Personally tho, I'd keep the DX 18-70 and actually pass on the DX 18-200. I'm not a huge fan of high-power zooms, but having one in the bag is convenient when you just want to travel with one lens.
Buying Advice nikon D50 vs D70s?
Buying Advice nikon D50 vs D70s?
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 02:12 AM
Return to original view | Post
#21
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,775 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
Personally tho, I'd keep the DX 18-70 and actually pass on the DX 18-200. I'm not a huge fan of high-power zooms, but having one in the bag is convenient when you just want to travel with one lens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2006, 12:58 PM
Return to original view | Post
#22
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,775 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
Yeap, I would say the D70 is a better buy than the D50 - partly because the DX 18-70 makes it all worth it.
|
|
|
Apr 27 2006, 12:37 AM
Return to original view | Post
#23
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,775 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
Heh but it's rather crippled for me to take seriously. It's a no-no if you're a serious macro shooter, or if you're a serious landscaper.
|
|
|
Apr 27 2006, 12:54 AM
Return to original view | Post
#24
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,775 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
The Sigma DC 18-50/2.8 isn't good at all wide-open. Most users say they only find it acceptable from F/4 and beyond. Perhaps you might want to wait and see what the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is like. As a bonus, you get more wide-angle too. Who knows, maybe this product might be better than the DX 17-55/2.8?
Edit: And oh, I'd take the Sigma EX 24-60/2.8 any given day over the 24-70/2.8 - better all-round sharpness wide-open, slightly less cost, smaller size, weight and filter requirements. You don't lose much on the wide-end either. This post has been edited by richx: Apr 27 2006, 12:56 AM |
|
|
Apr 27 2006, 01:18 AM
Return to original view | Post
#25
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,775 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
Wait for the Tamron 17-50/2.8 lar. It's definately a worthy wait, I believe. Especially when the Sigma DC 18-50/2.8 is just so-so.
|
|
|
Apr 27 2006, 12:36 PM
Return to original view | Post
#26
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,775 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
In a fish-eye wide-angle, you actually get less coverage and resolution compared to a rectilinear wide-angle, especially after you de-fish it. I don't know about Canon's wide-angle line-up, but I know Nikon has ...
DX 10.5 FE DX 12-24/4 but Pentax totally rocks their boat with DA 14/2.8 DA 10-17 FE DA 12-24/4 DA 16-45/4 (more of a standard zoom, but hey gives you 24-mme coverage) Olympus has a few too, but I heard their prices are out of this world. Anyway, all this is beside the point. I think our friend is looking for a standard zoom lens which is bright and gives a decent wide-angle coverage. To this end, I'd think the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is worth waiting for, especially given Tamron's reputation for making decent optics at reasonable prices. |
|
|
Apr 30 2006, 02:34 PM
Return to original view | Post
#27
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
3,775 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
The DX 18-55 isn't half bad. It's usable under most circumstances that it's designed for. If you have any issues with it, perhaps you should inspect your expectations vs. what you're putting into your photography.
|
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: | 0.0245sec
0.24
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 18th December 2025 - 03:56 AM |