Which lens will take a better picture?

Unfortunately, this hobby is super expensive sometimes.
Well, I beg to differ... well, partly. I have a Nikon D40, its kit lens, a bag, and a Sigma 55-200mm F/4-5.6 lens in the sale (is this the one you're talking about?), and I love every single thing about them. It cost me £400 for everything, and that includes "essentials" (memory card, tripod etc).

I could have gone with super-duper F/2.8 lenses that would have cost me a fortune, but I didn't, because I figured it would be unnecessary unless I was interested in going pro. It's all I NEED. It's not what I WANT, but then what is, apart from a massive debt :greenpbl:.

Anyway, I would recommend that Sigma 55-200. It's just my gut feeling to be honest, and is nothing to do with the fact that I have one. Try them both out and see which one you like.
 
Granted for what you want to shoot, sports, weddings etc. You are probably looking at a faster lens than what you listed. Sports/action photography require a fast shutter speed to stop action. To get that you need a f/2.8 or faster which equals $$$$$. Weddings are usually indoors and dimly lit so again you need a large lens to gather sufficient light to attain a decent exposure. Really up to you as to what sort of quality you want. Any lens will take a picture, but is it the right tool for the job? The name-brand lenses are more money, but generally have better IQ and build. Third-party lenses are okay but there is a reason why they are cheaper. 2 cents.
 
Unfortunately, this hobby is super expensive sometimes.

Well, I beg to differ... well, partly. I have a Nikon D40, its kit lens, a bag, and a Sigma 55-200mm F/4-5.6 lens in the sale (is this the one you're talking about?), and I love every single thing about them. It cost me £400 for everything, and that includes "essentials" (memory card, tripod etc).

I could have gone with super-duper F/2.8 lenses that would have cost me a fortune, but I didn't, because I figured it would be unnecessary unless I was interested in going pro. It's all I NEED. It's not what I WANT, but then what is, apart from a massive debt :greenpbl:.

Anyway, I would recommend that Sigma 55-200. It's just my gut feeling to be honest, and is nothing to do with the fact that I have one. Try them both out and see which one you like.

But then again, I'm positive there's shots I could show you that would be impossible for you to get with your setup. If you wanted to do that type of photography, you'd have to spend more money. After all, your pop up flash really can't do the work of three speed lights, or a ringlight, or a set of studio lights.

Being able to shoot indoors with a shutter speed of 1/70 at a focal length of 200mm and an aperture of f/2.8 without cranking the ISO up to 3200 is really a benefit of spending a ton of money. It's the difference of being able to get a shot you need to get or not.
 
But then again, I'm positive there's shots I could show you that would be impossible for you to get with your setup. If you wanted to do that type of photography, you'd have to spend more money. After all, your pop up flash really can't do the work of three speed lights, or a ringlight, or a set of studio lights.

Being able to shoot indoors with a shutter speed of 1/70 at a focal length of 200mm and an aperture of f/2.8 without cranking the ISO up to 3200 is really a benefit of spending a ton of money. It's the difference of being able to get a shot you need to get or not.
Oh, yeah, I know there are very strict limitations to my kit. But if I used a set of studio lights or 3 speedlights then I would propably be shooting pro.

I certainly see what you mean, and it's probably me just being a cheapskate, but I just get what I need.:D
 
Getting directly back to the original post, I don't know about the Sigma, but I have the Tamron AF70-300 LD DI and it is an excellent lens for the money.

Are there better? Yes... but not for $150 or less IMHO. It's better than the cheap 70-300 Nikkor.
 
Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6

or

Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6

I find it quite interesting that "Your camera takes nice pictures" was a frequent "pet peeve" but, for some reason, it's OK to discuss at length which lens takes good pictures! Wasn't it claimed that it's the photographer that's important and the equipment doesn't matter?

By the way, my camera does take nice pictures.
 
I certainly see what you mean, and it's probably me just being a cheapskate, but I just get what I need.:D

Cheapskate here...

Do what you can with what you have until what you have just won't cut it anymore. The next question is where to go from here, what is the next step? For me, its when I master or just get good with what I have and I know what will make it better, whether its a lens or camera or whatever.
 
I'm not too familiar with Tamron, But I have the Sigma APO DG 70-300 Lens and It is a great all around lens. @ the 70mm range it takes great portrait shots and the range going up to 300mm gives you enough zoom to capture mostly anything far away that you want. As far as Sigma vs. Tamron (which is a better quality lens?) They both make good and not so good lenses just like every other co. But if your looking for a great zoom for not a ton of $ $ The Sigma I mentioned is one of my most used lenses. I'm sure Tamron fans will mention a equally good lens from there line. I Think It comes down to personal preference when comparing those 2 brands, from what I know they are about the same.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top