FYI- the "x" rating of a zoom rating is useless really- it just takes your max focal length and divides it by your min.

For lenses, the important numbers are the actual focal lengths (taking into account any crop factors, which in your case is "focal length x 1.5") and the aperture numbers. There are numerous other factors in lens construction price, but those are the first ones that people normally look at.

there are some fantastic photos on there!

i can certainly see the huge diff of the FF wide angle lenses! makes me want to get a sigma 12-24 now lol

i wonder if there's a site similar to this that compares macro lenses...

The Sigma 12-24mm isn't very good.

A friend of mine got that lens and can't stop talking about how good it is. What's your take?

Take a look at the overall sharpness of the lens and the corners....it's shit. Also, the wavy distortion produced by the lens is impossible to correct in software, so it's useless for architecture. It's a good lens for the price, I guess, and is popular with the consumer, but unacceptable for professional work if one's final image sizes are going to be 11x17+.

Mananetwork had one a few years ago, but he sold it. The photos were great with web size images, but with bigger prints, it fell apart.

A bit off topic but where would be the cheapest place to pick up a rear lens cap for Nikon? I put mine in my camera bag and it's gone missing...

If you guys were buying your first prime lens, which would it be? The 50mm AF f1.8D, f1.4D or something else?

From the reviews I've read online, the f1.8D is a bargain at $150 and is even sharper than the f1.4D. However at 2.5x the price, the f1.4D has a better build quality and an extra 2/3 of a stop, which may be useful for the occasional shot. I'm leaning towards the f1.8D right now but wanted more opinions on it as most of the forum posts I found via Google are a few years old. Thanks!

ebay, but if you're in a hurry they're at most camera shops for around 5-10 dollars.

I believe the 1.8 is a bit better for daytime shooting, but the differences are noticible only if you pixel-peep. This guy does a decent job of reviewing em.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5014af.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018af.htm

I'd say go with the 1.8. I'm not sure how the Nikon build quality on their 1.8 is, but if it's anything like the Canon there's definitely a lot more to be desired.

That being said, the reason I say go with the 1.8 is that it's a great deal for a great prime, and if you are careful with your lenses you probably won't be replacing it. 1.4 is nice but I guess it also depends on what/where you are shooting, since that's a pretty shallow depth of field. To be honest I don't use apertures larger than 2.8 on my 50 unless it's really low light. You could also up your ISO if you're really pushing shutter speeds to their lower limits. Considering you got the D300s, I don't think you'll be complaining too much with low-light shots :thumbsup:

If you have a 1.5x crop camera, try having a look at Sigma's 30mm f1.4. Just make sure you get a good copy.

I have an Eos Rebel XS and am going to start taking more pictures at concerts. I was thinking of the 24-70 f/2.8. Prob the Sigma variant of it. Any thoughts? Or do you suggest upgrading my body first?

like previously stated.. if you go the sigma route make sure you buy in store and try multiple copies.

I personally have never used it but doing a quick review search shows that it's a very good lens for the price - http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/31...review?start=1

And for me I'd personally invest in glass before upgrading the body.

Why not get the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 for almost half price?

Because the extra 1/3 stop is worth it...


......and because I totally forgot about that Nikon. :p

Does anyone know a local store that sells the Tamron 90mm (Canon) other than Kerrisdale? I want to try them in store but can't seem to find one! :cry:

Hey everyone, I just bought a Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS lens for Nikon, and I was wondering if its normal for it to have some resistance while zooming about halfway in. The zoom will be smooth to about 50, 50-80 has noticible resistance, while 135-200 will be fine. The retraction feels smooth with 0 resistance. Is this normal, or should I switch it?

That sounds strange. I haven't compared them side by side, but I would suggest that the nikkor will be quieter, faster and more accurate. it's also a stop faster at the tele end which could come in handy.

The VR works about 1 stop better than the OS on the Sigma. If I were you I would return it and try another one to see if you have the same resistance problem. Have you tried the Nikon 18-200? I think its worth saving up for just because of the 5.6 at the 200mm end, and the superior VR system. Its hard to keep things still at the 200mm end.

Additionally the build quality is a tad better on the Nikon.

So in short, why the Nikon is better than the Sigma.

1. Lighter Weight.
2. f5.6 instead of f6.3 at the 200mm end
3. VRII works better than the OS by about a stop
4. Better resale value on the Nikkor.

Downside:
Cost.

Either way, exchange the Sigma to see if the lenses are supposed to be like that. I've tried 3 Nikkor 18-200s and they were all smooth from end to end.

Concert = Low Light. Therefore:

Upgrade your lens to a fast one..2.8 should probably be enough... Ideally you probably want even a faster one, like something f1.4-f1.8. But since those are primes, You probably need a zoom since you can't really move around at a concert.

Upgrade lens and photo skills before getting a better body. Then when you feel like you need a better body, (such as more efficient menus, or needing to print pictures at a larger size, or need higher fps) then go for it.

Good lens and good skills are far better to invest in, than a expensive body. The next logical jump is a full-frame sensor which would allow you to crank up the ISOs with less noise than a crop-frame sensor, thus allowing better low light snaps, but the price jump is very large.

So you gotta decide, what's it worth to you? Upgrading to another crop-frame sensor does not make much sense to me. A full-frame one, maybe sometime in the future, or if you have money to spend.

it's better than zoom creep imo

I just traded my Nikkor 55-200mm F4.5-5.6 VR for this lens and I noticed that the Sigma was significantly heavier. It also twists counter-clockwise as opposed to clockwise. I ended up going with this one because I thought it would be better as an everyday lens because I would be able to shoot from 18 all the way to 200. I do realize the Nikkor 18-200 will be a lot better in almost every aspect, but the 300$ gap is still too much for me right now especially since I'm still missing tripod and a close range lens in the near future. In any case, I will bring the lens back to Broadway Camera in Aberdeen tomorrow for them to have a look. Contemplating whether I should go back to the 70-200mm VR.... The F6.3 handicap is quite noticeable on the 200mm end and I'm really missing the build quality on the nikkor.... Do you guys think its bad to exchange it for a third time? The salesperson that was helping wasn't very nice when I cam in for the exchange, he was also the person who sold me the lens though lol.

Is it the guy with the cataract in one eye? I noticed from that place they say "No returns, only exchanges." He's got an obligation to show you he isn't selling you a defective product, so the next Sigma 18-200 he pulls is supposed to be the same.

Another option you could do is pick up the 55-200mm to complement your 18-55mm.

Granted, you have to switch lenses more, but you save $300. 55-200mm is also a super light, and quality lens too. It seems like there's 3 options for covering 18-200

Nikkor 18-55mm + 55-200mm = $250
Sigma 18-200mm = $550
Nikkor 18-200mm = $850

Interesting how each jump is exactly $300.

^^ My mistake, I traded in my 55-200mm.

Nah, it wasn't that guy, but a mousey looking guy. Right now, I'm seriously considering just switching back to the 55-200mm and get my 170$ back and just switch lens.

I really want a wide angle lens that can rival the 14-24 from Nikon. Being a Canon user, any solid suggestions? The ones I am thinking about are the Tokina 11-16mm and Canon 16-35mm II but are there any other suggestions? The 14mm is likely far too expensive for me unfortunately!

How about the Sigma 10-20mm?
http://www.google.com/products/catal...wAA#ps-sellers