What would you choose

[stepollard1]

Hi guys,

Taking into account price, versitility and image quality what would you go for.
What would you add to an existing setup of, a Nikon D60, 18-55mm kit lens.

Sigma 55-200mm f4-5.6 DC Lens (Nikon Fit) £109.99
Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro DG lens £129.99

Nikon AFS DX 55-200mm f4-5.6 G ED VR Lens £126.00
Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED £399.00

 

[jdjen]

I have the Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 Macro DG lens and really like it. IMO great everyday, walk around lens.

 

[stepollard1]

Will i miss the gap at all between 55mm and 70mm at all?
Also what are the noticable differences between the Sigma 70-300mm and the nikon 70-300mm apart from the VR ?

 

[KmH]

Will i miss the gap at all between 55mm and 70mm at all?

Probably not. It's one step forward, one step backwards difference at most.

Also what are the noticable differences between the Sigma 70-300mm and the nikon 70-300mm apart from the VR ?

In favor of the Nikon: Image sharpness, better color saturation, less chromatic aberration, image stabilization (very handy beyond 200 mm), and the Nikon lens is not limited to DX only, it's an FX lens. The Nikon lens will hold it's resale value better too.

 

[tirediron]

Will i miss the gap at all between 55mm and 70mm at all?

Probably not. It's one step difference at most.

Also what are the noticable differences between the Sigma 70-300mm and the nikon 70-300mm apart from the VR ?

In favor of the Nikon: Image sharpness, better color saturation, less chromatic aberration, image stabilization (very handy beyond 200 mm), and the Nikon lens is not limited to DX only, it's an FX lens. The Nikon lens will hold it's resale value better too.

Wot Keith said! :thumbup:

 

[Vinny]

I agree, Nikon 70 -300 ... I am agreeing because I have that lens ... but it is a pretty good lens!

 

[Stradawhovious]

I chose Nikon over Cannon because of the glass. I LOVE Nikon glass. I figured if its good enough for my rifles (and it is), its good enough for my camera.

Keep in mind I'm a bit biased, but I havent been pleased looking through sigma glass. I don't feel that it's near the same quality as the Nikon. In my humble, under-experienced, under-educated, overlookable and biased opinion, the Nikon glass is well worth the extra money.

Also, if you're going out to 300mm (which will be actually closer to 450mm on your body I think) you are going to seriously want to consider the VR. the difference is drastic and noticable at even reasonably fast shutter speeds (at least it was for me.)



FWIW, YMMV, my .02 and all that.

ETA, you had better be darned sure that the Sigma lenses AF on your body if you are expecting that feature. I can't see an aftermarket lens that's a quarter the cost of the brand name having a reliable internal AF motor that was properly reverse-engineered.

 

[stepollard1]

Right most of you have favoured the Nikon 70-300mm.
Are the benefits really worth, the extra 260GBP step up from the 55-200mm. Considering that price is one of the deciding factors?

 

[Vinny]

Having the extra reach that the 300mm will give you might be something you wished you had when you don't have it. There is the non VR version that is cheaper but I have read that it is somewhat inferior to the VR version as far as sharpness.

It really is your decision and only you know what you need. I chose the 70-300 for the extra reach and as was mentioned on a Nikon crop sensor you're talking 450mm equivilent and if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame sensor it will work on that as well.

 

[stepollard1]

Cheers for that vinny,
But i am totally new to slr photography. I think i am going to start off with the chaeper 55-200mm. Ya know to get use to all the zooming and stuff.

 

[Vinny]

I hear you! If money was free we'd all have everything we wanted ... the money you save can be put to use somewhere else or on more equipment.

 

[stepollard1]

Yes i.e tripod, carry bag etc