Which lens

[ramseagle]

I have a nikon d5100 base kit and I was looking at the sigma lens and I was wondering is there any difference between that and the nikon lens

 

[Patrice]

Nikkor: Image quality (sometimes), build quality (sometimes), long term value (always)

 

[ramseagle]

That makes sense what's a good lens to start off with

 

[flea77]

Of course there is a difference. The general rule of life applies, you get what you pay for. Now, whether or not you need the possible increase in image quality, or the possible increase in build quality, or the increase in long term value enough to pay the difference, that is up to you.

Allan

 

[flea77]

That makes sense what's a good lens to start off with

Good lens for what?

Allan

 

[Derrel]

Nikkor: Consistent color rendering among each generation of Nikkor lenses of the same quality. The "newest" series of Nikkor lenses produce very rich color saturation, and have an almost super-realistic way of rendering scenes, at least on the high end of things with lenses like the new 60 and 105 Micro-Nikkors, the new 70-200, and the new 24 and 35 and 85mm primes, and so on. A typical Nikkor's color rendition, which is not the same as saturation, tends toward what most Canon users might call "cool" or "neutral". Sigma has always been known for its warmer, more-yellowish color rendering, which can NOT be 100 percent eliminated through white balance adjustment. Simply put, Sigma lenses produce more-yellowish renderings of all the colors, compared against Nikkors. (And compared against Canon EF lenses as well.)

Sigma makes a lot of different lenses. They have had some quality control issues over the last few decades, with "some" of their lenses having some really bad, serious QC issues, to the point for example, that the Lensrentals.com company simply had to STOP buying certain Sigma lenses because they broke down constantly, at a high,high rate under rental lens use patterns.

 

[ramseagle]

A lens that good for multi purpose

 

[Alan92RTTT]

What lens you want depends on your budget and what you want to take pictures of.

If you have the base 18-55 the 55-200 or the 55-300 will works well for you.

They are not the best lenses but they will let you learn and grow without breaking the bank.

Personally I like the 70-300 more then the 55-220/55-300 but its costs alot more. I am sure the 70-200 is even better but I'm not willing to spend that much.

 

[ramseagle]

Right now I have about 700 to spend

 

[Alan92RTTT]

the 70-300 VR can be found for around $500

 

[ramseagle]

What about the 18 to 200

 

[flatflip]

If you have the 18-55 kit, you already have a good multi purpose lens. If you are considering the 18-200 as a replacement, you might consider Tamron's new 18-270.

 

[Alan92RTTT]

the 18-200 is an excellent lens. But its expensive $800 from B&H $1000 from amazon.

You can get the 70-300 for $500 from B&N and amazon and have some $$ left.

 

[flea77]

A lens that good for multi purpose

Here is the problem..... What your specific needs are dictates what lens you need. For example, a "good" wide angle such as the 18-55mm Nikon is "good" at taking pictures of groups of people, landscapes, architecture, etc. That same lens is bad for macro (close ups of small objects or details) and horrible at wildlife. On the flip side, the 70-300 is a "good" lens for some wildlife, some daytime outdoor sports, etc but bad at macro and horrible at large groups of people, most landscapes, interiors, nighttime or indoor sports, etc.

They make so many lenses specifically because there are so many different uses, and no one lens works well on all of them.

Allan

 

[Patrice]

They make so many lenses specifically because there are so many different uses, and no one lens works well on all of them.

Allan

:thumbup: