thoughts on the sigma 30mm f1.4?

[Mr. Switch]

Nikon Canada kinda ot but is that the lens you have switch?

No, i've got this one:
Nikon Canada


Though the 50mm f/1.8 is a great value for sure, and a great alternative if you can't afford the new 50 f/1.4G.



Main reasons I bought the 50G instead of saving a few hundred bucks on the 1.8 is:

The handling, since the focus ring doesn't rotate, I can grab it wherever, or whenever i want, overall just easier to use.

overall more refined design.

Lens hood, sounds like a stupid reason, but a lens hood has saved my butt against rain a few times, sand, asphalt when i dropped my 80-200 f/2.8, and i'm sure flare. it's just good protection and covers almost the whole lens when reversed.

it's smaller than the Sigma 50mm.

The bokeh is really nice at f/2ish, and gets even better by about 5.6-8 where..

..it's motherf*cking sharp...

...and totally even across the full frame of my D700.


It's just a really good lens, and easily my favorite.

 

[Poizen22]

i need to get a new lens soon, i only have the crapy nikkor 18-105 kit lens which is horrible might i add, so so soft. gonan go for the 18-200 have herd nothing but good things, and the 50g looks sexy after those maybe a body upgrade lol

 

[Mr. Switch]

if you don't think the 18-105 is sharp, than you'll really be disappointed in the 18-200, it's worse. The 18-105's and 18-55's generally aren't that bad, it's just the build quality is cheap.


People buy the 18-200 because it's convenient, not because it's sharp, or because it's good in low light. the 18-200 is the best lens to use when you're out in the middle of the day, outside, where you can shoot at f/8 the entire time. but if you open it it up to f/3.5-5.6, it's really lousy.

I'd suggest looking into the 16-85VR, photozone has some good example images of what it's capable of. it's still got a big range, but it's a really sharp lens.

Or if you want overall great aesthetic, look into primes like the 50mm's and 35mm f/1.8.

 

[Poizen22]

ya no the 18-55 isn't to to bad a lens the 18-105 that comes with the d90 doesn't even compare to the 18-55 really, this lens is notoriously soft of you look into it you will read much about that problem specifically. from reviews i have read mot of them where saying the 18-200 was one of Nikon's sharper lenses they have il read into it some more i guess and let you know what i find for now this is enough thread jacking from me XD

 

[Mr. Switch]

ya no the 18-55 isn't to to bad a lens the 18-105 that comes with the d90 doesn't even compare to the 18-55 really, this lens is notoriously soft of you look into it you will read much about that problem specifically.

I never said the 18-105 was sharp, just generally not that bad.

from reviews i have read mot of them where saying the 18-200 was one of Nikon's sharper lenses they have

Not. Even. Close.

if that were true, everyone would shoot with 18-200's, but..

I guess that means at 200mm f/5.6 it's about as good as the 200mm f/2 is at 5.6.

Or what about the 14-24 for the wide end? nah it's junk, the 18-200 is better.

Screw any of the PC or macro lenses, they don't zoom.

Who needs wide apertures anyway? the 35 f/1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8/4, 105 f/2, i'll just shoot at ISO 6400 and f/5.6 the whole time on my 18-200 anyway since it zooms.

the 180mm doesn't have af-s.

the 70-200 won't go to 18mm.

the 18-200 is pretty much just as sharp as any of the exotic telephoto lenses, i'll just put a TC on it, does the same thing.



Sorry for the sarcasm, but unless you've been reading the 18-200 review from kenrockwell, most people say the same thing, it's a jack of all trades, but a master of none. go inside and it's not really even a jack anymore, more like a 6 or 7. it's a good lens, but not great. it's not revolutionary anymore like it was six years ago, and it's just a really expensive lens for what you're getting as far as image quality and build. if you're looking for quality i highly suggest you look elsewhere besides 11x superzooms, because aside from the extra 95mm on the long end, focus scales, metal mount, and slightly better sharpness, what does the 18-200 give you over the 18-105...probably not a whole lot, and i bet not $765 a whole lot either.

There's also alot more to lenses than sharpness. there's qualities of how they project and render that give images character aside from surgical sharpness. This is why I have a 50mm as my midrange on my SLR and i'm going to be moving my SLR system to fast prime lenses and away from the zooms. They all have a unique character, and when they need to be surgically sharp, they can be. lenses like Nikon's 24-70 have no character.


it's hard to explain..but it's a similar reason why alot of people shoot leica.

 

[Poizen22]

well im looking for a range of lenses and performance i would like to have the possibility to zoom so i am looking at these

Nikon Canada
Nikon Canada
Nikon Canada

and maybe a macro lens from tamron
AF90mm F/2.8 Di 1:1 Macro; Lenses; Tamron USA, Inc.

i do eventually want a wide but i dont know what a decent wide angle nikkor is yet, also i want a sb600 or 400

from my understanding those 3 seem to be preaty good lenses at there price range

http://www.nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14334 i might get that over the 18-70 tho i am not sure yet

 

[Mr. Switch]

all of those are great lenses. Get the 18-70, skip the 24-85, it's too expensive and the 18-70 is an awesome lens!

I used to own the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, had to sell it because i was out of a job and needed to pay rent. I bought the 18-70 to replace it and i felt like an idiot for paying $1400 for the 17-55. The 18-70, except for the barrel distortion and speed, was just as good.

I've heard nothing but good things about the tamron 90mm. I've heard that it's a very beautiful lens. I'd also look into the Micro Nikkor 85mm f/3.5 VR, because i've heard that it's one of the sharpest lenses nikon has made to date (sans the exotics). Never seen one in person, or seen actual pictures from it, so i dunno, i'm probably wrong. nonetheless, the tamron is one of the FEW tamron lenses i would consider buying. it's amazing.

the 70-300 is a great budget telephoto. If my 80-200 got stolen, i'd probably replace it with the 70-300VR if i couldn't swing a used 70-200VR1.

I think everyone should own the 50G, but i'm biased, i just LOVE how it scrunches in the bokeh in the corners of the frame.

(this is that character i was talking about, you can't get anything close to this with fancy alphabet soup zoom lenses)