which lenses?

[WalkingWithStrangers]

Which lenses are the best for their price/quality?

telephoto:
Nikon 55-200mm
Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Lens

macro:
Sigma 150mm
Sigma 180mm


I've heard different things about the first 2 [some bad, some good, but I can't choose which is the better buy]

Which works the best? [in each group]

 

[Overread]

I answered your other thread before I noticed this one and since you are drawing toward the two sigma's I'll answer that part;

Image quality wise you won't be able to tell the 150mm and 180mm apart - I suspect even at the extreme ends of the aperture range you still won't be able to tell. In a studio test you might find one a hair sharper over the other but in all honesty sample variation would be a big factor here and both will deliver fantastic results in real world shooting

The additional feature are also very similar - both have internal focusing (the lens does not extend as you focus) - both have HSM focusing - both have teleconverter compatability (sigma brand teleconverters) - both are sigma EX class lenses - both come with tripod collars and hoods.

The differences are that the 180mm is 30mm longer in focal length than the 150mm and its a little heavier. The only general dividing line that I have ever found is that those who shoot handheld macro tend to favour the 150mm whilst those who shoot more tripod based macro tend to favour the 180mm. However the 150mm is still a fantatic lens on a tripod and the 180mm can also be handheld to good effect.
In all honesty its a tricky choice to make, but whichever choice you finally make you will walk away with a very highquality pro grade macro lens to use.

 

[WalkingWithStrangers]

I answered your other thread before I noticed this one and since you are drawing toward the two sigma's I'll answer that part;

Image quality wise you won't be able to tell the 150mm and 180mm apart - I suspect even at the extreme ends of the aperture range you still won't be able to tell. In a studio test you might find one a hair sharper over the other but in all honesty sample variation would be a big factor here and both will deliver fantastic results in real world shooting

The additional feature are also very similar - both have internal focusing (the lens does not extend as you focus) - both have HSM focusing - both have teleconverter compatability (sigma brand teleconverters) - both are sigma EX class lenses - both come with tripod collars and hoods.

The differences are that the 180mm is 30mm longer in focal length than the 150mm and its a little heavier. The only general dividing line that I have ever found is that those who shoot handheld macro tend to favour the 150mm whilst those who shoot more tripod based macro tend to favour the 180mm. However the 150mm is still a fantatic lens on a tripod and the 180mm can also be handheld to good effect.
In all honesty its a tricky choice to make, but whichever choice you finally make you will walk away with a very highquality pro grade macro lens to use.

Thank you very much, that helped a lot :] Usually I don't really get answers like this so I really appreciate it! I think I'll go with the 150 since I'm really not into using the tripod too much

 

[cameramen]

i personally don't like sigma... if you have nikon body you should get their lenses IMO. the 55-200mm lens is pretty crappy though because it's one of the basic lenses (same with the standard 15-80mm)

 

[Overread]

Any particular reason for the Sigma dislike?
I know there were issues when things changed from film to digital for sigma lenses on digtial camera bodies, but as I understand it sigma were able to rechip many (save the oldest) to work on digital bodies. When it comes to quality control they overall to appear to be in line with grous like Nikon and Canon save that because sigma sell so many more lenses than either the number of fault reports is often higher.
Also sigma make around 5 or so superzoom lenses (things like the 50-500mm and similar) which even canon (in their 100-400mm ) don't manage to get perfect every time as they are very complex lenses. Again sigma making and selling so many more leads to far more stories of their quality control problems.

Another slight nail in sigma's rep is the fact that many people start with a $100 sigma zoom lens and then upgrade to a several $100 nikon/canon lens and instantly expect the budget sigma to stand up to the midrange/pro line canon/nikon - which it has no hope of doing

 

[BRIANxJDM]

I think Sigma is a good company well trusted and it lenses are awesome, my friend has one of their fisheye lenses and it does magic

 

[KmH]

For about a year there Sigma was having quality issues and their sevice was less than mentionable.

However, they got those issues straightened out and are as good as ever now.

 

[icassell]

If you look at my sig, you'll see I have several pieces of Sigma glass. I haven't had issues with any of them and, in fact, like them all very much except for the 2X TC (and I think that is just a function of 2X TC's used with zoom lenses and not the Sigma in specific). Realize, of course, that all are EX glass and I have no experience with Sigma's lower end lenses.