Poor Man's Holy Trinity - Relatively Speaking

PhotoXopher · Oct 21, 2009

I can't afford the Nikon setup so here's what I'm thinking...

Sigma

I'm not a pro, or even a serious amateur - but I do enjoy my hobby and want the best I can afford.

Right now I have the Sigma 18-250 which I love but I am going to have to sell to get my new trio.

Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 (Do they even make one?)
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

OR

I am thinking I may be able to get by with a duo...

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

I don't think I'd miss that 51-69 range, but it's not as complete either.

Anyone have either setup that can push me one way or the other? I do find myself shooting wider than 24 quite often which is why I'd go with the 18-50 over the 24-70 in a 2 lens setup.

Thanks for any comments/suggestions!

EDIT
Looks like Sigma answered my question - it appears they don't make a 14-24 or 12-24 lens in an f/2.8 so I'll be going with the 18-50 and 70-200.

I can't wait!

Tighearnach · Oct 21, 2009

I was in a similar situation a year ago. I bought the 18-50 f/2.8 but decided against the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and got the canon 70-200 f/4 instead. They are a similar price. Canons prob cheaper. I have to say i love both lenses but altho not a pro or gifted photog by any means i do notice a distinct difference in quality between the canon and the sigma. Altho i have lost a stop of light i wouldnt trade it for the sigma now altho i would trade it for the canon version! The canons also seem to hold their value better in terms of resale.

PhotoXopher · Oct 21, 2009

I suppose I could get the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 instead of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for a few hundres more but then I'm really spreading the middle range open (50-80).

I've read really good reviews on the Sigmas so I think I'm going to stick with that route, plus I really enjoy my Sigma 18-250.

Antithesis · Oct 21, 2009

N0YZE said:
I suppose I could get the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 instead of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for a few hundres more but then I'm really spreading the middle range open (50-80).

I've read really good reviews on the Sigmas so I think I'm going to stick with that route, plus I really enjoy my Sigma 18-250.

I had a Sigma 70-200 and it was really, noticeably soft wide-open. To the point where it was unusable at 2.8. You can get the "two-touch" Nikon 80-200's for pretty cheap and they are very sharp from what I hear.

I think if I were going to buy a poor man's lens line-up, I'd get a third party 12-24 (like a Tokina, but make sure you can trade if you get a poor copy), 35 1.8, 50 1.4 and a 80-200. It leaves some gaps in your line-up, but you can usually get buy without those weird focal lengths (like, between 50-80... you can use 50 or 80 perfectly well for portraiture). Plus, you end up with much sharper images and a couple stops more light when you need it. You can probably get everything for like ~$1600-$1800 depending where you shop.

bigtwinky · Oct 21, 2009

Sigma has a great wide angle lens, definatly a good purchase. I was going to get one but got a gift certificate to a shop that didnt stock Sigma and I bought the Canon.

Sigma | 10-20mm f/4-5.6D EX DC HSM Autofocus Lens | 201306 | B&H

I believe they may of come out not too long ago with a newer model, possibly a constant aperture (thinking 3.5)

Derrel · Oct 21, 2009

Not to put down the Sigma, but I thought the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 was a better lens. I'm impressed by images I have seen from the 17-50. If you want to go 'budget', maybe the older 17-35 Tamron Di 2.8~4, which is a good wide zoom, the superb Nikon 35-70 f/2.8 D, and a used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D Nikkor two-touch zoom? The range might be limited, but the 35-70 2.8 is really quite a fine lens, and I've seen clean copies selling in the $300 range as recently as this summer.

NateS · Oct 21, 2009

If you want an "unholy" trinity (since they're mainly third party)....I'd suggest

Sigma 10-20
Sigma 24-70 HSM (heard great things about this one)
Nikon 80-200 f2.8

Everybody says that the 80-200 f2.8 is everybit as sharp as the 70-200...just minus VR. I would definitely sport the extra for the 80-200 over the Sigma 70-200. I've seen a lot of soft images being posted from the Sigma which leaves me unimpressed.

Tinstafl · Oct 28, 2009

I went with the sigma 24-70 hsm 2.8 and the 70-200 nikon. Love them both.

Saved a bit on the 24-70 and bought a nikon teleconverter for the 70-200.

Sw1tchFX · Oct 29, 2009

get the Nikon 80-200, trust me, you won't miss the range from 50-80mm. You won't even notice it. because when you want something longer than 50mm, you'll want 80, and when you want wider, you'll want 50. Not 60, or 70.

Sigma makes a pretty inexpensive used 14mm f/2.8 prime. I don't know how good it is though, i wouldn't expect too much however.

Derrel · Oct 29, 2009

I thought the Poor Man's Holy Trinity was 1) a comfortable chair 2) a color TV set with cable TV and a good remote 3) a six-pack. Seriously.

I'd agree with SwitchFX on the area between 50mm and 80mm not being all that necessary if one has an 80-200 zoom lens. I reqlly,really,really think your idea of the DUO makes the most sense, with an 18-50 Sigma or the Tamron 17-50; 24-70 on APS-C is just not my idea of a good lens for,well, hardly anything except outdoor scenic work....the 24mm to 35mm zone of a 25-70 is simply not wide enough for wide-angle shots, at all. 17-50 or 18-50 is an entirely different ballgame.

PhotoXopher · Oct 29, 2009

Thank you all for the input... I've decided to go with a dual for now, and my first purchase will be this week - just not sure which.

Sigma 18-50 or Tamron 17-50... hmmm.

Antithesis · Oct 29, 2009

Sw1tchFX said:
get the Nikon 80-200, trust me, you won't miss the range from 50-80mm. You won't even notice it. because when you want something longer than 50mm, you'll want 80, and when you want wider, you'll want 50. Not 60, or 70.

Sigma makes a pretty inexpensive used 14mm f/2.8 prime. I don't know how good it is though, i wouldn't expect too much however.

Kind of off topic, but that prime goes for like ~$600+ if you can find one. Nikon's release of full frame cameras has kept the price up.

Sw1tchFX · Oct 30, 2009

Right, $600 for a 14mm isn't bad, especially considering how expensive is Nikon's 14mm and Canon's 14mm?

epp_b · Oct 30, 2009

What body are you using? The 14-24/24-70/70-200 doesn't make as much sense for crop frame as it does for full frame.

A 10-20/24-70/80-200 combo is probably ideal. Those few mm in between can easily be compensated by your feet.

A two-lens setup using a 18-50 and 80-200 is probably also doable. The gap between 50mm and 80mm is short telephoto, so having to zoom with your feet in this range isn't a big deal.

KmH · Oct 30, 2009

Keep it all Nikon

AF-S 12-24 mm f/4G IF ED ($1030, new)
AF 24-85 mm f/2.8-4D IF (has 1:2 macro too from 35-85 mm)($700, new)
AF 80-200 f/2.8D ED ($1100, new)

$2830.....if you buy new. The only trouble is the first is DX.