Nikon & sigma lenses
Joon-Ha Ok
70-210 2.8f) and Nikon AF cameras like the 6006s or the n90s? I understand
there are lots of problems with sigma lenses and canon cameras.
Thanks,
Joon-Ha Ok
jo...@cornell.edu
Eric Wright
but excellent results with both. The 70-300 has 1/2 lifesize macro
capability which has been a real nice feature to have, which I was not
expecting to get.
Eric in NM
Michael Paris
with my N90s, but it seems to work better on distance then nearness throughout
the ranges. It could be me and the learning curve. Well worth the money
spent.
Joseph Albert
the sigma 70-300/4-5.6 APO Macro and 75-300/4-5.6 APO Macro are both
lenses that need to be stopped down a couple of stops from wide open
to get edge-to-edge sharpness. I have observed this in both of these, as
I have shot test rolls at a range of apertures and focal lengths.
in fact, the sigma brochure has an image made with the 70-300 APO MAcro
that is of some red flowers taken at 75mm. it is noticeably soft in
the corners in the brochure even. (gotta respect their truth in advertising).
that said, I chose to buy the 75-300 APO. it is very light weight for
a lens reaching 300mm, and by around f/11 it is pretty sharp edge-to-edge.
color and contrast are fairly good as well, not as good as a fixed focal
lens, but close enough, and the lens is inexpensive. I find this lens
useful for long focal length landscapes, where i am stopped down for
DOF anyway. thus, it is a lightweight lens i can carry for landscape work.
by comparison, the Tokina 100-300/4 APO is much heavier and demands a
heavier tripod. the Tokina is better wide open, but by f/11, the sigma
lenses are as good as the tokina, maybe even better in contrast.
imho these lenses are bordering on useless handheld if you want the most
critical image quality. my impression is that the sigma's are better
than the non-L canon 100-300 lenses, and that even the 100-300/5.6 L
is significantly heavier than the sigma(s) and hence suffers from the
lack of a tripod mount.
the 75-300 APO uses 55mm filters, and is about 19oz. the 70-300 APO MAcro
uses 58mm filters, is about 21oz i think. both lenses can be used
with a tripod with camera on the tripod, ie they are (just barely)
light enough not to need a tripod mount. however, one caveat is
that the lenses nearly double in length at 300mm, so that at 300mm,
they are long enough that a tripod mount on the lens would be useful,
but not fully necessary. however, if you planned to use the lens alot
at 300mm, you might find this gets to be a bit of a problem, as it
will involve more wear and tear on the camera and lens mounts.
for me, the lens is just a lightweight substitute for
carrying 200mm and 300mm fixed focals for landscapes, since i only
use lenses longer than 135mm well less than 5% of the time. thus,
at the weight and price, and for such occasional usage, i found
the 75-300 APO to be a great deal, and with camera on a tripod and
lens stopped down to f/11, i get images that are sharp edge to edge.
at wide open apertures, a Tamron 200/3.5 that you should be able
to buy for under $100 obliterates the sigma zooms at 200mm.
this is of course a very mixed review. it doesn't mean that the
lens is bad, but rather a comment more on the quality of zooms that
reach 300mm i think. in fact, these sigmas are among of the better
of the Something-300 zooms on the market, probably the
Tokina ATX 100-300/4 APO is the best one available from anyone.
lastly, both lenses have the "legendary" sigma mechanical build
quality, ie they are not very well made mechanically, which is
another reason to consider these as lenses that can do a very
good job if used properly but not heavily.
I am very happy with mine.
j. albert
Bob Neuman
"the sigma 70-300/4-5.6 APO Macro and 75-300/4-5.6 APO Macro are both
lenses that need to be stopped down a couple of stops from wide open
to get edge-to-edge sharpness"
most critical image quality. my impression is that the sigma's are
better than the non-L canon 100-300 lenses"
they are not very well made mechanically"
I am mystified by something I have often seen: a lot of money spent
on a top Nikon body, like an N90 or F4, and (relatively) little
spent on marginal (relatively) cheapo glass. The glass determines
the image quality that is placed on the film (merely) held by the
camera body. Any old Nikon body will do, but not just any lens for
good quality images. In reference to the above, either the 100-300mm
f5.6 Nikkor MF or the 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 Nikkor AF can be used
wide-open (good center-to-corner, not just to the edges), and are
well-made. In other words, they are good, useful lenses (which will
also hold their value on resale [and most of us do eventually sell
our lenses...]). Cheaper off-brand lenses are no bargain in the
short or long run for a Nikon user because of inferior image quality
and lower resale value. Hope this helps.
Bob Neuman
>: From a previous post:
>: <stuff about sigma long zoom cut>
rp...@cornell.edu says...
>: I am mystified by something I have often seen: a lot of money spent
>: on a top Nikon body, like an N90 or F4, and (relatively) little
>: spent on marginal (relatively) cheapo glass. The glass determines
>: the image quality that is placed on the film (merely) held by the
>: camera body.
>granted Nikon lenses are very well constructed. but a Nikkor 80-200/f4
>weights at 29 oz and a 75-300/4.5-5.6AF 30 oz; while a sigma
>75-300/4-5.6APO is only 16 oz. actually i find the sigma at near 300mm
>is intolerablly ( to me ) soft even at f8. so maybe the sigma is not
>quite worth it after all. are the nikon E series much lighter than the
>normal nikkors? anyone knows how much Nikon 80-200/4.5AI weights?
You make a good point about weight for a specialized use, and reinforce
mine about the worthlessness of third-rate lenses, no matter how
cheap or light. The 80-200mm f4.5 and the 70-210E are not significantly
lighter than the 80-200mm f4 Nikkor, but the 200mm f4 AI-AIS is very
compact and light, and very good. The E 100 and 135mm f2.8's are VERY
light and compact - and cheap, sharp, and fast to boot! The 75-150mm
f3.5 E (constant aperture) is excellent - and is small, light, and
inexpensive - and works well on a TC1.4A (about 3/4" long) converter
(and reasonably well on the TC200 2x).
Hope this helps.
Joseph Albert
>the problem which the previous poster emphasized was the weight.
>weights at 29 oz and a 75-300/4.5-5.6AF 30 oz; while a sigma
>75-300/4-5.6APO is only 16 oz.
19.1oz in fact.
>actually i find the sigma at near 300mm is
>intolerablly ( to me ) soft even at f8.
agreed, you have to be at least at f11, 2 stops below wide open to
get sharpness throughout the image area. even at f11 and f16
the tokina atx 100-300/4 APO is superior. for hiking landscape
photography, the biggest problem with a heavy lens is the tripod.
I used to carry a 200/3.5 as my heaviest lens, and got the
sigma 75-300 apo as a replacement for that so as not to miss
the occasional 300mm landscape shot (if you do much photography in
the mountains, you will appreciate the desire for long lenses for
landscape work, but they don't need to be fast, since will be shooting
stopped down for DOF). if I carried the Olympus 300/4.5 (38oz) or
the Tokina ATX 100-300/4 APO (43oz), both of which otherwise would
suit my purposes well, i'd have to carry my bogen 3021. instead, i
get away with a lighter tripod when i hike, since what i
use 95% or more of the time are fixed focals from 24mm to 135mm.
i find that with light weight 35mm gear, a lighter tripod
with 2 leg extensions (the antichrist of tripods) can be
used if you aren't in a hurry and use a little TLC to coax
it into behaving. mine even sports an inconvenient, permanently
attached pan head. but it is *alot* better than no tripod or a monopod.
it all came down to the 75-300 sigma or nothing in terms of a lens
reaching 300mm to carry hiking. shooting at f11 and f16 on a tripod
I find that the sigma at 300mm is better than nothing, so i carry it.
the alternative might have been the tamron 300/5.6 SP with
a 200mm fixed focal.
the sigma 75-300 or 70-300, like most lenses, can produce good
images if used with good technique, but this is definitely a
lens to shoot some test rolls with camera on a tripod and
a sharp film to see where it performs reasonably.
j. albert
maohai huang
: <stuff about sigma long zoom cut>
: I am mystified by something I have often seen: a lot of money spent
: on a top Nikon body, like an N90 or F4, and (relatively) little
: spent on marginal (relatively) cheapo glass. The glass determines
: the image quality that is placed on the film (merely) held by the
: camera body.
the problem which the previous poster emphasized was the weight. when doing
a long hiking or backpacking, every oz in your pack will translate into how
enjoyable your trip is and how tired you'll end up. if you are hard core enough
on photography not to care about how you legs and back feel at the end of
day, you still know that the extra weight will determine if you
can make it to a certain spot at all. ``F8 and be there''. if you can't be
there at the right time, no lens can do you any good.
granted Nikon lenses are very well constructed. but a Nikkor 80-200/f4
weights at 29 oz and a 75-300/4.5-5.6AF 30 oz; while a sigma
75-300/4-5.6APO is only 16 oz. actually i find the sigma at near 300mm is
intolerablly ( to me ) soft even at f8. so maybe the sigma is not quite
worth it after all. are the nikon E series much lighter than the normal
nikkors?
anyone knows how much Nikon 80-200/4.5AI weights?
- mh
KwadeS
head will hold it? I know Arca type heads should do the job, but which
one?