[CyBeRkId2002]

Having gone out and had a proper play with the Sigma 28-200 i have realised im perfectly happy with it as a telephoto now so ive moved away from the 18-200 vr for the time being.

What i would like is a high quality normal range lens. This has lead me to narrow down three lenses:

50mm f1.8 Nikon (as an accompniment to kit lens, around £70)
Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (to replace kit lens, around £270 minus what i could get for kit lens)
Sigma 28-70 f2.8 (to replace kit lens, around £210 minus what i could get for kit lens)

Does anyone have any opinions on the above lenses and which would be the best to go for?

Cheers,
Michael

[Radiohead]

What sort of shooting do you? If you're doing low-light stuff then the 50/1.8 is a cheap way in and extremely capable. You can pick up the 50/1.4 used for around £120 or so though.

My feeling is that by getting rid of the kit lens for either the 24-70 or 28-70 you're going to be lacking for width. Neither 24 or 28 is that wide on a DX body. Personally I'd keep the kit lens for that 18mm end, and ignore both Sigmas for the excellent Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Sample variation can be an issue with it, but get a good one and you're laughing.

[Jazz Monkey Jr]

My first lens was the 50m f1.8 canon, excellent lens and I use it most of the time. I am saving for a 10-22mm next, then I will replace the kit lens, hopefully a 24-105 f4.

[Magslad]

Hi Michael

When I was going through the process of choosing my next lens, I looked at both of those Sigma lenses. I agree with Radiohead - I was surprised just how much difference it would make (especially for landscapes, which I enjoy taking) moving from the kits lens with an 18mm start to the Sigma lenses with 24/28mm start.

I actually think the Nikon 18-55 kit lens is a very good piece of kit, and if I had ended up getting a 28-200 telephoto rather than an 18-200 I would definitely have kept it. My thoughts at the time were to get a prime to supplement the kit lens plus telephoto, and the two I was considering were the Nikon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. I hadn't fully come to a decision as I think it's a difficult choice - there is no doubt that the 1.4 gives more options in terms of available light than the 1.8 (it kinda stands to reason!), but I have seen nothing but good write-ups for the 1.8 (Nikon users definitely rate it as highly as the Canon nifty-fifty). At £70-80 brand new it is an absolute bargain, and difficult to turn down.

Dave

[CyBeRkId2002]

yeah.. thanks for the advice people.
have decided to go for the 50mm 1.8 i think (cant justify extra cost for 1.4).

thanks again,
michael

[richard plumb]

Originally Posted by Magslad

Hi Michael

When I was going through the process of choosing my next lens, I looked at both of those Sigma lenses. I agree with Radiohead - I was surprised just how much difference it would make (especially for landscapes, which I enjoy taking) moving from the kits lens with an 18mm start to the Sigma lenses with 24/28mm start.

I actually thought about it slightly differently.

I replaced my kit lens with a 24-105 (canon). I was aware it wasn't as wide, but I had my kit for if I wanted wider landscapes (quality is fine around f8+, and focus speed isn't really an issue for landscapes)

So for 'walkaround', I felt the 24-105 was a good choice. I use the length more often than I feel I need the width. (ooer matron)

Yesterday I picked up a sigma 10-20, so I can now get rid of the kit lens and I have an ultrawide for landscapes (most likely urban stuff).

So consider what you might get in the future - if you use the 18-24 bit a lot, then you might be limited by a 24/28mm start. But if you think you can use the kit (or a future lens) for those needs, then the current crop of medium zooms are very good.