[lazydays]

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.

I use both Sigmas and Tokinas almost exclusively with virtulely no focusing hitch on my Fuji S3pro (built off an N-80 Nikon body). I've shot race cars comming at me at about 250 mph using the 18mm to 125mm without a hitch. In some cases I made more than one shot in about 1/8th of a mile. Look on the front of the camera body for the little lever that controls focus (it will be labled "C", "S", "M"), and try it on "C". The Sigmas and the Tokinas are the better aftermarket lenses. Also check the focusing grid setup (there should be at least four variations).
As for the Sigma 12mm/24mm, I own one and love it!
gary

[lazydays]

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   

I got a sneak peek at the new Pentax K20D Sunday. Was really impressed! The D300 body I was considering would run me about $2100, and without it would be no better than a standard Fuji S5 pro (that has a much better sensor in it). The grip will allow you to shoot those five and six frames per sec things that I never do anyway. Anyway the Pentax K20 pro was a true 14 meg camera that had more features than either the Nikon or Fuji at about $600 less money. The Schneider lenses off the Samsung DSLRs will fit it as well as just about any "K mount" lense from Pentax (can be had dirt cheap). This camera comes with live view, anti-shake, and is self cleaning. But it's also limited to about 3.8 frames per second burts (who cares anyway as I'm not doing movies). Lastly a Pentax is virtually water proff and dust proof.
    If color is your thing then look at the Fujis as they are the best period. But if your doing burts and basketball games you may want to think about a D300. For stills the Fujis are the pro's choice as well as weddings. They do the best JPEGs out there (I find myself shooting less and less raw stuff everyday as it's just a pain).
gary

[lazydays]

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   

if anything the price will go up! There's actually two D300's, and one is a much better camera body ($2100). On the otherhand a Fuji S5pro is virtually the samething, but with a better sensor.
gary

[ooheadsoo]

I typically don't use the continuous autofocus because I focus lock and then recompose the picture, and af-c throws the focus off.  I suspect this is a problem with Sigma's relatively new HSM motor.  I'm curious about the reception of the new tamron 2.8 standard zoom.

[lazydays]

I typically don't use the continuous autofocus because I focus lock and then recompose the picture, and af-c throws the focus off.  I suspect this is a problem with Sigma's relatively new HSM motor.  I'm curious about the reception of the new tamron 2.8 standard zoom.

well I will normally use the manual focus option in my cameras just because that's what I like to do. But I often compensate for this with a high number f stop to increase the depth of field and give me a little more cushion in the focus. As for Tamron lenses; your on your own here as I've never used one I liked. As I said I use almost nothing but Sigmas and Tokinas, plus a few Nikon branded lenses. I also rarely use the very low f stop settings on any lense I've owned except in my film cameras (have a couple 1.2 lenses). Also I think I have had the most trouble with low f stop settings and a flash when I look back.
gary

[jqp]

There's actually two D300's, and one is a much better camera body ($2100). On the otherhand a Fuji S5pro is virtually the samething, but with a better sensor.
gary

What are the two D300's?

[ooheadsoo]

according to lazydays, the (1) D300 and the (2) Fuji S5pro

[jqp]

Ah, I see

[brj]

I have the Nikon/Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens, and confess that it suits my needs admirably.  There are always a few compromises in such a large zoom range, but it means that I never have to take the lens off (exposing the camera's sensor to dirt or dust) and I have a much more compact, lightweight, portable kit.  The fact that is made of high density plastic is actually a plus for me, as it can take a hit and bounce back, rather than dent.  (It has taken one minor hit to its side when I slipped on a wet rock and it survived without a blemish or performance impact.)  The VR works very well, although I still plan to pick up a nice tripod and ballhead to improve my outdoor shooting.

By the way, this was my first Nikon lens after years of mounting older Tamron lenses on my 19 year old N2000.  The Nikon is definitely a step up on all fronts.

(I'd love to have the 70-200mm F2.8 Nikon, but it's price is well above anything that I ever expect I'll be able to justify.  Of course, it is also an FX lens and thus would also survive what I hope is my eventual transition back to full frame shooting, but that is probably a long way out.)

[JohnR]

Thought it would be worth mentioning that Cosina make a Nikon-mount 58/1.4, equivalent to an 85mm on a 1.5 crop body. Manual focus though (on purpose). Initial reviews were a bit mixed, haven't looked/read lately.

[JohnR]

Oh, it was an exposure/metering issue with the lens.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/360-voigtlander-nokton-58mm-f14-sl-ii

[ooheadsoo]

I have a nikkor 50mm 1.8.  I still find head and shoulders portraits to be too bulbous with the 50mm, but it's a nice lens.

Interesting...I have that bust in the photozone review...

[lazydays]

I have a nikkor 50mm 1.8.  I still find head and shoulders portraits to be too bulbous with the 50mm, but it's a nice lens.

Interesting...I have that bust in the photozone review...

One of my favorite lenses is the Japanese built Nikon 50mm 1.8 lense! Some of the best shots I've ever taken went thru that lense. Might add that they can be had pretty cheap on Ebay.
gary

[ooheadsoo]

I did in fact get mine on eBay.  I don't know if it's made in Japan, though.  It's an old AI-s 50mm I got for about $55 shipped.  I just miss the metering so that I can start getting in the zone faster, but what really gets me is the manual focus without a split prism.

Shot around a little with my 1.8 set to 2.8 tonight and I did enjoy the shutter speed increase over my kit lens a great deal.  I will probably get the sigma 18-50 2.8 soon.  Probably the only thing slipping me up now is the fact that the sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 is much sharper in the edges and corners and seems to have a bit better color and contrast.  But I will lose a stop or more at most ranges.

[ooheadsoo]

I got a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8.  It's pretty enjoyable.  It's sharp and doesn't have the focus issues I had with the Sigma 18-200 OS.

Here are some bland crap test images I made, if anyone cares: http://picasaweb.google.com/alioupdate/SigmaF281850mmTestPics

The contrast and sharpness seem acceptable to me at all apertures I tried.  It is softer all the way open, but more than acceptable to me.  Haven't tested bokeh, yet.  I'm pretty close to keeping the lens because of the autofocus performance.  My 50mm 1.8 makes great images but I can't get things in perfect focus 85% of the time in low light.

I have decided that I can't afford both a wide and a zoom, so i think I'll have to settle for a zoom.  Unfortunately, my friend and I rented a 70-200 2.8 for a weekend.  Wasn't that fun?  However, there's just no way I can afford one of those, so I'm down to the 55-200vr vs. the 70-300vr.

[ooheadsoo]

Here are a couple more lackluster shots I took with the Sigma 18-50 2.8









Not enough depth of field, but since I'm hand holding, not enough DOF is better than no shot...
Distortion seems acceptable for all but the widest angles, and even then, with the bathroom tile shots at 18mm, it's not too noticeable except on another one that I didn't post.  But look at that leftmost tile in the handle shot 
And after all this, I think I'll return the lens, after all. 

Debating between an ultra wide + cheap telephoto like the new tamron 11-17 (or sigma 10-20) + nikon 55-200vr or instead getting a sigma 17-70 and a cheap telephoto

[JohnR]

What did you do in the end? The distortion on the wide end *is* pretty wild.

I think I'm going to get the new 60mm macro lens.

[Levi]

The 60mm is great macro lens.  The only downside is you cannot go closer specially with flash.

Here is a shot using a Nikon 60mm macro lens.  Click on the picture and behold the true power.