bahrammonshat

I think the lens performance is fantastic here. I used to have the Sigma 10-20, which I sold and got the Tokina 11-16 instead,. I am not even sure if I did the right thing. The Sigma was very dependable. The Tokina focus performance does not seem very reliable, or does it?

My copy of 50mm 1.4 also is soft at 1.4, reasonable at 2 and near perfect at 2.8 and above. My 85mm 1.4 is better than 50mm wide open. I used to have the 50mm 1.8 too. But can not recall its performance at 1.8.

I was wondering if anyone would be able to compare the 410 performance with the 405 when used with DSLR and long lenses. Thanks

Hi Ashk. I just wnet the other way! I sold the 85 1.4 in favour of the 35-70, 2.8 for the following resons:

 

The 35-70 is super sharp.

 

I can compensate for the 1.4 buy usnig flash or 70-200VR, to some degree.

 

I suspect the 85 1.4 AF-S VR might just be around the corner!

Hope I am not digressing here. More positives about the 35-70, 2.8: Its handling and balance as well as the feel is just perfect. I prefer its feel more than that of the 70-200VR maybe because it reminds me very much of the old fashioned super tough Nikkors.

Hugh,

 

I got the 35-70 brand new from B&H a few weeks ago. On DX Formt it is a excellent portrait lens, I believe. On FX an excellent Normal Zoom.

 

PC Please note that on DX, it's range is 52.5-105.

Hi Mark Firley!

It has now been about 8 months since you got the Sigma 150. Was wondering what your thought are now about the lens? Don't you miss the VR? Thanks.

I used to have the 18-200mm and with the exception of the lens creep, was happy with it. Sold it before I bought a Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR instead. I regret selling the 18-200. In my type of photography, it was super sharp and super convenient.

I delayed the purchase of Tamron 17-50 for nearly a year waiting for the Tokina 16-50 to come out. The recent review of Tokina at photozone convinced me that the Tamron was better thant the Nikon and the Topkina, regardless of the price? Why? Simply because the optical quality matters to me more than the build quality!

I own the following lenses:

Nikkor 50mm 1.8,

Nikkor 50mm 1.4,

Nikkor 24mm 2.8,

Nikkor 12-24mm 4,

Nikkor 18-200mm,

Sigma 10-20mm

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8

Delayed the purchase of the Tamron for nearly a year because I was waiting for the Tokina 16-50mm to come out. The recent review of Tokina at Photozone.de convinced me to purchase the Tamron. I just love it.

I own the following lenses:

Nikkor 50mm 1.8,

Nikkor 50mm 1.4,

Nikkor 24mm 2.8,

Nikkor 12-24mm 4,

Nikkor 18-200mm,

Sigma 10-20mm

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8

Delayed the purchase of the Tamron for nearly a year because I was waiting for the Tokina 16-50mm to come out. The recent review of Tokina at Photozone.de convinced me to purchase the Tamron. I just love it.

May I also add that, in my view, the Handling and Feel of the Sigma is clearly better than the Nikkor. Sigma's Build Quality is superb.

I have both Nikkor and the Sigma. I decided that I would keep them both as they are excellent lenses. The Nikkor has higher optical quality, as per tests on the Internet, although I haven't noticed it in real world. But the fantastic 10mm on the Sigma is not available anywhere else for Nikon DSLRs.

Agree with Frank. One save some time reading the manual rather than throwing questions in here. Cheers.

I have had the wobderful D200, 18-200mm, 12-24mm and the SB-600 for just over a month now. They have revolutionised the way I take pictures. I also use my old 24 years old 50mm lens with the camera. Just perfect.