Tele / Ultra-tele?

[epia]

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 $1400
AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED [NEW] LIST PRICE : SIN$620
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED LIST PRICE : SIN$745

Hi, this 3 lens shakes me ... which lens is the best for zoom? In term of durability and quality.. the price difference is ... huge...

 

[mpenza]

depends on what you wan to shoot and what sort of quality/performance you expect (and whether weight is a concern, Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is a heavy beast). another alternative is Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO Super Macro II which costs ~$340.

 

[epia]

depends on what you wan to shoot and what sort of quality/performance you expect (and whether weight is a concern, Sigma 70-200 F2.8 is a heavy beast). another alternative is Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO Super Macro II which costs ~$340.

How heavy is 70-200? Btw, why is Sigma 70-300 cheaper when it support both macro and has further reach?

About quality... maybe defects which only fussy people will mind?

What is Super Macro II? Got I? What's the I and II ?? :sweat:

 

[mpenza]

70-300 is cheaper because it's a f4-5.6 lens. it's not as well built and focussing is slower.

it's the name of the lens. II refers to second version which has some improvements over the version I.

you could check out specs by doing a search in google, yahoo or other search engines (don't be lazy lah!). here's the link to a chart of the sigma lenses.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/lenschart.htm

 

[mpenza]

btw, you could also check out some reviews of lenses at the following sites:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
www.photographyreview.com

 

[fengwei]

How heavy is 70-200? Btw, why is Sigma 70-300 cheaper when it support both macro and has further reach?

About quality... maybe defects which only fussy people will mind?

What is Super Macro II? Got I? What's the I and II ?? :sweat:

The 70-200 f2.8 lens is a faster lens, better build quality and pics as well, it's kind of a lens for Pros. It's around 1.2kg. The 28-200 lens is just a super zoom lens, suits for normal daily use on a film camera. The 70-300 one has several versions, don't know which one you are looking at. The latest one should be APO Macro Super II, which can shoot macro when focal lens set between 200-300mm. The Super I (actually just a "Super") can only shoot macro at 300mm end.

 

[epia]

Oh, thanks a lot mpenza and fengwei! Will read more in those webbies :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[jumbocrab]

Regarding the 70-300, the G version is much cheaper than the ED version. The only difference in the lenses is the very last lens, which is an ED lens for the ED version. You can search dpreview. Many think that the G version is more value for money. Anyway, most people will use 70-300 for just a while then move on to something better, so may not be good spending too much on it.

 

[destiny_star]

Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 $1400
AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED [NEW] LIST PRICE : SIN$620
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED LIST PRICE : SIN$745

Hi, this 3 lens shakes me ... which lens is the best for zoom? In term of durability and quality.. the price difference is ... huge...

if u already has got other lenses i.e. the wide-angle, the 50mm prime etc and u need a further reach then get a 70-200 f2.8. However if u juz need only 1 lens that does everything for u.. get the 28-200 then.. it's a very good lens.. btw. are u referring to sigma/tamron for the 28-200mm?? well.. having frenz who has the tamron lens, it does seems a little better than the sigma one..

 

[epia]

Yea, read up dpreview.. sounds scary to a newbie like me.. :bsmilie: Hmm.. you mean better as in ED stuffs, brand or further zoom range?

 

[epia]

if u already has got other lenses i.e. the wide-angle, the 50mm prime etc and u need a further reach then get a 70-200 f2.8. However if u juz need only 1 lens that does everything for u.. get the 28-200 then.. it's a very good lens.. btw. are u referring to sigma/tamron for the 28-200mm?? well.. having frenz who has the tamron lens, it does seems a little better than the sigma one..

The last 2 lens are Nikor lens.. Hmm, from what I've learned so far.. can I say that 'all-in-one' lens like 28-200 is inferior in sweet spot to those with smaller range? Like having 3 lenses ranging from 28 to 200 will produce better pics etc :dunno:

 

[mpenza]

in general yes. it's a compromise between quality and convenience. there're some large zoom ratio lenses which could be considered to give good image quality, e.g. Sigma 50-500, Canon 28-300L, etc but these are not cheap (you have to pay for quality).

 

[destiny_star]

The last 2 lens are Nikor lens.. Hmm, from what I've learned so far.. can I say that 'all-in-one' lens like 28-200 is inferior in sweet spot to those with smaller range? Like having 3 lenses ranging from 28 to 200 will produce better pics etc :dunno:

My Apology... confirm wif my fren liao.. his is not Tamron.. it's Sigma.. but same.. 28-200mm.

well.. i won't say 'inferior' lah.. basically... depends of how u wanna shoot it... if u need greater DOF.. then no pt using f2.8 where it only gives u nice bokeh.. nikon's 28-105mm is also another very good lens.. only $620.. sharp and reliable..

 

[epia]

Thanks for all the suggestions guys. Hmm guess I'll give a go at Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 APO Super Macro II, $340. The rating is 3.smth... the sample pics look ok.. Still haven't come across examples of good and "lousier" lens...