Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/4/2005 5:30:00 PM EDT
www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=384938&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

I won't be able to afford it for quite awhile but this lens has caught my eye.

Here's a quick description:



The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM telephoto zoom lens has a large maximum aperture of f/2.8 which remains constant throughout the zoom range and it is optimized for digital SLR cameras. All zooming and focus movement is achieved internally, allowing for a constant length and great resistance to dust and moisture. Rendered in a hard coated, baked black EX crinkle finish.

The Hyper Sonic Motor (HSM) ensures a silent, high-speed AF function as well as full-time manual focusing capability for Sigma, Canon, and Nikon mount lenses.

This lens can also be used with the 1.4x EX or 2.0x EX Apo Tele Converters (optional), becoming a 98-280mm f/4 autofocus telephoto zoom lens or a 140-400mm f/5.6 autofocus telephoto zoom lens respectively.

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:37:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:39:35 PM EDT
Sigma probably isn't as good as Nikon's own lenses, but f 2.8 at 200mm makes for a pretty fast lens. Do you need the speed?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:40:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Troy:
It should be pretty good, but if I'm not mistaken, "optimized for digital cameras" usually means that it doesn't project to a full 35mm frame size. Current digital cameras are around 2/3 of the size of a 35mm frame, so if you were to use this lens on a 35mm film camera, you would see distortion or cropping on the edges. This is NOT a problem with current DSLRs, but perhaps it could be a problem in the future, if the CCD/CMOS chip grows to full 35mm size and you want to upgrade camera bodies.

Of course, it costs less to produce a lens for the smaller frame size of a DSLR, so you'd probably have to spend more to get a full-frame lens.

It is also possible that I have misinterpreted the marketing department's description, but I know in the Nikon line, there are a couple of "cropped" lenses designed ONLY for DSLRs.

-Troy



I believe you're right as rain. If I bought this lens for the D70 and wanted to later use it on a 35MM or a later Nikon full-frame DSLR (I'm assuming they'll eventually release one) I'll be out of luck.

I don't imagine I'll be moving over to 35MM, and it will be a long time before a full-frame DSLR ever comes into my price range.

Good point though.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:41:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Sigma probably isn't as good as Nikon's own lenses, but f 2.8 at 200mm makes for a pretty fast lens. Do you need the speed?



I'd rather spend the $$ for the speed and a quality lens and not need it down the line that spend a good chunk for a slower lens and curse myself for not buying the speed.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:48:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Sigma probably isn't as good as Nikon's own lenses, but f 2.8 at 200mm makes for a pretty fast lens. Do you need the speed?



I'd rather spend the $$ for the speed and a quality lens and not need it down the line that spend a good chunk for a slower lens and curse myself for not buying the speed.



Copy. If you need the speed go for it. You can pick up a 200 or 300 mm lens that is a lot slower for around $100 though and see if you really need the faster lens. If you do, you can ebay the slower lens and get a new one. I am shooting with a cheapo 100-300 Sigma lens now, but I am just a beginner.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:57:28 PM EDT
Personally, I would spend another $80 and get Nikon's own Nikkor 80-200 f-2.8 lense. The 70mm to 80mm difference isn't too large and you should probably have another lense that is in the 30mm-80mm range anyway.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 5:58:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By H46Driver:
Sigma probably isn't as good as Nikon's own lenses, but f 2.8 at 200mm makes for a pretty fast lens. Do you need the speed?



I'd rather spend the $$ for the speed and a quality lens and not need it down the line that spend a good chunk for a slower lens and curse myself for not buying the speed.



Copy. If you need the speed go for it. You can pick up a 200 or 300 mm lens that is a lot slower for around $100 though and see if you really need the faster lens. If you do, you can ebay the slower lens and get a new one. I am shooting with a cheapo 100-300 Sigma lens now, but I am just a beginner.



I'm just beginning as well, I'd like to do sports as well as wildlife, so the speed would help.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 6:06:06 PM EDT
The Sigma is a full frame lens. I have one and use it on both my Canon 350D (1.6x crop) and 5D (full frame). I've been very happy with the lens and it is the best value in a fast 70-200 you'll find.I don't use Nikon, but the Sigma is rated much better then the Nikon 80-200 when I did a quick web search.

Shame you don't have a Canon; I saw a lightly used one listed for $650 on a Canon site.

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:03:44 PM EDT
All I need to do now is come up with $850+
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:15:51 PM EDT
Say, I ordered an 'SLR-like' digicam (which will be here tomorrow... just in time for my birthday!), and it has settings for things like aperture priority and shutter priority, and all these ISO settings and stuff...

... and I really don't know what all that shit means! Anyone know of some kind of basic/beginner's photography site that might explain what all of that stuff is?

(FWIW, I ordered a Kodak DX7590. My parents got a similar model, but I liked this one better. It's 5mpix with a 10x optical 3x digital zoom lense. I have found some screw on lenses for additional 2x or 3x zoom, and .45 and .5x wide angle, as well as an adaptor for 55mm filters. I may end up getting one of the telephoto lenses, as I like to snap pictures of targets when I'm shooting off the bench, and with 20-30x optical zoom, I should be able to see my holes at 100 yards easily!)
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:16:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 7:18:14 PM EDT by Observer]
One major downside you may not be aware of....that is one big-ass lens to be hauling around.

This may not matter to you (or you think it won't matter to you) but depending on what you're shooting it really sucks to lug something like that around with you all the time.

I know because I've got a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS USM lens which is a work of art by itself. But I rarely use it for most shots because it's so inconvenient to carry around. It's large, heavy and there's NO WAY to be discreet while using it.

Don't underestimate the utility of an everyday lens that is 'optically inferior' but you carry everywhere and shoot whenever and whereever you want.

Case in point...for my 'carry lens' I use a cheapo Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 II USM lens that basically always stays attached to my camera.

I've taken more great pictures with this very average lens than all my other gear combined. Why? Because it goes everywhere with me. Throw it in a backpack, briefcase, backseat of the car, whereever, it'll be there and ready to use. If it gets dinged up, no big deal.

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:32:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Say, I ordered an 'SLR-like' digicam (which will be here tomorrow... just in time for my birthday!), and it has settings for things like aperture priority and shutter priority, and all these ISO settings and stuff...

... and I really don't know what all that shit means! Anyone know of some kind of basic/beginner's photography site that might explain what all of that stuff is?

(FWIW, I ordered a Kodak DX7590. My parents got a similar model, but I liked this one better. It's 5mpix with a 10x optical 3x digital zoom lense. I have found some screw on lenses for additional 2x or 3x zoom, and .45 and .5x wide angle, as well as an adaptor for 55mm filters. I may end up getting one of the telephoto lenses, as I like to snap pictures of targets when I'm shooting off the bench, and with 20-30x optical zoom, I should be able to see my holes at 100 yards easily!)



Feel free to ask any questions here or at any other forums. Back in June I was in the same position as you, and didn't know what any of those terms meant. I'll try to go over them for you without messing them up terribly.

ISO has to do with the sensor's sensitivity to light. The lower the ISO, the less sensitive to light the sensor is, meaning it will take a larger aperture to let more light in or a slower shutter speed. The benefit of a lower ISO is less noise in the photograph. The higher the ISO, the more sensitive the sensor is to light. The downside is that the higher you go, the more grain is introduced into the photograph.

Aperture priority is a mode that tells the camera's CPU to let the aperture take priority over any other setting. It's useful if you specifically want a certain aperture (let's say 2.8 for example). In this setting, you choose the aperture, and the camera picks a shutter speed to make the appropriate exposure.

Shutter priority is the same sort of thing. This time you pick the shutter speed and the camera picks the proper aperture to get the correct exposure.

Does this clear anything up? Feel free to IM or email or what not with any other questions.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:43:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Observer:
One major downside you may not be aware of....that is one big-ass lens to be hauling around.

This may not matter to you (or you think it won't matter to you) but depending on what you're shooting it really sucks to lug something like that around with you all the time.

I know because I've got a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS USM lens which is a work of art by itself. But I rarely use it for most shots because it's so inconvenient to carry around. It's large, heavy and there's NO WAY to be discreet while using it.

Don't underestimate the utility of an everyday lens that is 'optically inferior' but you carry everywhere and shoot whenever and whereever you want.

Case in point...for my 'carry lens' I use a cheapo Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 II USM lens that basically always stays attached to my camera.

I've taken more great pictures with this very average lens than all my other gear combined. Why? Because it goes everywhere with me. Throw it in a backpack, briefcase, backseat of the car, whereever, it'll be there and ready to use. If it gets dinged up, no big deal.




Hmmm..good point. Specs say it weighs 2.8 pounds . As for size, it looks like quite the monster.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:46:42 PM EDT
Robo,

That clears it up a little bit. I knew that shutter speed can be variable to adjust to lighting and film characteristics... quicker speed in higher light situations...

Being a rifleman, I know what an aperture is, so I take it to mean the the aperture size of the shutter is adjustable...

and the description of the ISO rating cleared up a bit. I wouldn't mind reading up on some stuff, but don't want to get into some uber-uber technical stuff... just some basic coverage of the stuff.

I know my camera has settings for aperture priority and shutter priority... and something about ISO settings. I'm not much of an 'artsy' photographer, but I think with a better camera I will be more prone to 'photographically document' a few things. I am going to be using it a lot to 'document' my 1970 Porsche 911 that I'll be working on.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 7:52:56 PM EDT
FWIW, the lens that I use most on my film Nikon is a 28-300 Sigma that I picked up for about $300. Saves a ton of weight in the camera bag, as well as a lot of hassle switching lens. Most of what I do is candid stuff, so it makes it easy to pick up candid shots from any distance without people even being aware you are taking their picture. It is also very compact.

I am going digital soon but I would dearly love to have this same lens from Nikon for the D70.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:00:40 PM EDT
The Nikkor 80-200ED is a classic, very very good lens (which I think has been superceded by a 70-200)

Third party lenses can be very good, but I would be quite surprised to see one equal, let alone surpass the top of the line Nikkors.

btw, that 80-200 outperforms all but a few fixed focal length lenses, being nearly as good as my 180 f2.8 Nikkor. Both 85's (1.8 & 1.4 are also very good)

See what Nikonians (the forum link I posted awhile back) has to say about the lens (I would search but am past bedtime)

Which lenses do you already have?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:04:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:
The Nikkor 80-200ED is a classic, very very good lens (which I think has been superceded by a 70-200)

Third party lenses can be very good, but I would be quite surprised to see one equal, let alone surpass the top of the line Nikkors.

btw, that 80-200 outperforms all but a few fixed focal length lenses, being nearly as good as my 180 f2.8 Nikkor. Both 85's (1.8 & 1.4 are also very good)

See what Nikonians (the forum link I posted awhile back) has to say about the lens (I would search but am past bedtime)

Which lenses do you already have?



Just the 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 kit lens

I'd love a nice 100mm or so macro lens as well, if only I was made of money
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 8:20:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
The Nikkor 80-200ED is a classic, very very good lens (which I think has been superceded by a 70-200)

Third party lenses can be very good, but I would be quite surprised to see one equal, let alone surpass the top of the line Nikkors.

btw, that 80-200 outperforms all but a few fixed focal length lenses, being nearly as good as my 180 f2.8 Nikkor. Both 85's (1.8 & 1.4 are also very good)

See what Nikonians (the forum link I posted awhile back) has to say about the lens (I would search but am past bedtime)

Which lenses do you already have?



Just the 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 kit lens

I'd love a nice 100mm or so macro lens as well, if only I was made of money




Hey, nothing wrong with that lens, big expensive glass by itself is no guarantee of great pictures (FWIW, I still have the cameras I started with many moons ago, and some of the images are surprisingly good)

Spend some time on technique before breaking the piggybank on big lenses. The first two lenses I bought for my Nikons were a 24mm f2.8 & the 85mm f1.8 (each around $300, and Nikon usually has rebates) and they are still the two I use most often (the 17/180/400/800 etc. come out far less frequently)

Hand holding a big, heavy zoom lens is a challenge, you may want to opt for one of the VR lenses, if not using a good tripod. Add teleconverters later, good ones cost $$$ and make the need for stability even greater.

As much of a resource as ARFcom is, I would really recommend bouncing this off the guys at Nikonians, they know the cameras & lenses like this place knows black rifles.

what am I saying? Use both!

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:03:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By roboman:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
The Nikkor 80-200ED is a classic, very very good lens (which I think has been superceded by a 70-200)

Third party lenses can be very good, but I would be quite surprised to see one equal, let alone surpass the top of the line Nikkors.

btw, that 80-200 outperforms all but a few fixed focal length lenses, being nearly as good as my 180 f2.8 Nikkor. Both 85's (1.8 & 1.4 are also very good)

See what Nikonians (the forum link I posted awhile back) has to say about the lens (I would search but am past bedtime)

Which lenses do you already have?



Just the 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 kit lens

I'd love a nice 100mm or so macro lens as well, if only I was made of money




Hey, nothing wrong with that lens, big expensive glass by itself is no guarantee of great pictures (FWIW, I still have the cameras I started with many moons ago, and some of the images are surprisingly good)

Spend some time on technique before breaking the piggybank on big lenses. The first two lenses I bought for my Nikons were a 24mm f2.8 & the 85mm f1.8 (each around $300, and Nikon usually has rebates) and they are still the two I use most often (the 17/180/400/800 etc. come out far less frequently)

Hand holding a big, heavy zoom lens is a challenge, you may want to opt for one of the VR lenses, if not using a good tripod. Add teleconverters later, good ones cost $$$ and make the need for stability even greater.

As much of a resource as ARFcom is, I would really recommend bouncing this off the guys at Nikonians, they know the cameras & lenses like this place knows black rifles.

what am I saying? Use both!




Very true...a good lens a good photographer does not make.

However, I've had a real bitch of a time sneaking up on any wildlife to get a shot, even using 70mm.....
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:22:24 PM EDT
depending on what wildlife you are shooting, you might look for something like the Tokina 400 f5.6SD - a good AF lens (which I guess would work with a D70, check Nikonians to be sure) that doesn't break the bank, 600mm equivalent really reaches out and touches... my 180 would equal a 270 on the D70 (think mag factor is 1.5X) so that might be another possibility, check KEH for used prices, then see how much better you can do on eBay (for lenses I would buy only from someone with 98% + rating or better)

Speed is a big help for gettin critters, of course the 300 & 400 f2.8's are the gold standard... but not for folks on a budget...

Zooms lose light through all the extra elements, and are bulky & heavy, but they are flexible - borrow one from another photographer if you get the opportunity

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:37:22 PM EDT
The only Nikon I ever need is this.
I love it.

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:50:55 PM EDT
Check out the forums on dpreview.com


Tons of info on anything you could ever ask.


Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:50:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ARDunstan:
The only Nikon I ever need is this.
I love it.

www.frank-hempel.de/pics/f3.jpg



Looks like it's a classic.
Top Top