best tool for the job, not just a tool because it's nikon.