jakemaryniak

Here in New Zealand (Southern Hemisphere for you Nordies) our sun is different. We do have a huge ozone hole, so there is vast amount of UV around, hence most of my images in bright sunlight will have that milky look to them. I always try (when I can) shoot (while in bright sun) so there is a darker background behind the subject. This usually gives me better contrast and makes the subject pop more

To be more precise. I just bought Sigma 70-200 F2.8 Sport lens. So from impact or dust protection, I would consider one, but what would the negative IQ side of the coin be? Would I see any noticible differences in my photos from having one on?

Do I really need a UV filter? Is it only for lens protection? Can I get away without using one?

There is a big BUT however. This thing is built like a brick sht house and heavy as hell. So will need to invest in either a good quality HD tripod or a monopod. Don't think my arms are strong enough to hold this thing up all day long. :)

Over the weekend I had a chance to play with friends Sigma 70-200 F2.8 Sport. I was so impressed with this lens, how it handles, sharpness etc, that I went out to my local photo gear shop and purchased one for my self. It was actually on special, and at less then half what they were asking for the Nikon equivalent. I will be probably listing the 18-200 VR ii on my local marketplace site, and now pretty much have the dream kit of two F2.8 zooms that should cover all my needs nicely

Exactly my thoughs

For my most everyday photography I am happy with the Sig 17-50 F2.8. Awsome lens. From past experience I found that when I was using any zoom lens at or near its longest zoom, I found that I was running out of light. Had to bump up the ISO to compensate or increase the shutter speed. This would either end with grainy photo or out of focus subject. Keep in mind I am talking birds or any subject that was moving. In the past when I was using my dads rig (Canon) Few times I borrowed his 70-200 F2.8 IS lens and I had great results while photographing rally cars or animals at the zoo etc. I found that 70-200 zoom was more then enough for me in most cases. Unless I was only photographing birds, I have no justification to invest in a good 500/600 zoom or prime lens. My purpose of this exercise is to get a lens that does not overlap with my 17-50. Hence I thought 70-200 F2.8 would be near perfect. I only have to carry one spare lens with me when I travel. I have seen few good second hand examples on Ebay, however still wee bit out of my price range. I am happy to put up with the 18-200 when I need to use the 200 zoom, until I have enough coin to buy the 70-200. I have used few of them in the past and was very happy with their performance. (I do have to admit that they were used with D70s) So I do know that with D7000 and extra pixels, the results my be little bit different

That is exactly what I am thinking right now. My original thought behind this post that there is a large overlap between these lenses. In most situations (about 85%) I tend to use the Sig 17-50. But I always worry that I might miss a good shot because I don't have a bigger zoom on me. On the other hand from zoom perspective 18-200 is perfect lens on paper, at the cost of IG if or when I need a faster lens. In the Ideal world I would love to keep my 17-50 (which I will) and swap the 18-200 for a 70-200 F2.8. I might still go down that route subject to finances allowing. Probably will look at a good second hand copy. So in the shorter term I might end up keeping the 18-200 as a stop gap for when I need the zoom while saving my coin until I can replace it with a 70-200 F2.8.

Were you thinking along the lines of 10-20mm ?

I see your point there. Perhaps I should be more specific as to what sort of photography I do. Mostly family photos and street photography where extra zoom is not needed. I get that adding a 35mm to my 17-50 F2.8 might be bit pointless. I would like at some stage photograph wildlife (birds etc.) where I think something like 70-300 would be sufficient for me without the overkill off 70-200 F2.8. So I could to some effect justify having 70-300 in my kit. The only reason I would now justify keeping my 18-200 was as a travel do all lens. So I guess my original question should read, taking into consideration that I already have 17-50 F2.8, should I swap the 18-200 for 70-300, and maybe add 35mm F1.8 for the sake of having a prime?

I need some advice as to lens choices. I have recently bought a mint used Nikon D7000 with Nikon 18-200 VR (kit?) lens. I have also acquired the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS lens. I have already made up my mind that the Sigma will be my main go to lens as I believe it is better lens of the two. (even at the sacrifice of extra tele range) I am at loss as to what to do with the 18-200. Shall I keep it in case I need the extra zoom, or sell it an buy say 70-200 or 70-300 VR lens? I don't use the extra zoom that much and prefer to use my feet and get close to the subject when ever I can. So my question is. keep the 18-200, swap it for 70-200/300 VR or maybe sell the 18-200 and buy a 35mm F1.8 for the times I really want to experiment with low light. Any comments / suggestions welcome