[wobblebottom]

ok upgradeItus got me!

havent got many pennies to play with here.. so a VR is out of the quiestion before you sudgest it! unless you want to donate one my way

D50 with current kit lens 18-55 and sigma apo macro- 70-300 will sell original kit lens to part fund purchase..

which one out of these two im after mainly longer walkabout kit

Nikon AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC

hope you can help guys

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by wobblebottom

which one out of these two im after mainly longer walkabout kit

Nikon AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC

The 18-70 is a nice lens, definitely better build quality than the 18-55 , but optically not much in it. Also, it's only offering you 15mm more at the tele end.

Why not the Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6? Can be had for £30 more than the 18-70 and is well regarded.

[wobblebottom]

thanks.. missed it off when i pasted others in.. il look into it..

Cheers Liquid

[Yandros]

How about a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro?

A bit more length, much closer focussing, and a wider aperture

[wobblebottom]

EEEEKK!!

cmon now u starting to confuffle me!

ok out of the two...

Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6

and

Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro

Forget the two i posted.. i do prefer the longer zoom option tbh?

yeah or nea

[Brammers]

I've got the Sigma 18-125.

I took this over the 17-70. Big zooms like this are compromises. You get high quality all the way through in a 3x zoom. Anything more and quality suffers. I decided that, accepting that the quality would suffer in any of these cheap/midrange zooms, I'd rather have some extra length than f2.8 at 17mm.

I'm very pleased with mine and highly reccomend it. I'll post some shots if you're interested.

[wobblebottom]

please.. a comparison shot or two would be nice from those lenses..

owners??

[Yandros]

Biscuit761 is the one to ask about the Sigma 17-70. Here are his sample threads from a few weeks back...

A few more 17 - 70 shots from tonight

First few with the Sigma 17 - 70

[wobblebottom]

Cheers thats a lovely lens.. Its a number 1 contender atm.. am liking it!

Thanks for links.. some absolute pearlers there

[Steve N]

Originally Posted by wobblebottom

.....Thanks for links.. some absolute pearlers there

I use quite a few different sites for lens appraisals but for general info on current Nikon lenses I tend to use this one most often:
ThomHogan

[Biscuit761]

Wobbly, in my opinion you can not go wrong with the Sigma 17 - 70, have had it a few weeks now and am still convinced Imade the right choice, dovetails with the 70 - 300 APO nicely, I even have the same body as you (camera body !!).

Bill

[wobblebottom]

Cheers Bill.. im swaying towards it..


no problem with the Auto focus.. I got D50

[bibamus]

I used a Sigma 28-200mm lens on my D50, great walkabout lens, hardly ever used the kit lens or my 70-300 APO.
I recently bought a Nikon 18-200 VR lens for my D80. Again, a good walkabout lens even though it is a bit of a compromise. In use, I find I mainly use it between about 80 to 200mm so I may sell it and get a Nikon 55-200Vr and, because i like macro shots, the Tamron SP90 Macro.
I`ll keep the 2 Sigma lenses though, they are excellent quality.
Allan

[Brammers]

Sigma 18-125:

http://china.nsrtfc.com/albums/qians...e_village3.jpg

http://china.nsrtfc.com/albums/shidu/PICT1233.jpg

The last one's over-sharpened, but it shows the bokkeh. Right click them for the exif - I think a couple of them are wide open. And remember that you won't be able to get the shutter speeds I can - I've got VR in the body so my 18-125 is stabilised - so bear that in mind when considering the (ever so slightly) faster 17-70.

[wobblebottom]

What a lovely set for comparison.. thankyou

so for speed- but potentially more OOF & less keepers-unless decent Tripod get the 17-70 ?

and for more keepers and sharper results- less need to go out n splash out of tripod get the 18-125?

Ive got a total of about £200 budget..

But----------- may consider selling sigma apo & kit and replace with one

and now im totally confused!

[Brammers]

Not quite.

17-70 is a 2.8-4.5 lens
18-125 is a 3.5-5.6 lens (but it zooms a lot more)

This means that the maximum aperture value changes as you zoom in.

The 17-70 is (approximately) half a stop faster than the 18-125 all the way through the range. One stop = a doubling of shutter speed, so the difference between a 1 second exposure and a 2 second exposure is 1 stop, as is the difference between a 1/20th second & 1/10th second.

Half a stop difference is the difference between 1.5second exposure and 2second exposure, or 1/20th & 1/15th.

So - it's very, very, very, very slightly faster. Where you could take a shot at 1/20th of a second with the 17-70, you could take it at 1/15th of a second with the 18-125. This is obviously totally inconsequential to me because I'm gaining 3 stops of image stabilisation anyway, but you should consider it. It's not the kind of speed that allows you to use a tripod or not though - if you need a tripod with a shot for the 18-125, you probably still need it with the 17-70.

On top of that, the 17-70 has a better macro mode, but to get closeups you have to ram the lens in the face of what you're shooting - there's no working distance. 18-125 has much more reach. 17-70 is larger and heavier. They seem equally well built, mine's survived a fall.

The problem I have with the 17-70 is its position in the general scheme of things. It's not a fixed 2.8 zoom, and it's not got all that much range over kit lenses (in fact it's actually got less range than the Minolta kit lens!) and it's not much faster. I don't see the macro as being all that useful due to the tiny working distance. Is it all that much sharper? However, it's certainly popular so I guess it must have something going for it :P

[wobblebottom]

Right- now u blasted my head with loads o jargon..

I do want the extra zoom tbbh- but i do like my macro's aswell( but have got the APO for that really)

So back to the 18-125mm

probly more suited to "walkabout" given my needs..

17-70 probly more of an advanced kit lens-

descisions - I hate em!

And for this price seems excellent for 18-125

HERE


Means il have fund left over for a nice 50mm or decentish tripod! what ya think?

[horribleman]

I know this might confuse things, but the Tamron 17 - 50 f2.8 is a fantastic lens. Less range than you are looking for, but constant f2.8

[Brammers]

Horribleman, your moniker fits you well :P

A 16/17/18-50 2.8 zoom is a lens that I would be very interested in. 3 companies do these, Tokina (16-50), Tamron (17-50) & Sigma (18-50).

They're all excellent (I've used the Tamron & Sigmas, but Tokina are so good anyway I don't have any hesitation in reccomending them).

They offer the same range as the kit zooms, but the 2.8 aperture is very useful, and they're all very sharp.

These are why I wouldn't ever want the 17-70 - I'd want one of these instead.

The 18-125 is a different beast - it zooms right out. To do this with a 17-50 you have to swap lenses, not very convenient. I don't mind this - normally I carry an entire bag of lenses that don't zoom at all (primes) - but you probably would. I'm certainly in the minority.

The 17-70 to me sits awkwardly in the middle of these 2 desireable characteristics - neither fast & high quality, nor having a massive zoom range.

There's also (oh dear god...) 18-200, 28-300 & 18-250 lenses around. I can't really reccomend these - they've gone too far towards convenience and have lost track of image quality. However, these too have their fans, and maybe they're exactly what you're after.

The choice is yours

[Yandros]

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 would've been my first recommendation as a D50 kit lens replacement, but Wobble mentioned wanting more reach (hence the Sigma)

Incidentally (and off topic) the Nikon 18-200VR is pretty much identical in terms of quality to the Nikon 18-70. It ought to be for 500 quid
I'm hearing some worring noises about quite a lot of CA on the Tokina 16-50 2.8, and considering the amount on my Tokina 12-24 I could well believe it, so I'm a bit luke warm about that one at the moment.

[wobblebottom]

Oh nooooooooooo stop it now!

im drooling here..

Its gonna be sigma more than likely- let you know by end of week when funds materialise!

thanks for the input guys..and advice its been sooo appreciated..

unless anyone wants to confuse me more

[Brammers]

Which sigma? We've talked about 3 and mentioned 5! :P

[wobblebottom]

18-125mm

Here £148 Deliv

Decided its prob best for my needs and budget

[Brammers]

Cool, 1stop are excellent. As long as you're ok with the lack of close-focusing (means it's still the 70-300 for macro) you should love it

[wobblebottom]

Yeah most probly be ok with that.. il have enuf left over for a 50mm or tripod aswell then

thaNKS

[Strobe]

Hi Wobble, there is a review of standard zooms in this weeks ameteur photographer magazine.
To summarise the test ...
Canon FES 17085 IS USM £530 87%
Nikon 24-120mm AFS VR £530 86%
Sigma 17-70mm £270 (can be had much cheaper) 87%
Tamron 24-135mm £400 85%
Sony 16-80mm £550 88%
The Sigma more than holds its own against the others, all of which cost a lot more. I have the Sigma 17-70 twinned with the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro and it's a good combo.

[Brammers]

The CZ 16-80 came out top! Might have to get one! :E

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Strobe

Hi Wobble, there is a review of standard zooms in this weeks ameteur photographer magazine.
To summarise the test ...
Canon FES 17085 IS USM £530 87%
Nikon 24-120mm AFS VR £530 86%
Sigma 17-70mm £270 (can be had much cheaper) 87%
Tamron 24-135mm £400 85%
Sony 16-80mm £550 88%
The Sigma more than holds its own against the others, all of which cost a lot more. I have the Sigma 17-70 twinned with the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro and it's a good combo.

Just for the record - the nikon 24-120 AFS VR is pretty universally regarded as being rendered obsolete by the 18-200VR (it's 1st generation VR for a start). The only people who bought them in the last year were people sick of being on the 18-200VR waiting list!

[wobblebottom]

sorry to ressurrect this but ive confused myself now..

Which one is the better...

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF DX Lens £209 from OSD

or

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC Lens £148.99 From OSD


a 17-70 isnt an option now..

[py6km]

Hi wobble - I've just moved from a D80 to a D200, and am seriously considering a move from the D80 kit lens (18-135) to an 18-200 VR.

Did you discount the 18-135 ? If not, then I may post a thread on the for sale forum to sell mine to fund the VR lens.