[ooheadsoo]

I'm new to photography, but am already looking to upgrade from my kit lens.  I have a nikon d40 with the 18-55 af-s.

I just returned, today, the sigma 18-200 hsm os lens.  Optics on the $450 lens could not hold up to my $50 refurbished kit lens, which I found disconcerting.  However, the real deal killer was an autofocus bug.  Several shots I tried to take quickly, without holding the shutter halfway and then recomposing and waiting 5 seconds for everything to decide it was hunky dory were just plain out of focus.  It doesn't take a picture until it finds focus, so why is everything out of focus?  It also missed focus a lot, either deciding to focus on the bushes behind the subject or on the traffic signal 20 feet away and 20 feet up in the air - and even then, the traffic signal wasn't very sharp.  Lastly, the autofocus would often shudder back and forth 5 or 6 times a second.  I'm pretty sure all shots taken under those conditions were OOF.

I digress.  I don't have any needs, merely wants.  I don't have much money, so budget is definitely a concern.  I'm thinking about a fast lens for standard zoom and then something with VR for telephoto.  Not all at the same time, although it would be nice.  It seems like the only inexpensive fast option is the sigma 17-50 2.8 hsm.  Knowing my luck, I will get an absolutely rotten copy with yellow green cast.  I'll probably pair that up with the nikkor 55-200 vr.  I had wanted the nikkor 70-300vr, but am just not sure how useful the 200-300mm portion will be if it's soft - and I WILL get a soft copy.  Besides, I can't justify a $500 telephoto if I'm going to be getting a $500 standard zoom.

I would like to have SOMETHING fast, and telephoto will not be it, so...any other lens nominations besides the ones I mentioned?  Tamron's 17-50 2.8 with internal motor isn't available yet afaik, and besides, its macro capability leaves much to be desired.  I will never consider the nikkor 17-55. Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5?  Although sigma really hasn't inspired me, thus far.  Or should I get the nikkor 18-55 with VR and call it quits on the short end?  Just how much faster shutter speed would I get at f/2,8 if at f/5.6 I get 1/3 second?  With sigma OS, I got usable snapshots, but if the shutter speed only bumps up to 1/8 or 1/15 without stabilization, I think that extra speed might be rendered null.

I'm also currently looking at a vivitar 105 2.5 series 1 macro, but that's a whopping $300 and won't autofocus, which, for me, makes it useless for anything but macros and portraits, and I suck even more at portraits. 

[reflex]

I shoot a Canon 20D and am not that familiar with Nikon's focusing system, but on the Canon I can choose a specific spot for the center focusing in the scene.  This allows me to get autofocus to work as I want it and not focus on something that is not the desired focus point.  Makes it great if what you want to be in focus is not in the the center of the frame.

I would hesitate to purchase another Sigma if I had bad luck with one of their lens.  Have you considered Tokina?  They have a 24-75mm f2.8 that might be a good choice.  I've got their 12-24mm and 24-200mm and love them both.  If you want to see some shots taken with them, you can visit my photosite at:

www.pbase.com/reflectedlight

If you look at the shots of "Dave's Falls", they were taken with the 24-200mm.  And the shots of "Dells Of The Eau Claire River" were done with the 24-200mm and 12-24mm, almost exclusively.

[ooheadsoo]

Yes, my nikon d40 is also on the mode where I can select from which autofocus sensor I am using, center/left/right and so forth.  I have no explanation for why it chose to focus on the traffic signal, or on the bushes behind the subject.

I should also mention that the sigma rendered things that were very slightly out of focus with a very strange effect that looked like motion blur - this despite shutter speeds between 1/800-1/2000.  I boosted iso to 400-800 in broad daylight to verify this.  For example, two ladies walking together, one in focus, the other VERY SLIGHTLY out of focus, the out of focus lady looks like she has motion blur - despite a fast shutter speed of somewhere around 1/800 or faster.  I found that very strange.

Unfortunately, I am in the curious position where I can only autofocus with lenses that have the motors built in, such as Nikon's af-s system or Sigma's HSM system.  For canon users, I think that's USM.  Tokina, afaik, has not yet released any lenses with the autofocus motor built into the lens.  They will be on my short list if they ever get around to doing so.

Great shots, btw.

[navi]

I have the Sigma 15-30 which we call the "flare lens" because when you shoot outside it just flares.

it went soft a few years back and I had it serviced - running ok now but i never use it. I find that if you shoot at f5.6, 8,11, 16 it's fine but when you shoot in between those f stops (f6.3, 10.4,14 etc......) then it's soft and blurry.

Your camera could have a autofocus problem - I know some canon cameras have the same problem (1d MIII had the issue)


Ivan

[ooheadsoo]

The problem only happens on the sigma.  It never happens on my refurb 18-55 or my friend's new 18-55 or his 55-200.

I'm thinking about leaning towards an 18-55 VR + a 70-300VR in a month or two (or the reverse order.)  Does anyone think 2.8 is worth the extra $280 over the nikkor 18-55 3.5-5.6 VR?  It seems to me that the shutter speed increase just isn't significant enough in available light indoors.  You would still have to use a flash, in which case, I'm really trading off depth of field, not shutter speed.  I'll have the telephoto if I want DOF...

[jqp]

How to Get a Nikon 18-200mm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm



I am very tempted since they seem to be in stock now, but I want to decide on a body first.

(fixed link)

[navi]

I'm thinking about leaning towards an 18-55 VR + a 70-300VR in a month or two (or the reverse order.)  Does anyone think 2.8 is worth the extra $280 over the nikkor 18-55 3.5-5.6 VR?  It seems to me that the shutter speed increase just isn't significant enough in available light indoors.  You would still have to use a flash, in which case, I'm really trading off depth of field, not shutter speed.  I'll have the telephoto if I want DOF...

I would make sure you get at least 2.8 -- it's really help me out in low light situations.
and avoid 70-300 my view is that to get a lens to work at 70mm and 300mm there would be a lot of compromises
i'd go for a 70-200 2.8

[ooheadsoo]

jqp:  Best of luck on camera body choice!  I vote you get the D3, but then you won't be able to use that lens except at 5.6mp.  I think I will resist getting the 18-200 because I could practically get the sigma 17-50 2.8 and the 55-200vr for the same price and superior optics.  Mainly, my experience with the sigma 18-200 turned me off a little, heh.

ivan:  How much shutter speed are we talking about?  Like my aforementioned situation, where I was shooting 1/3sec with f/5.6 with stabilization, would 2.8 really help that much?  As for the telephoto 2.8, I'm afraid that's more than my budget for BOTH lenses   With my budget (and remember, I'm a complete novice and boob at taking pictures) I think a 2.8 telephoto is out of the picture.  Besides, I would like to handhold the telephoto most of the time.

[drphoto]

Fast lens, besides the low light thing, are better quality all around from what I've seen, which makes them worth the extra money.

But remember, good equipment does not equate good photographs. Good photographs generally come from good ideas, and sometimes a little luck.

[ooheadsoo]

Yes, another reason why I'm hesitating to throw down the extra $280 for the 2.8.

[jqp]

jqp:  Best of luck on camera body choice!  I vote you get the D3, but then you won't be able to use that lens except at 5.6mp.  I think I will resist getting the 18-200 because I could practically get the sigma 17-50 2.8 and the 55-200vr for the same price and superior optics.  Mainly, my experience with the sigma 18-200 turned me off a little, heh.

I fixed the link to the Ken Rockwell review - he really likes the Nikon 18-200 and also use a 12-24.

I really want the D300, but if I can resist it, may end up with a D40, since realistically I mostly do travel and more casual portait/photojournalism type stuff. I'm just not sure I would spend enough time to justify the US$1800 for the D300 body. Maybe I will get a D40 and sell up to the D300 later in the year when the price drops   

[ooheadsoo]

I know how much KRockwell likes the 18-200.  That's why I tried the sigma, to get a taste of how 18-200 would handle (without the lens creep.)  If you get a good copy of the sigma, it may work for you.  However, the sigma is pretty noisy, if that's a factor for you.  For me, it's almost as if I could get by most of the time with 18-135, and then have a 70-300 for those rare times I want the reach.  But since the 18-135 is both slow and lacking VR, I started to think about other options.  I'm WAS trying to save money, yet minimize my likelihood of switching lenses.  Then I started to think about speed and VR, and things got confusing.

There's no way I know how to do a 12-24 justice, and therefore there is no way I will shell out $$$ for one.  17 or 18mm is plenty wide enough for me to learn on for now.  I'm also torn on the macro issue.  I enjoy it but I can't justify spending $300 on something I use just once in a while.  It's not like I make money with this stuff, or am even any good at it.  For me, the 55 end is still too bulbous for portraits and I find myself constantly wanting more reach outdoors.

Ironically, in terms of sharpness alone, the cheap nikon kit lenses are pretty top notch.  They mostly get dinged for plastic build quality, which a lot of photographers can't seem to stand.  I find that I don't much care, and value the ability to hold my camera in my right hand for an hour or more without worsening my early carpal tunnel.

I have the faintest glimmer of hope that we will see more D3 tech trickle down beyond what the D300 has.  If so, I would get the D40 and wait for that trickle down to happen.

[cliffy]

Nikon 55-200 VR.

Enough said, inexpensive and good.   aa

See link below for Mr. Rockwells comments.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm

Stop beating yourself up.  Get the lens, take some pictures, and report back

[ooheadsoo]

I played with my friend's 55-200vr.  It's nice enough, and the price is right.  If you've handled the 70-300, though, then you know it's a much nicer built lens, although much larger and heavier.

Believe me, I've read most of what KRockwell's written about any modern and many not so modern lenses.  No need to post more krockwell links.  I do agree that the 70-300 has no business at all costing $500.  Nope, none at all, give me one for $300!!   Adorama had a sale on them last month for about $410 or something.  I'm kicking myself hard, now.

But for indoor photos, I'm looking for something that will help my available light shooting.  It's down to <4x shutter speed vs. VR, now.  Now that reminds me that the Sigma 17-70 gives me longer reach while only giving up 1 stop on the long end...

[JohnR]

Just how much faster shutter speed would I get at f/2,8 if at f/5.6 I get 1/3 second?  With sigma OS, I got usable snapshots, but if the shutter speed only bumps up to 1/8 or 1/15 without stabilization, I think that extra speed might be rendered null.

For low light you need to increase your ISO as well (if you haven't already - just thought I would mention it).

And there's always flash... to some extent, you need to moderate your shooting desires to the lenses that you can obtain.

[ooheadsoo]

Yes, I was at iso1600.  And I do have a cheap sb-400 flash, but I'm not good at making it look natural, yet.  It seems like I'm always on exposure compenation +3 and flash exp compensation -3 on my camera, and the subject is still too bright/blown skin highlights etc, while using a stofen diffusor.

I'm going to play with my 1.8 50mm at 2.8 and see what kinds of circumstances would have enough light to benefit from the faster shutter speed.  More comments are welcome.

[ipy]

... using a stofen diffusor.

I'm going to play with my 1.8 50mm at 2.8 and see what kinds of circumstances would have enough light to benefit from the faster shutter speed.  More comments are welcome.

Perhaps a DIY/cheap diffuser may help - it did for me.
http://www.abetterbouncecard.com/

I have the Sigma 18-200 DC OS but did not experience the problems you mentioned. In fact I might use as my walkaround lense replacing a Canon EF24-70mm f/2.8.  Yes, it's not as sharp but I like the wide focal range the Sigma provides.  You have considered returning it for a good copy?

[navi]

ooheadsoo,

Buy whatever you can afford. if spending a extra $300 is out of your price range then don't bother getting 2.8 lenses even though they are better. Sometimes an extra stop could mean the difference between a sharp image to a blurry image.

I can only recommend you get the best lenses because I know people who have bought cheap lenses only to spend more money in the end to get a better ones- I have a 70-200 2.8 IS from canon that i spent $2600 on a few years back but I know it will continue using it as long as they are compatible to Canon bodies.

[Upstateaudio]

ooheadsoo,

Buy whatever you can afford. if spending a extra $300 is out of your price range then don't bother getting 2.8 lenses even though they are better. Sometimes an extra stop could mean the difference between a sharp image to a blurry image.

I can only recommend you get the best lenses because I know people who have bought cheap lenses only to spend more money in the end to get a better ones- I have a 70-200 2.8 IS from canon that i spent $2600 on a few years back but I know it will continue using it as long as they are compatible to Canon bodies.

I concur with Navi's opinion.  Don't buy cheap equipment, learn how to use the equipment you have and wait a while and save for the best you.  Otherwise, you will end up buying 2-3 times to get the same equipment.  Also consider buying used.  EBAY is a little scary. 

Your local camera dealer or www.keh.com should be able to help you out.  You will spend a little more but you will be more sure of the product.

This same advice goes for a tripod as well if you do any tripod mounted photography (especially landscapes).

[ooheadsoo]

I always consider buying used, but the better lenses are hard to come by. 

It's not that I can't afford the $500 lens, it's just that I can't find it in my heart to shell that much out for something I'm not particularly good at.  But as long as I have a family and social life, I can always use a camera...

I think I have my heart settled on a 2.8, now.  Not for telephoto, jeez, I don't need to spend 2 paychecks on a lens I don't deserve to use!

The only thing is that I think I'll wait for the Tamron 2.8 with focus motor to come out, so that there is an alternative to the Sigma.  It would be even nicer if Tokina did the same.