Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Novice Question About Nikon/Sigma Lenses
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Nov 1, 2018 07:47:06   #
Papa j Loc: Cary NC
 
Tommy an alternative to Nikon could be the Tamron 18-400 great range and I am pleased with the quality. Good luck

Joe

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 07:50:13   #
brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky
 
cjc2 wrote:
Personally, I really do like the Sigma ART, as well as Sport, series of lenses. I own a 50/1/4, 135/1.8 and 24-105/4 ART lens and find them to be a bit heavy yet wonderful lenses. I am not a big fan of Sigma's older series of lenses, nor their contemporary series. IMHO. Best of luck.



Reply
Nov 1, 2018 07:57:39   #
Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC
 
This is a great travel lens sharp and excellent VR.

Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX NIKKOR VR III

Reply
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Nov 1, 2018 08:00:40   #
tdozier3 Loc: Northern Illinois
 
Tommy 86 wrote:
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It came with Nikkor DX VR AF-S 18-55 mm 1:3.5-5.6 and 55-200 mm 1:4-5.6 kit lenses (I hope I have identified them properly). I was happy with the lenses but on a trip to the national parks in Utah, I got pretty tired of switching lenses all the time, always fearing I would drop one while switching. I consulted with a local camera shop and they recommended a Sigma DC 18-250 mm 1:3.5-6.3 Macro HSM lens. It's been okay but I wasn't thrilled with it, particularly the vignetting on wide-angle shots. I just compared near-identical shots from each of the lenses and was stunned at how much sharper the shots with the Nikon lenses were, and at how washed-out the shots using the Sigma were. Is this typical? Did I make a lousy choice with the Sigma? I'm about to take a trip to Italy and it doesn't look like the Sigma is going to be making the trip with me.
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It ca... (show quote)
I have the Sigma 18-300mm DC Macro for my D3200, and have not regretted buying. Love this lens. Check it out at Digital Goga. I paid 399 for mine and got a bunch of free stuff with it

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 08:09:44   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
Tommy 86 wrote:
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It came with Nikkor DX VR AF-S 18-55 mm 1:3.5-5.6 and 55-200 mm 1:4-5.6 kit lenses (I hope I have identified them properly). I was happy with the lenses but on a trip to the national parks in Utah, I got pretty tired of switching lenses all the time, always fearing I would drop one while switching. I consulted with a local camera shop and they recommended a Sigma DC 18-250 mm 1:3.5-6.3 Macro HSM lens. It's been okay but I wasn't thrilled with it, particularly the vignetting on wide-angle shots. I just compared near-identical shots from each of the lenses and was stunned at how much sharper the shots with the Nikon lenses were, and at how washed-out the shots using the Sigma were. Is this typical? Did I make a lousy choice with the Sigma? I'm about to take a trip to Italy and it doesn't look like the Sigma is going to be making the trip with me.
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It ca... (show quote)


So, I am still confused about the theme of your post. Are you suggesting that a trusted third party lens maker like Sigma (who, by the way, buys all their parts from independent contractors, including glass) might not be as sharp as Nikon glass.
Wow, now their is a true revelation.
Just kidding. Nice post, it seems that the lack of third party quality has come home to roust yet again on the uninformed.
I am happy with your progress grasshopper. Now that you know, go forth and buy only quality Nikon glass.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 08:19:26   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
A very versatil and useful traveling lens is the Nikon 18-200 VR. Mine gives me excellent images that enlarge to 12x18 inches without sweat. Details are there, clarity is there and good resolution is there.
That lens along with a 12-24 f4 is all you need to travel light and cover a lot of real estate.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 08:21:01   #
Tommy 86 Loc: East TN
 
Thank you. That lens seems to be a popular choice.

Reply
 
 
Nov 1, 2018 08:40:18   #
wetreed
 
You should get the Tamron 18-400 lens. It could be the last lens you ever need.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 08:43:51   #
mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma
 
When we did our national parks tour out west, I used my 16-85 on my d7000 95% of the time. Excellent sharpness and right weight to carry around all day. Do not be tempted to bring everything you own on your upcoming trip. You will grow to hate lugging around your gear! If you had a 35mm 1.8, that would give you a good option for low light and interiors. B & H has some refurbished ones for very reasonable money.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 08:44:06   #
wetreed
 
jradose wrote:
Consider the Nikon 18-140 mm lens, and awesome, affordable lens, for around $200.00 at Roberts Camera.


The Nikon 18-140 is maybe the best lens Nikon has ever made.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 08:56:16   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
wetreed wrote:
The Nikon 18-140 is maybe the best lens Nikon has ever made.


Not according to these reviews.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/999548-USA/nikon_af_s_dx_nikkor_18_140mm.html?sts=pi

Reply
Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Nov 1, 2018 09:36:49   #
AlfredU Loc: Mooresville, NC
 
Well, I guess you have to choose, do you want to go to the trouble of changing lenses once in a while or have bad image quality on all your pictures? You have to decide if it is worth the effort. In my opinion, good photography usually is worth the effort.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 09:42:43   #
Tommy 86 Loc: East TN
 
Thanks. Yeah, that's the conclusion I have reached. Now all I have to do is convince my wife that her waiting for me to change lenses is worth it!

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 09:50:11   #
twillsol Loc: St. Louis, MO
 
Gene51 wrote:
That Sigma, along with a few other lenses, are pretty mediocre. Your Nikkor lenses are actually quite good optically, but they are not built to last. Getting a second body is what I would do, but I don't mind carrying a little extra gear - and is good backup in the event the camera dies. What I actually did a year ago was to purchase a Sony RX10-M4, which has surprisingly good image quality, and a zoom that has an angle of view equivalent to a 24-600mm lens. Generally speaking I am not a fan of wide angle to telephoto zooms - they really don't do many things well. But the Zeiss lens in the Sony, and the Nikkor 18-200 VR II are quite decent.
That Sigma, along with a few other lenses, are pre... (show quote)


Not sure what you mean by "mediocre", but I have the Sigma 150, 2.8 Macro and the 150- 600 Sport lens and they are both excellent lenses. I have several Nikkor lenses and they all have excellent quality.

Reply
Nov 1, 2018 10:20:48   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
One thing I can relate is that Nikon optics are incredible. They have somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 glass recipes and each element in each lens is produced from these custom glass recipes. Other lens manufacturers do not do this. Thus, my insistence on Nikkor optics for my Nikons.

That said, I've been known to put my Zeiss lenses from my Hasselblad on my Nikons. They work well and produce an image I'm intending to produce. The lack of multiple coatings, or coatings at all, render a rather interesting image that I like.
--Bob

Tommy 86 wrote:
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It came with Nikkor DX VR AF-S 18-55 mm 1:3.5-5.6 and 55-200 mm 1:4-5.6 kit lenses (I hope I have identified them properly). I was happy with the lenses but on a trip to the national parks in Utah, I got pretty tired of switching lenses all the time, always fearing I would drop one while switching. I consulted with a local camera shop and they recommended a Sigma DC 18-250 mm 1:3.5-6.3 Macro HSM lens. It's been okay but I wasn't thrilled with it, particularly the vignetting on wide-angle shots. I just compared near-identical shots from each of the lenses and was stunned at how much sharper the shots with the Nikon lenses were, and at how washed-out the shots using the Sigma were. Is this typical? Did I make a lousy choice with the Sigma? I'm about to take a trip to Italy and it doesn't look like the Sigma is going to be making the trip with me.
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It ca... (show quote)

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.