...To cover 10-300 mm focal length range...

[nikolo5]

Good time everyone !

 

Im about to cover the focal length range from about 10 mm to 300 mm (it actually

means 15-450 mm for cropped nikon sensors and it is what I want). I dont trust

"super zooms" so im going to do this by using 3 lenses..

 

 

Im thinking for now about sigma 10-20 EX + sigma 17-70 + nikon 70-300 VR.

 

 

Can someone advise some better alternatives (but within same price range) ?

I will appreciate any comments or suggestions.

 

 

Thank you !

 

N.

[leslie_cheung]

>>>Im thinking for now about sigma 10-20 EX + sigma 17-70 + nikon 70-300 VR.<<<

 

What exactly do you shoot that you need this whole entire range? They are all somewhat

slow to my taste but if you shoot static subjects, they would do I suppose.

[nikolo5]

.... yes , sorry i forget to mention that it is going to be

 

- mainly static shoots with sigma 10-20

 

- mostly static but also moving with sigma 17-70 and

 

- mostly moving but also static with nikon 70-300...

[frank_skomial]

"I dont trust super zooms", and the same can be said about lower end consumer grade lenses either, since that is all in your selection of lenses.

 

Get some good glass of limitted range, or cover range, your choice. Instead of 3 lenses get just 1 lens of professional quality and established reputation. .. not knowing what you shoot... perhaps your lenses are OK.

[frank_skomial]

Perfect timming, you just beat me by a second or two.

 

"static" or "moving" or in-between describes everything in the universe, so we still do not know what is your purpose of those lenses, but... that is beyond the point.

 

Let me put it this way: if you want to sell your photos, and compete with other photographers on the market, then your lens selection is not good enough. If yo shoot family photos, and occational events, and do not make an art of your prints or large posters, then your lenses are OK.

 

In either case, photographer experience can make up a lot for use of less favorable lenses, but there are some limitations, and you will see those when your photos taken with the lenses you mentioned, confront photos of professional photographers.

[juanjo_viagran]

this is my 10mm t0 300mm which I highly recommend.

 

Tokina 10-17mm ATX, Tokina 28-80mm 2.8 ATX pro, Tokina 100-300mm f:4 ATX AFII.

 

 

don't know the price of the lenses you mention, but you can get this 3 lenses for around $1200

[ShunCheung]

You also need to tell us what your budget is and which camera bodies we are talking about. The best lens on the cheapest body or vice versa would make little sense.

 

For example, if you shoot a lot of sports at 300mm and have the buget, a 300mm/f2.8 AF-S VR could be the right choice, or a cheaper used 300mm/f2.8 AF-S, older pre VR version. If your budget is lower, you can go down to the 300mm/f4 AF-S or further down to some 70-300mm zoom, the cheapest being the 70-300mm/f4-4.6 AF-G (non AF-S with plastic mount) that is below $200.

 

There are simply many trade offs among image quality, low light ability, cost, weight and convenience.

[fred_bonnett2]

Nick: Your original choices are fine - I know the 10-20 and the 70-300VR will yeild superb professional results. I chose the Nikkor 18-70 for the mid range.

 

I keep a small "grab-it" bag with those 3 lenses plus a 50 1.8, a 35 2.0 and a 10.5.

 

You can compare the sharpness and contrast od the Nikkor 18-70 and the Sigma 17-70 at the following sites:

 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3315&navigator=6

 

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_zoom18-70mmf_35-45g_if/index.htm

 

They are both fine lenses with the Nikkor slightly better at the wide end and the Sigma slightly better at the long end.

[paul_ferrante]

Your choices are fine. Sure, if you can afford thousands of dollars you can do better, there is always something better. But, you should be able to take some great pictures with that selection. It has more to do with the photographer than the equipment. Ansel Adams took his pictures with a box camera and I would guess that no one has sold more pictures and posters than he.

[bsd230]

Those are all very good lenses for the money. I would maybe throw into the mix the Sigma EX 18-50 2.8 Macro. It's a great lens the 17-70 is a very good lens too. I have had excellent luck with Sigma, love their EX line.

[dzeanah]

Start there. Upgrade the lenses as needed. If you buy used up front, you'll lose less on the back end.

[robert_hooper1]

The Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 comes out pretty well in a consensus of reviews. Of course,

there is not much competition around. The Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 is definitely a "super

zoom" with inherent compromises of slow variable aperture and major light fall-off toward

the corners. If you don't absolutely need a 10mm lens, I suggest the Nikon 12-24mm f4.

 

I would get the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX if you can afford it or the Nikon

18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX if you can't. Though a little rickety feeling, the

18-17 is pretty good performer.

 

The Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR is another "super zoom", Nick. If you

really need the mediocre performance of the 300mm end of this optic then I guess its the

lens for you.

 

Personally, I would save for the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR. Or if you can't

wait then the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF, or a used S version of the same lens. I hate

tele converters, but a good Nikon low power converter might serve you better with these

lenses than your original choice.

[robert_hooper1]

'The 18-17 is pretty good performer.'

 

Should have read: the 18-70mm is a pretty good performer.

[kohanmike]

I have a D70s with a Nikon AF 24-85 f2.8-4 D Macro and a AF-S 70-300 G VR (never did get

a kit lens). I plan on getting a Tokina 12-24 to fill it out. I'm surprised at the quality of the

70-300 VR. Shot a rehearsal of a philharmonic orchestra last week in a gymnasium with

fluorescent light and found it to be very sharp at 300 (450)mm (http://www.kohanmike.com/

rehearsal.htm). The 24-85 includes macro capability and I've shot some very nice close-ups

with it (http://www.kohanmike.com/Macro_Closeups.htm)<div></div>

[kohanmike]

Mistake on the link to the rehearsal:

http://www.kohanmike.com/rehearsal.htm

[paul_ferrante]

Wow Michael! I had heard that that 70-300 was very good, but I'm shocked how good considering these are indoors. I assume you used a tripod, but even still, very impressive. You got me thinkin' (and savin').

[nikolo5]

Thank you for response ! Here are some suggestions:

 

To Frank Skomial:

1. Static means static, when i said "moving" i mean for example running child or anymal, but not flying bird.

2. Where did u see a "professional quality" zoom with 10-300 mm? Tell me please.

 

To Juanjo Viagran: Thank u for suggestion, I'll check the price where I am.. My current expectations about $1500.

 

To Shun Cheung: It is the optics which make a picture, not a body, isnt it ? (assuming I wont use a 1 MP camera)

 

To Fred Bonnett: There are two reasons I choose sigma 17-70 over nikon: sigma is faster and has better build quality.

 

To Brian Duffy: Yes first I've been considering it (18-50) too, but too many reports about chromatic aberrations, which are less in 17-70.

 

To Robert Hooper:

1. I dont know yours definition of a "super zoom". When I mentioned it i mean it is zoom which tends to cover wide-to-tele, not wide-wide or tele-tele. So 18-200 is a super soom, whereas both 10-20 and 70-300 arent.

2. "Personally, I would save for the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR". I would do it as well :) ,but i need something now...

[kohanmike]

Paul, no tripod, all hand held.

[robert_hooper1]

Nick,

 

"I dont know yours definition of a "super zoom". When I mentioned it i mean it is zoom

which tends to cover wide-to-tele, not wide-wide or tele-tele. So 18-200 is a super soom,

whereas both 10-20 and 70-300 arent...."

 

Nick,

 

Generally, the definition of a superzoom or hyperzoom lens refers to an optic that has a

focal length factor of 4x or more, (long end divided by short end). It has also generally

been accepted that any optic with a zoom ratio of more than 3x cannot perform as well as

a prime lens at any given focal length within its zoom range. However, I believe

technology (computer designed optics) is closing this gap.

 

The Sigma 10-20mm does not meet this ratio criteria, however lenses in this extreme

wide angle zoom category deserve a category unto themselves. It is so incredibly difficult

to design a zoom in this range which will produce useful images, let alone images equal to

those produced by a prime lens.

[nikolo5]

Good time again !

 

To Robert Hooper: 1. yes I think you are ring about 70-300 zoom which is >3 zoom ratio and can be reagrded as a super zoom, which is actually the question of terms..

2. Initially I wanted to get some 70-200 glass, which is fast. I can afford Sigma 70-200 2.8 or Nikon 80-200 2.8, but last has not an AFS and seems front element rotates when focusing(?).

 

Honestly, Nikon 70-300's pictures look still foggy in comparison with pro 700-200 glass and im thinking now about Tokina 100-300, which was recomended to me here and which contrast I was impressed by seing pictures in internet (what it will be in reality?).

VR it not an issue for me but something I want to try and ready to pay for.. :)

 

 

>>>>> Please any other suggestions about tele lens ?... I will appreciate yours response..