Choice of Nikon F mount wideangle lens

"John Appleby" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I'm hoping maybe someone can shed some light on this, because it's kinda
bugging me.

I've bought a Fuji S2 and tried out a really cheap lens, the Sigma
18-50DC.
It was so awful that I took it back and bought the Sigma 28-70EX f2.8,
which
has been totally great. I've also bought a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 on Ebay,
which
looks like an amazing lens for a big zoom (130-320 equivalent)

I do miss however the 18-28 range that I have lost going from the cheap
18-50 lens, and I'm trying to figure out what I need to get to fix it up.
My
budget isn't unlimited so something like the Nikon 12-24DX is out of my
price range. I also don't really want to go with an APS sized lens because
I'm anticipating the need to buy a full frame SLR at some stage.

I'm thinking of a price range of $5-700 max - I paid about $400 for the
Nikon 80-200. I'm not totally convinced that I need a zoom lens at that
distance - it's mostly for landscape work, I figure.

But really I'm not sold on anything in particular, but I'm wondering about
the Sigma 12-24, which gets mixed reviews, or maybe a second hand Nikon
17-35. Options seem to be REALLY thin at this end of the lens range
because
so many lenses were designed for 35mm, for which 17mm massively wide angle
(whilst it's not with the APS sized sensor).

I know I'm not explaining myself the best, but any insight or opinions or
ideas or anything else on this topic would be realllly appreciated

Regards,

John



I'd go for a used 18-35mm Nikon. They go for about $350 on ebay. I know, I
sold mine for that when I upgraded to the 17-35 af-s (which you won't find
used for less than a grand). The 18-35mm's biggest problem, for me, is soft
corners wide open. I believe that won't be a problem on a digital camera
with a crop factor, though I may be mistaken. Stopped down I found it to be
a very good lens. I took this image with it:

http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=61694

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"John Appleby" writes:

Hi,

I'm hoping maybe someone can shed some light on this, because it's kinda
bugging me.

I've bought a Fuji S2 and tried out a really cheap lens, the Sigma 18-50DC.
It was so awful that I took it back and bought the Sigma 28-70EX f2.8, which
has been totally great. I've also bought a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 on Ebay, which
looks like an amazing lens for a big zoom (130-320 equivalent)

I do miss however the 18-28 range that I have lost going from the cheap
18-50 lens, and I'm trying to figure out what I need to get to fix it up. My
budget isn't unlimited so something like the Nikon 12-24DX is out of my
price range. I also don't really want to go with an APS sized lens because
I'm anticipating the need to buy a full frame SLR at some stage.

I'm thinking of a price range of $5-700 max - I paid about $400 for the
Nikon 80-200. I'm not totally convinced that I need a zoom lens at that
distance - it's mostly for landscape work, I figure.

But really I'm not sold on anything in particular, but I'm wondering about
the Sigma 12-24, which gets mixed reviews, or maybe a second hand Nikon
17-35. Options seem to be REALLY thin at this end of the lens range because
so many lenses were designed for 35mm, for which 17mm massively wide angle
(whilst it's not with the APS sized sensor).

I'd grab the Sigma 12-24 in your shoes. (I've got an S2. I played
with a Sigma 12-24 for 24 hours, and was pretty happy with it.)

I've got a Tokina 17mm that I use, and I'd really like something wider
fairly often. (I've had a 24mm since 1983, a 20mm since 1994, and
used them, on film).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"TP" wrote in message
...
"John Appleby" wrote:

Dpreview slated the 12-24, but I guess we have to take all these things
with
a pinch of salt


Why do you "have to take all these things with a pinch of salt"?

Instead, why don't you just accept that Sigma make junk lenses?

Often, Sigma lenses get good reviews. But just you try and find a
Sigma lens in the shops that performs as well as the one that was
reviewed. Either the lenses submitted for review are different, or
the "reviews" are not actually proper optical tests.

Gee. I wonder if the positive reviews are a reflection of the ad revenue
Sigma generates? Nah. Couldn't be. That would tarnish the spotless
reputation of Pop Photo, who claims that Cambridge Camera Exchange is an
"approved" retailer.

Any of us who actually bought and used Sigma will likely never do it again.

Why do you "have to take all these things with a pinch of salt"?

Instead, why don't you just accept that Sigma make junk lenses?

Often, Sigma lenses get good reviews. But just you try and find a
Sigma lens in the shops that performs as well as the one that was
reviewed. Either the lenses submitted for review are different, or
the "reviews" are not actually proper optical tests.

I don't think that's totally fair; I'm pretty happy with the 28-80 2.8 that
I have. I can accept that Nikon's lens is better, no question about that,
but I'm happy with the lens at the price point. The problem, I think, is
that people compare a $400 Sigma with a $1600 Nikon.

The QC with Sigma is another issue but I don't think that either lens I had,
had QC problems per se. Yet. There are however enough stories out there to
make the assumption that it really is an issue.

But still this NG seems to spend far too much time arguing the pros and cons
of Sigma lenses with most people far off to one side or the other. So I'll
shut up now.

Regards,

J

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:49:55 +0100, TP wrote:

"John Appleby" wrote:

Dpreview slated the 12-24, but I guess we have to take all these things with
a pinch of salt


Why do you "have to take all these things with a pinch of salt"?

Instead, why don't you just accept that Sigma make junk lenses?

Often, Sigma lenses get good reviews. But just you try and find a
Sigma lens in the shops that performs as well as the one that was
reviewed. Either the lenses submitted for review are different, or
the "reviews" are not actually proper optical tests.

In other words, if the lens isn't endorsed by Ton Polson (TP) you are
wasting your moiney and you are a stupid git with no education.

I'm wondering if Polson's favourite television show is "The Weakest Link"?

--
Dallas
visit www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
For guidelines on who and what makes this group worthwhile

Gee. I wonder if the positive reviews are a reflection of the ad revenue
Sigma generates? Nah. Couldn't be. That would tarnish the spotless
reputation of Pop Photo, who claims that Cambridge Camera Exchange is an
"approved" retailer.

The story I heard was that Pop Photo are refusing to accept adverts from the
CCE. But maybe that's just hearsay.....

J

"John Appleby" wrote in message
...

I don't think that's totally fair; I'm pretty happy with the 28-80 2.8
that
I have. I can accept that Nikon's lens is better, no question about that,
but I'm happy with the lens at the price point. The problem, I think, is
that people compare a $400 Sigma with a $1600 Nikon.

Or they compare it with a $400 Tamron...either way, the Sigma doesn't fare
too well.

"Bouser" wrote:

Gee. I wonder if the positive reviews are a reflection of the ad revenue
Sigma generates? Nah. Couldn't be


No, definitely not.

;-)

"John Appleby" wrote:

I don't think that's totally fair; I'm pretty happy with the 28-80 2.8 that
I have. I can accept that Nikon's lens is better, no question about that,
but I'm happy with the lens at the price point. The problem, I think, is
that people compare a $400 Sigma with a $1600 Nikon.


Nikon make junk lenses too. Not at the $1600 price point, though!

"TP" wrote in message
...
"John Appleby" wrote:

I don't think that's totally fair; I'm pretty happy with the 28-80 2.8
that
I have. I can accept that Nikon's lens is better, no question about that,
but I'm happy with the lens at the price point. The problem, I think, is
that people compare a $400 Sigma with a $1600 Nikon.


Nikon make junk lenses too. Not at the $1600 price point, though!

The UK magazine "Professional Photographer" (or was it BJP?) compared
Nikon's 12-24 to Sigma's 12-24 and found in the respects of resolution and
distortion both were similar, and that both exhibited chromatic abberation
(though of different colours). And I believe you yourself are a fierce
critic of the 80-400 VR lens...

So I guess Nikon *do* make junk lenses at that price point!

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."