The Ultimate D70 Lens set
- Thread starter snaggs
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for all youur comments, a few more questions;
See my links and pix of the sigma above ? The other nice thing about the Sigma, is its full-frame so I can bung it on a film camera for even wider shots.
ok, ouch, so the 85mm F1.4 it is.. Any need for the 50mm F1.4 is you have a 85mm ?
Where you can find one is another matter
So you just use the flash to lift the shadows a bit ? How do you achieve this balance ? Do you use a diffuser on your flash ?
See my links and pix of the sigma above ? The other nice thing about the Sigma, is its full-frame so I can bung it on a film camera for even wider shots.
ok, ouch, so the 85mm F1.4 it is.. Any need for the 50mm F1.4 is you have a 85mm ?
Where you can find one is another matter
So you just use the flash to lift the shadows a bit ? How do you achieve this balance ? Do you use a diffuser on your flash ?
Yes, hence my qualification, if the D70 is your only camera. If you have a film camera than the Sigma makes sense.
Still need a 50/1.4? Depends, some people here like it a lot. It all depends on your style, but what I can say is that it will not serve as a poor man's 85/1.4. I've got one, hardly use it, but in the scheme of things it's small money so selling it serves no real purpose.
Ok I stand corrected RE there not being an f1.0 Nikkor. There was no f1.0 Nikkor designed for general photographic usage.
Yes, to lift shadows and also importantly to add catchlights. Depends on the subject, obtaining the balance can be hit and miss. From experience the D2h has finally solved the problems and is spot on; there's nothing to suggest the D70 which uses the same system should be any worse. No I don't use a diffuser. If you understand flash you'll understand where a diffuser would benefit your pictures, and it's not as often as you might imagine. It also sucks a minimum of 2 stops of light, sometimes a whole lot more than that.
An SB800 in a softbox? Hmm... that could get messy... if you shot [1] the flash in the frame or [2] people close to the flash in the frame, then you'd end up with hotspots. One possibility is to set a flash straight up at the far end of a room that you wouldn't be able to reach from camera position. Or alternatively in my specific instance, for press conferences where you want to play with lighting effects and have to place the remote flash unit and move away.
Or [3] as creative lighting suites but then with all the design that goes into these, you're effectively using your SBs as very sophisticated monoblocs.
Still need a 50/1.4? Depends, some people here like it a lot. It all depends on your style, but what I can say is that it will not serve as a poor man's 85/1.4. I've got one, hardly use it, but in the scheme of things it's small money so selling it serves no real purpose.
Ok I stand corrected RE there not being an f1.0 Nikkor. There was no f1.0 Nikkor designed for general photographic usage.
Yes, to lift shadows and also importantly to add catchlights. Depends on the subject, obtaining the balance can be hit and miss. From experience the D2h has finally solved the problems and is spot on; there's nothing to suggest the D70 which uses the same system should be any worse. No I don't use a diffuser. If you understand flash you'll understand where a diffuser would benefit your pictures, and it's not as often as you might imagine. It also sucks a minimum of 2 stops of light, sometimes a whole lot more than that.
An SB800 in a softbox? Hmm... that could get messy... if you shot [1] the flash in the frame or [2] people close to the flash in the frame, then you'd end up with hotspots. One possibility is to set a flash straight up at the far end of a room that you wouldn't be able to reach from camera position. Or alternatively in my specific instance, for press conferences where you want to play with lighting effects and have to place the remote flash unit and move away.
Or [3] as creative lighting suites but then with all the design that goes into these, you're effectively using your SBs as very sophisticated monoblocs.
Jed said:
Ok, sold on the 85mm, but still not on the Sigma 12-24. With 1.5 crop it is only shooting out of the middle of the lens, the best part. However, since they made it full-frame, and were going for quality, they tried to make it excellent out to the edges of the full frame. As a consequence, the middle part of the lens is very good.
Lets do a small comparison;
Nikkor 12-24DX
CA : Worse than sigma
Speed : Constant F4
Weight : Approx. 485g
Size : Approx. 82.5mm x 90mm
Price : $1550
Sigma 12-24
CA : Better than Nikkor
Speed : F4.5-5.6
Weight : 615g
Size : 87mm x Length 100mm
Price : $1050
Given the sharpness and better CA of the Sigma, is the speed of the Nikkor worth so much ? The Nikkor is a bit lighter, but not much smaller. I can't see how the Nikkor makes more sense than the Sigma.. yet..
Currently the Nikkors resale is better, but then Sigma is a different company than of old. Since they've gone CAD with raytracing, they are making some top quality lenses. I think resale prices will change for two main reasons;
(1) Back in the old days, where everything was hand-designed, Lens design was an art, and Nikon had the best scientists and engineers. Now that everything has been quantified, and theirs enough CPU power in computers, everyone can achieve optimal designs.
(2) Pre-internet, reputation was sometimes all you had to go on for performance. Now everyone can find a wealth of information on lenses prior to purchasing.
Daniel.
snaggs said:
Hey, don't feel compelled to get "sold"! I'm just sharing like you asked, if you disagree fair enough.
With 1.5 crop it is only shooting out of the middle of the lens, the best part.
All things being equal, then yes. But in theory DX lenses are also designed for the smaller sensor which means they *can* have higher resolving powers than their 35mm counterparts, like their 35mm counterparts generally have higher resolving power than MF and LF lenses.
Lets do a small comparison;
Based on that thread I'm inclined to agree with you on the optical quality. Which surprises me because the Nikkor should be optimised for the smaller sensor.
The one thing to note is that different lenses behave differently on different digital cameras. It's a strangely weird one. But my Tamron 14 for instance is brilliant on my F5, rubbish on my D1x (as in like seriously, is it out of alignment kind of rubbish), but brilliant on the 14n.
I haven't used the Sigma, and have only limited experience with the 12-24 DX lens myself. I have no quality issues with the Nikkor from my pictures with it. Personally I'm confident enough in the Nikon brand to trust it to give me results that meet my needs, so I'm not fussed if the Sigma *is* optically better. But I do have general issues with Sigma in general that might or might not apply to the 12-24. Specifically build quality (I think their 120-300, 70-200, and 300 lenses - all the f2.8 versions - are poorly put together) and they also hunt in focusing; quite probably not such an issue for a superwide zoom. They also do not have full time manual focusing (more of an issue for a superwide), and also are overally slower to achieve focus than their comparable Nikkors.
Given the sharpness and better CA of the Sigma, is the speed of the Nikkor worth so much ?
If you need it, yes. Speed is always disproportionately expensive. Witness say a 70-200/4 compared to a 70-200/4.5-5.6.
In terms of worth the optical tradeoff... again it depends. If it does a good enough job then I'd take the Nikkor even if the Sigma were better. But if the Nikkor didn't even do a satisfactory job, then there's no decision to be made, Sigma it is.
Currently the Nikkors resale is better, but then Sigma is a different company than of old. Since they've gone CAD with raytracing, they are making some top quality lenses. I think resale prices will change for two main reasons;
Depends. I assume these top quality lenses refers to their EX line. I've seen very very dubious results from two of their EX lenses, being the only two I've actually seen test results for. But subject to the proviso of the last point below.
As for resale prices changing, think again. Resale prices are driven by how much people will pay for the items. Which in turn is related majorly to reputation and build quality (affecting depreciation/residual value). Reputation is a pain to change and takes a long time, and Sigma have never really had a problem with optics reputation wise, it was their build quality that people had nightmares about (can you say, metallic tape?). Their build quality while better than before, is still, IMO, a long way short of top stuff from Canon or Nikon. But again, like I say above about optical quality, if the build quality is good enough for you then go for it.
(1) Back in the old days, where everything was hand-designed, Lens design was an art, and Nikon had the best scientists and engineers. Now that everything has been quantified, and theirs enough CPU power in computers, everyone can achieve optimal designs.
Quite possibly true, but like I said above, I've dismissed Sigmas for reasons other than optical quality; reasons which you might have lend no importance to. And I have also seen Sigma optics that apparently (again subject to tests being accurate, see below) are very, very poor compared to the equivalent Tamron and Canons.
(2) Pre-internet, reputation was sometimes all you had to go on for performance. Now everyone can find a wealth of information on lenses prior to purchasing.
Yes but be careful about duff information too, which unfortunately the Internet is sometimes rife with. The one curious thing about that test is to be careful that it's carried out proper skill and by someone who knows what they're doing. On the surface the test seems legit, but in the comparison shot with the lenses on display (with lemons and the Canon logo), something doesn't seem right. The Nikkor doesn't even seem sharp as a 640 x 480 image (crop). That isn't right at all. Frankly I would struggle to distinguish any of my stable of lenses with say a 28-200 zoom at 640x480.
I saw another post on dpreview where a guy compared a D70 and D100. His comparison shots were great except in one comparison the D70 was in focus and the D100 out of focus, resulting in the D100 looking soft (as is its reputation) and the D70 sharp. But in the next comparison shot the reverse was true, and things like this make you wonder how accurate the tests really are.
Good luck!
situation is this, my guy at the shop is holding onto a d100 for me just in case i don't quite like the d70. (i'm torn at the moment.) if assuming the d70 does indeed come with the lens package, do you think that there would be someone who would be interested in taking the lens off me? for a price of course. : )
and i would really appreciate a recommendation for an ultra wide, bright zoom, eg: sigma 12-24, nikon 12-24 or something along those lines. I take pictures of scenery and groups of people. holiday pix if you will. like these: http://www.the-inncrowd.com/photogallerysg.htm or these: http://www.the-inncrowd.com/photogallerybks.htm
since the packaged lens is not bright to start of with, i'm willing to consider either nikon or sigma's 12-24. worst case scenario is to wait for the production run of nikon's 17-55mm 2.8 and cough up the dough if it justifies.
and along the bylines of flashes, i'll be using back my trusty 54mz with a nikon sca adaptor. comments?
my reasoning is such that the packaged lens will be neither here nor there for my purpose and since my camera is with me most of the time when i'm out, i'm not planning on carrying another additional lens. so, this being the case, i'd rather forgo the kit lens and get a brighter one from the onset and sell the kit lens when it's still brand new.
mucho gracias!
and i would really appreciate a recommendation for an ultra wide, bright zoom, eg: sigma 12-24, nikon 12-24 or something along those lines. I take pictures of scenery and groups of people. holiday pix if you will. like these: http://www.the-inncrowd.com/photogallerysg.htm or these: http://www.the-inncrowd.com/photogallerybks.htm
since the packaged lens is not bright to start of with, i'm willing to consider either nikon or sigma's 12-24. worst case scenario is to wait for the production run of nikon's 17-55mm 2.8 and cough up the dough if it justifies.
and along the bylines of flashes, i'll be using back my trusty 54mz with a nikon sca adaptor. comments?
my reasoning is such that the packaged lens will be neither here nor there for my purpose and since my camera is with me most of the time when i'm out, i'm not planning on carrying another additional lens. so, this being the case, i'd rather forgo the kit lens and get a brighter one from the onset and sell the kit lens when it's still brand new.
mucho gracias!
Gonna leech on to this thread.... Wat abt Tamaron and Tokina Lens for the D70? My requirements are 28 to 70 mm (for the range)...since i shoot mostly street. Div by the 1.5x , that means the actual lens will be between abt 18 to 50...
Which Tamaron or Tokina lens has this range with an aperature of 2.8 ? What's the price like? How's the quality as compared to the DX and Nikkor Lens.
Only want a lens with 2.8.....I hate using the flash so the bigger the aperature, the better for me.....have considered the 50mm/1.4 but that means it will be 75mm/1.4.....
Thanks for any advice!
Which Tamaron or Tokina lens has this range with an aperature of 2.8 ? What's the price like? How's the quality as compared to the DX and Nikkor Lens.
Only want a lens with 2.8.....I hate using the flash so the bigger the aperature, the better for me.....have considered the 50mm/1.4 but that means it will be 75mm/1.4.....
Thanks for any advice!
Be careful of what you conclude from that review. The reviewer only managed to show the amazingly good distortion characteristics and low CA of the Sigma. But note the apertures the images were shot at. There is no way to tell that the Sigma is sharper from those shots.snaggs said:
IMO the sigma is a good choice for a full frame/film user who shoots a lot of landscape and architecture. Those who require a lens for events or moving subjects might want to consider other faster lenses instead.
ModelShooterz
New Member
if one needs to shoot bigger groups of people in confined spaces, what is the lens to go for? the Nikon 12-24, 20-35 or 18-35? or Sigma 15-30, 17-35?
which of these allows a front filter to be permanently on the lens to protect it?
which of these allows a front filter to be permanently on the lens to protect it?
Zerstorer said:
ModelShooterz said:
How big? The 12-24 is good I would feel, just becareful not to shoot at wide open. The 17-35/2.8 is another ideal lens for group shots, 18-35 is the all rounder after 17-35 as the next ideal WA as most of it's undercomings are gone on a digital body.
Nikon 12-24, 17-35 and 18-35 are all 77mm thread size, and can be screwed on. I've not tried the sigma's 15-30 and 17-35, maybe the users can comment.
Too many off tangent posts in this topic liao, very difficult to reply. Just a quick one, if you're using flash with the D70, then you really want one of the SBx00 series, because as mentioned, Nikon have finally sorted top level flash out on the D2h, and the D70 uses the same system, but only with the SBx00 series.
yo guys, me too struggling btw getting a 12-24 nikon or sigma..
my biggest grouse would be 1. slower speed, 2. NO FILTER THREADS!!
for one, i ALWAYS put on uv filters on any lense for protective purposes.... coz i find it DAMN easy to scratch ur lens or get finger prints on....
Is there NO WAY u can attach a protective filter on the sigma?
the mega popeye just looks WAITING to be scratched/fingerprinted if u ask me...
i do like the sigma coz of its better image quality, cheaper price (price is impt to me coz photography is just a hobby to me), and ABILITY TO USE ON FF!!(i would just DIE if the 12-24 became worthless coz no more 1.5x cameras were being built.)
So anyone can help me abt the protective filter issue with the sigma 12-24?
my biggest grouse would be 1. slower speed, 2. NO FILTER THREADS!!
for one, i ALWAYS put on uv filters on any lense for protective purposes.... coz i find it DAMN easy to scratch ur lens or get finger prints on....
Is there NO WAY u can attach a protective filter on the sigma?
the mega popeye just looks WAITING to be scratched/fingerprinted if u ask me...
i do like the sigma coz of its better image quality, cheaper price (price is impt to me coz photography is just a hobby to me), and ABILITY TO USE ON FF!!(i would just DIE if the 12-24 became worthless coz no more 1.5x cameras were being built.)
So anyone can help me abt the protective filter issue with the sigma 12-24?
Hmm, that's interesting, I hadn't realised the Sigma had a bulbous front element, although I should have realised had I stopped to think about it for a bit. That's convinced me if nothing else, but personally anyway, but my 14 hardly sees light of day because of its unwieldy nature (lack of a proper lens cap, magnet for rain that at 14mm is fully visible in the final image regardless of shooting aperture...).
- Status
Similar threads
