average Nikon vs. good Sigma lens?

Hello!

I'm planing to buy a Nikon D40 with a kit lens 15-55/f3.5-5.6 (http://
http://www.foto-oehling.com/cgi-bin/...ct/View/157702)
and one additional lens to cover the range from 55mm up to 200mm.

Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:

1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED
http://www.foto-oehling.com/cgi-bin/...Product/160114
(http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?
cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2166)

2. SIGMA AF 50-150/2,8 APO DC EX HSM
http://www.foto-oehling.com/cgi-bin/...Product/156149
(http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...l_details.asp?
id=3318&navigator=6)

Price is different, but it is not primer criterion, I wouldn't mind
spending more if I know why I did it.
Other characteristics of the lens (like optical/mechanical/practical
use etc) are what it IS important for me.

If you have some experience with both of these lenses, please help me
with this decision.
Feel free to recommend the third option, if it exists.

Thanks in advance.
Cheers!

In article . com,
Bojan Reljic wrote:

Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:

1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED
2. SIGMA AF 50-150/2,8 APO DC EX HSM

Price is different, but it is not primer criterion, I wouldn't mind
spending more if I know why I did it.
Other characteristics of the lens (like optical/mechanical/practical
use etc) are what it IS important for me.

If you have some experience with both of these lenses, please help me
with this decision.
Feel free to recommend the third option, if it exists.

nikon also makes the 55-200 with stabilization -- the 55-200vr. it is
about $80 more than the non-stabilized version (last time i checked)
and it is well worth the difference.

nospam wrote:
In article . com,
Bojan Reljic wrote:

Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:

1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED
2. SIGMA AF 50-150/2,8 APO DC EX HSM

Price is different, but it is not primer criterion, I wouldn't mind
spending more if I know why I did it.
Other characteristics of the lens (like optical/mechanical/practical
use etc) are what it IS important for me.

If you have some experience with both of these lenses, please help me
with this decision.
Feel free to recommend the third option, if it exists.

nikon also makes the 55-200 with stabilization -- the 55-200vr. it is
about $80 more than the non-stabilized version (last time i checked)
and it is well worth the difference.

That's the one he listed, and also the one I would recommend (because it's
lighter).

David

"Bojan Reljic" wrote in message
ups.com...

Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:

1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED
2. SIGMA AF 50-150/2,8 APO DC EX HSM

Price is different, but it is not primer criterion, I wouldn't mind
spending more if I know why I did it.
Other characteristics of the lens (like optical/mechanical/practical
use etc) are what it IS important for me.

If you have some experience with both of these lenses, please help me
with this decision.
Feel free to recommend the third option, if it exists.

Depends what you mainly shoot - if you do action in low light then the f2.8
of the sigma will be more useful, but apart from that I'd say go with the
Nikkor, which will be lighter as f2.8 zooms tend to be heavy!

On Jul 11, 3:51 am, Bojan Reljic wrote:
Hello!

I'm planing to buy a Nikon D40 with a kit lens 15-55/f3.5-5.6 (http://www.foto-oehling.com/cgi-bin/...6020d995427400...)
and one additional lens to cover the range from 55mm up to 200mm.

Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:

1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED
http://www.foto-oehling.com/cgi-bin/...Product/160114
(http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?
cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2166)

2. SIGMA AF 50-150/2,8 APO DC EX HSM
http://www.foto-oehling.com/cgi-bin/...Product/156149
(http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...l_details.asp?
id=3318&navigator=6)

Price is different, but it is not primer criterion, I wouldn't mind
spending more if I know why I did it.
Other characteristics of the lens (like optical/mechanical/practical
use etc) are what it IS important for me.

If you have some experience with both of these lenses, please help me
with this decision.
Feel free to recommend the third option, if it exists.

Thanks in advance.
Cheers!


The Nikon is a remake of a lens they have had for about 4 years, but
they seem to have gotten the VR version right, it is a well thought of
lens. Light, cheaply made, reasonably sharp, slow at f4-5.6.
The Sigma is a newish lens, 1 year old or so, but has a reputation for
being sharp. The f2.8 makes focusing easier for you and your camera.
it will be heavier than the 55-200, but that is considered an
extremely light lens. Unless you are sensitive to weight it shouldn't
make a lot of difference. Weight can actually help with hand holding.
I see your problem two different optics, different specs, but each one
good in its own way. My personal choice would be the Sigma, but I
don't really care about VR, and like a fast lens. VR can cover some of
that, but doesn't give more speed with the aperture, if you need low
light performance you are still at f4-5.6 so intead of having 1/200 at
f2.8 you get 1/50 at f5.6, you can hand hold but not stop the action,
so if you are shooting indoor sports go f2.8.

Tom

The third and fourth options:
It is unclear how experienced you are or what your needs are.
I do not have direct experience with the newer stabilized Nikon 55-200 but
the non-stabilized one is the worst lens I have ever seen to have a Nikon
nameplate. I tried two samples and gave up.
In truth the Nikon 17-55 kit zoom is not a very good lens either.
The Nikon18-70 is a far better lens, in fact pretty good on its own, and
worth purchasing. I would recommend getting this lens, becoming familiar
with it and the camera, before buying another lens. This is a fine lens and
worth keeping.
Most users will be very happy with the 18-200 class lenses. I have both the
Sigma and the vastly more expensive (about triple) Nikon 18-200. and I use
them both in extended travels. While the image stabilization of the Nikon is
clearly worth having if you can afford it, apart from that the Nikon is not
one whit better optically than the Sigma 18-200, and I have the pictures to
prove it. Optically any of these 18-200s are equal or superior to the low
end kit zooms (17-55/55-200 classes) and are far more convenient.
One big caveat: the D40 (and I hope you mean D40x?) requires that the lens
have a focusing motor within it. This locks you into a very limited
selection of lenses. I believe, but am not sure, the Sigma is usable on the
D40.
The fifth option:
For someone who does not already have Nikon lenses and if costs are
comparable I strongly recommend you look into the Pentax or Sony dSLRs,
particularly the Pentax. Nikon, Pentax and Sony have the same sensor. The
Pentax and Sony build image stabilization and sensor cleaning into the
camera, invaluable adjuncts. The Olympus has similar features but I am not a
fan, probably not for a rational reason, of the 4/3 system.
In fact, if I did not have two generations of Nikon lenses and over thirty
years of using Nikons (hey, I started when I was 12!), as much as I
esteem/love my D70 and D80 I would not get a Nikon dSLR, I would get the
Pentax K10d without hesitation.

It is alleged that gowanoh claimed:

I do not have direct experience with the newer stabilized Nikon 55-200 but
the non-stabilized one is the worst lens I have ever seen to have a Nikon
nameplate. I tried two samples and gave up.

I recently purchased a D40x as both my first Nikon and my first DSLR. I
have zero bias or previous experience with, for or against any
compatible lens. I do have some experience with film SLRs from 10~20
years ago (Minolta) so I have a general idea about what focal length
does to image stability when hand-holding the camera.

I got my camera as a kit with the 18-55 AF-S Nikkor and 55-200 AF-S VR
Nikkor lenses. With the 55-200 at full length and VR enabled, I was
able to hand-hold the camera at what I would have otherwise considered
ridiculously low shutter speeds for that focal length. IIRC, I was
able to hand-hold down to a shutter speed of 1/125 without bracing and
the shot came out clear. I probably could have gone a bit slower if I
tried.

In truth the Nikon 17-55 kit zoom is not a very good lens either.

How do you feel about the 18-55 AF-S zoom?

My only real complaints with these two lenses is the manual focus. They
go from minimal to infinity in less than a quarter turn. And the
shorter zoom rotates the lens barrel.

prove it. Optically any of these 18-200s are equal or superior to the low
end kit zooms (17-55/55-200 classes) and are far more convenient.

And a lot more expensive. That single lens cost more than both of my
two lenses put together.

One big caveat: the D40 (and I hope you mean D40x?) requires that the lens
have a focusing motor within it. This locks you into a very limited
selection of lenses. I believe, but am not sure, the Sigma is usable on the
D40.

I'm no expert here, but I've heard elsewhere (Nikon DSLR email lists)
that Nikon is shifting their new lens production to lens-mounted
focusing motors. If true, there is a gap now, but more and more new
lenses will be compatible. The same mail list tells me that the "HSM"
lenses from Sigma will work on the D40(x).

--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled Send personal mail to gordol

"Gee, Zoe. Sorry your boyfriend got eaten by kittens." - Riff, Sluggy
Freelance

"Bojan Reljic" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hello!

I'm planing to buy a Nikon D40 with a kit lens 15-55/f3.5-5.6

That's 18-55, not 15-55. It's an excellent lens for very little money, and I
bought it with my own D40. In fact at the time I bought it, that's the only
way you could get the D40 -- with that lens.


(http://
http://www.foto-oehling.com/cgi-bin/...ct/View/157702)
and one additional lens to cover the range from 55mm up to 200mm.

Now, I have a terrible dilemma between following two lenses:

1. NIKON AF-S DX VR 55-200/4.0-5.6 G IF ED

That's the one I would choose. It wasn't available when I bought the earlier
55-200 lens (the non-VR model), but if I were buying a second lens for the
D40 today, and didn't already have a couple of other long VR lenses, the
55-200 VR is definitely the one I would buy. It is from all accounts an
excellent lens, and a perfect companion for the 18-55 kit lens.

Neil

Thanks a lot, to all of you who shared opinions and gave advices.

Cheers!