Sigma 24-35 f2.0
Nov 25, 2015 16:08:35 #
Thinking about adding the Sigma 24-35 f2.0 to mybag. Thinking it might be a good lens for astro-photography. I have a Nikon 28mm f1.8 but there have been a few times where a zoom, or another prime with a different focal length would have helped. So it's either this or a Nikon 20mm f1.8. A f1.4 lens would be nice but it's not in the budget right now. The new lens will go on my D750.
Nov 25, 2015 16:30:52 #
Nov 25, 2015 17:08:47 #
Why wouldn't you want a longer reach than the 24-35mm for astrophotography purposes?
Nov 25, 2015 17:15:08 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
I understand the statement but what is the question?
Just wondering if anyone has experience with either of these lenses for that purpose, or has any thoughts on maybe something better.
Nov 25, 2015 17:16:42 #
rjaywallace wrote:
Why wouldn't you want a longer reach than the 24-35mm for astrophotography purposes?
Not looking to isolate specific objects. I would like a broader, Milky Way, kind of shot.
Nov 25, 2015 17:21:44 #
I have the 20 1.8, and its very good for night skies. If you want a zoom, you might also consider the Tamron 15-30 2.8.
Nov 25, 2015 17:45:38 #
I had a Tamron 15-30 2.8 until it fell out of my pocket. It was a great lens for sharpess, zoom range and color contrast.
Nov 26, 2015 09:56:53 #
shutterbob wrote:
Thinking about adding the Sigma 24-35 f2.0 to mybag. Thinking it might be a good lens for astro-photography. I have a Nikon 28mm f1.8 but there have been a few times where a zoom, or another prime with a different focal length would have helped. So it's either this or a Nikon 20mm f1.8. A f1.4 lens would be nice but it's not in the budget right now. The new lens will go on my D750.
I have been using a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 for the same purpose...very good so far... you may want to try as it will give some of the zoom capacity you may want from time to time... also it has a new low sale price...FYI
Good luck whatever you do.. :-)
Nov 26, 2015 10:14:58 #
Carlo wrote:
I have been using a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 for the same purpose...very good so far... you may want to try as it will give some of the zoom capacity you may want from time to time... also it has a new low sale price...FYI
Good luck whatever you do.. :-)
Good luck whatever you do.. :-)
I have heard that this is a good lens but I believe it is for cropped sensor bodies.....not the best choice for my D750.
Nov 26, 2015 10:29:51 #
shutterbob wrote:
I have heard that this is a good lens but I believe it is for cropped sensor bodies.....not the best choice for my D750.
You may want to double check at B&H site ...but I believe it will function just fine on your Full Frame Nikon D750...just say'in...I think it is selling for $569, with lens caps, hood, case and multi year warranty...
Nov 26, 2015 11:10:17 #
Carlo wrote:
You may want to double check at B&H site ...but I believe it will function just fine on your Full Frame Nikon D750...just say'in...I think it is selling for $569, with lens caps, hood, case and multi year warranty...
Just checked with Sigma's website. Great price but it it is a DC lens..... meant for APS-c bodies. May buy one for my D7100. Still need a fast wide angle for the 750 though.
Nov 26, 2015 14:02:42 #
The lens you talk of is to short to be useful--and not wide enough to be interesting--a lot of money better spent elsewhere--what on earth would you use it for?
Stan
Stan
Nov 26, 2015 14:09:51 #
stan0301 wrote:
The lens you talk of is to short to be useful--and not wide enough to be interesting--a lot of money better spent elsewhere--what on earth would you use it for?
Stan
Stan
Just thinking it would be easier to pack one zoom lens than two primes (28mm f1.8, 35mm f1.8). I do not consider these primes to be unuseful.
Nov 26, 2015 14:12:50 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
I had a Tamron 15-30 2.8 until it fell out of my pocket. It was a great lens for sharpess, zoom range and color contrast.
Stan...., I have a question?!?!
What in the heck was ANY lens, doing-in-your-POCKET?????!! :lol:
SS
Nov 27, 2015 15:49:06 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
stan0301 wrote:
The lens you talk of is to short to be useful--and not wide enough to be interesting--a lot of money better spent elsewhere--what on earth would you use it for?
Stan
Stan
You and RJ must be from the same side . Take a look at any mag with pictures of the milky way and any sun clusters you see up there . They look
Great taken with a wide angle lens . Better than most . Go ahead and point a 300 mm at a section of sky . You will see that the wides look better . And what do you mean by to short and not wide to be interesting , a short is wide your not zooming in Or you mean to long enough to be interesting
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.