suggestion of telephoto lens

[luntut]

maybe i am just too picky.

i do my comparisons at 100 percent crops.

if you take full pictures and compare, i seriously think even 18-200s are good enough. or even the kit lens.

so what for invest in such expensive lens?

 

[averynkh]

Well, if it's any consolation, the one i'm using is the one in the ebay URL

The version in the other link is the newer 'MACRO' one. The only difference btwn the 2 is that the newer one has a shorter minimum focusing distance :think:

are you series?
well, i m not sure, i thought they are different lenses, the first link i pasted is improved version which is what HSM II bla bla, saying the motor is better, so it is actually newer version from ebay that one?

then as u said, it is improved at macro this function only? coz ebay that one is cheap enough to me where the brand new one is quite expensive.... so... actually i can still go for ebay that one? :sweatsm: and ebay that one is constant lens too?

oh happy to hear this... coz i thought i have to go for that newer ver which is HSM II... i couldnt find a cheap one in ebay :sweat:

 

[averynkh]

seems like that one in ebay that i wanted is pretty old lens :dunno:
and is hard to get its information, so this is the one too, right?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3316&navigator=3

do u guys still recomm this old lens?
um....:think:

 

[Daedalus Trent]

if you take full pictures and compare, i seriously think even 18-200s are good enough. or even the kit lens.

so what for invest in such expensive lens?

No kit lens or 18-200 is going to give you the bokeh a 70-200 can give. Nuff said :sweat:

seems like that one in ebay that i wanted is pretty old lens :dunno:
and is hard to get its information, so this is the one too, right?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3316&navigator=3

do u guys still recomm this old lens?
um....:think:

Like i said, i'm pretty sure it's the one i'm using. and yea, it's not perfect but it does it's job for me

 

[luntut]

No, kit lens or 18-200 is going to give you the bokeh a 70-200 can give. Nuff said :sweat:

not trying to get into an argument with you bro, about this.

i am comparing IQ, not bokehs. you can photoshop bokeh into a picture. you cannot photoshop IQ.

and if you wanna talk about bokehs,
f/5.6 at 300mm gives damn nice bokehs too. as compared to f/2.8 at 200mm.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

not trying to get into an argument with you bro, about this.

i am comparing IQ, not bokehs. you can photoshop bokeh into a picture. you cannot photoshop IQ.

and if you wanna talk about bokehs,
f/5.6 at 300mm gives damn nice bokehs too. as compared to f/2.8 at 200mm.

and neither am i. Why split hairs?

 

[luntut]

No kit lens or 18-200 is going to give you the bokeh a 70-200 can give. Nuff said :sweat:



Like i said, i'm pretty sure it's the one i'm using. and yea, it's not perfect but it does it's job for me

and neither am i. Why split hairs?

not intending to be splitting hairs.

just that, we were talking about IQ comparison, subsequently at 100% crop, till the topic of bokeh was brought in, as above.

 

[Daedalus Trent]

not intending to be splitting hairs.

just that, we were talking about IQ comparison, subsequently at 100% crop, till the topic of bokeh was brought in, as above.

True.

And yea, i do agree with you. Kit lenses are pretty sharp on their own. But that's after you stop them down (say...2 stops?)

 

[Omega23]

Lol I blow out pics from mine 18 -200 and compare with 80-200 I can see a huge different. If there is no different I think nikon canclose down liaoz. Those pro will not use fast lens.

 

[Lomographer]

not much different though

but when shooting indoor sports, you will see why you need f/2.8

but besides that, the IQ is actually as good.

 

[robotech]

in fact nikon's 70-200mm is my aim but it is really expensive to me, and i found out this sigma's, is this a good choice for me? and i think tamron has similiar lens too... can you guys suggested me a telephoto lens as i think i really need one... btw, is this lens compatible with nikon d80? :what:

Since the Nikon 70-200VR is your aim, why settle for something lesser? I've been using the 70-200 for 3 over years, never regretted. Why not just rent it when you need to shoot now and save up for it?

 

[luntut]

Lol I blow out pics from mine 18 -200 and compare with 80-200 I can see a huge different. If there is no different I think nikon canclose down liaoz. Those pro will not use fast lens.

haha ya. if you do a 100% crop of any picture on your computer, you will be able to see the difference in IQ. comparing entire images will not see the problems, unless you got a computer screen that's 5000 pixels by 4000 lines across...

blowing up images to big pictures will be a very big test of IQ...

 

[woolman]

hi guys, i owned a nikon d80, tokina 11-16mm f2-8 and tamron 17-55mm f2.8, well i always wanted to get a constant lens with f2.8

in fact nikon's 70-200mm is my aim but it is really expensive to me, and i found out this sigma's, is this a good choice for me? and i think tamron has similiar lens too... can you guys suggested me a telephoto lens as i think i really need one... btw, is this lens compatible with nikon d80? :what:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_n15/

guys, are they the same lens? i feel a bit confused...
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Sigma-70-200m...66:2|39:1|72:1690|240:1318|301:1|293:1|294:50

my main consideration is dun be so expensive like nikon's... and of coz f2.8 and it is constant..

Tamron, Sigma and Tokina all make 70-200mm f2.8 that's cheaper than Nikon but optics and Auto focuse may be a behins Nikon's