|
The biggest reason why I'm leaning towards the Sigma S is because of the better construction as I tend to drag my camera gear into lovely conditions. I'll find out this Saturday if the extra weight on it is that much of a bother (most likely it is  )But the Nikon 70-200 VR is actually pretty light compared to my current bigma, so I'm not too bothered by that.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
The image quality on this Nikon 200-500mm is so good that the Sigma 150-600mm S had better be tack sharp wide open to be worth it. I know the Tamron and Sigma C lenses are not, you really need to be shooting at f/8 for best results (I've been shooting with the Tamron for the past year and a half, just got the Nikon, and am not looking back)
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
You're making me reconsider which lens to try out first this weekend! Basically it boils down to: Nikon: Lighter, excellent optics. But the zoom ring is weird. Sigma: Weather-sealed, longer zoom, excellent optics, USB dock is Good Stuff. But considerably heavier, don't think I've ever been in a situation where I thought "hm could totally do with that smidge of extra zoom".
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
Mango Polo posted:You're making me reconsider which lens to try out first this weekend! Also, the Nikon is like $600 cheaper (than the Sigma S).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Oh right, the price. It's actually a bit different in Europe: it's only a 350~~ euro difference between the two, so not even 400$US. That's I've been waffling so much. e. Well, going gray market significantly drops the Nikon price. gently caress it, Nikon it is. Mango Polo fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Mango Polo posted:Oh right, the price. It's actually a bit different in Europe: it's only a 350~~ euro difference between the two, so not even 400$US. That's I've been waffling so much.  Welcome to the 200-500 crew.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Argh... I really can't decide between the tamron 70-200 2.8 or the nikon VR II version. The nikon is supposed to be slightly better in terms of focus speed and image quality, but its also 1.8k euros vs 1.1k and its a two or three year older design.  I don't have the 200-500 or the answer would be easy just to be able to buy a teleconverter for both of them, but back when I bought my zoom lens that wasn't really available. Ika fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
The Tamron unless you're making good money from your images, or they're being critiqued at the pixel level for some reason. The Nikon is fab obviously, but that's a lot of extra money for a namebadge and not much extra performance. 3rd party lenses are great these days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
I wish somebody were paying me. Then again I'm nowhere near good enough. I'm just worried I'll regret not going with the Nikon, since I take lots of photos of very fast very furry critters, and I need good focus speed and I'm guessing maximum resolving power since its only a DX sensor with more pixels / mm (But I am planning on also getting a D810 / 820 in 2 or 3 years). Ika fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jul 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Ika posted:I wish somebody were paying me. Then again I'm nowhere near good enough. Those cameras are overkill in terms of resolution. The d750 is more resolution than most people need, now, with an awesome AF system for an incredible price. For focus speed and FPS, you'll probably still be able to find decent used D4's and D4s's in your price range in a few years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Those cameras are overkill in terms of resolution. The d750 is more resolution than most people need, now, with an awesome AF system for an incredible price. For focus speed and FPS, you'll probably still be able to find decent used D4's and D4s's in your price range in a few years. I was referring to choosing between the Nikon and tamron 70-200, with fast focus speed. Just wanted to add that it also needs to play well with a future FF camera. Ika fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
The focus speed I've seen in YouTube tests (I know...) looks pretty negligible. I personally have never been in the market for 1st party gear so I have Sigma and Tokina stuff, and I've never felt it was my lens letting me down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:The focus speed I've seen in YouTube tests (I know...) looks pretty negligible. I personally have never been in the market for 1st party gear so I have Sigma and Tokina stuff, and I've never felt it was my lens letting me down. Yeah, Tamron/Sigma have gotten really, really good lately. Hell I shoot professionally and use a stonkin' Tamron 70-200 in a lot of my shoots and not once has anyone complained about the result.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Brocialist posted:Yeah, Tamron/Sigma have gotten really, really good lately. Hell I shoot professionally and use a stonkin' Tamron 70-200 in a lot of my shoots and not once has anyone complained about the result. Seconded. The Sigma Art series gets a lot of well-earned praise, but Tamron isn't exactly a slouch. After a couple of vacations renting the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 G, I decided to buy something in that range. Got the Tamron, gained VR, and avoided paying an arm and a leg for the Nikon E. I regret nothing. Though I wish the old rumors of a Sigma Art 24-70 f2.0 didn't end up as mere vapor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
The Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is probably one of the best lenses you can buy for an APS-C camera, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for FF cameras is just... holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Brocialist posted:The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for FF cameras is just... holy poo poo. That one's been in my Amazon shopping basket for a few months now. So you're saying I should hit the checkout button and stick it on my D750?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
no ragrets
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Hello friends. So I've got a quick question concerning a purchase I would love to run by this thread. I skimmed the last couple of pages and couldn't find any comments about this particular model, so here goes. I've been messing around with my phone camera for a bit, then tried out stuff with old cheap point and shoot cameras and then I had a blast at a recent wedding trying out a friend's Nikon D90. The fun I had made me consider buying a used DSLR just to learn more about photography and enjoy myself in general. I found an offer which seems genuinely ok regarding EU prices: Body: D90 (used) + AF Nikkor 24-50mm AF Nikkor 70-210mm + Nikon Speedlight SB-22 + a bunch of accessory stuff for around 540$ However, the shutter count of the camera is somewhere in the 90000 range which seems very high to me. Do you think this is a smart buy or should I lurk around for something cheaper / with more longevity?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
A D90 body might be worth $150 but at 90,000 shutter count I'd value it even less. Not to mention it's rather old and will be showing its age, especially in ISO performance by modern standards. Each of those lenses can be had on ebay for $50-100 each, and they're pretty average. The flash is maybe another $30-40. Nowhere near worth $540. You can get a newer Nikon body like a D7000 and a 35mm 1.8 prime lens for the same price or less, if you shop around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:A D90 body might be worth $150 but at 90,000 shutter count I'd value it even less. Not to mention it's rather old and will be showing its age, especially in ISO performance by modern standards. Each of those lenses can be had on ebay for $50-100 each, and they're pretty average. The flash is maybe another $30-40. Nowhere near worth $540. Thanks for the answer. It's kinda what my feeling told me anyway. I guess I just wanted to own that classic camera. I'll be shopping around some more. I don't know whether I should dip into the D3xxx and D5xxx categories. There are some pretty sweet deals but I really like having two wheels and an internal focus motor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Now I'm used to 2 wheels I don't think I could go back, but it wasn't holding me back massively on my D50. The 7xxx series will cost you more, but last you longer for sure though. All comes down to how much you want to spend and how serious you want to take it. If you want a D90 in the future for historical reasons or whatever, then buy one once you've got a working setup already. I wouldn't get one as your one and only body right now, especially for $500.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Fluegel posted:Thanks for the answer. It's kinda what my feeling told me anyway. I guess I just wanted to own that classic camera. I'll be shopping around some more. I don't know whether I should dip into the D3xxx and D5xxx categories. There are some pretty sweet deals but I really like having two wheels and an internal focus motor. If the internal focus motor is required, your best bet is the D7000. You can get a refurbished one for pretty cheap nowadays. They're great cameras, I have one for shooting events.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:If the internal focus motor is required, your best bet is the D7000. You can get a refurbished one for pretty cheap nowadays. They're great cameras, I have one for shooting events. Well to be fair it's not as much a requirement than a nice to have to make sure that I can share as many lenses with my buddy as possible. But honestly it looks like most Nikon lenses have a motor anyway. I'll go look for either a decent deal on a D7000 or a really good deal on a lower-end camera. No dice on cheap refurbished stuff where I'm from, there's not really a market for that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
I've got one modern lens that needs the motor - the Tokina 11-16mm. They released a v2 which has it's own and eliminates some flare, but costs a fair chunk more than what I paid for mine. Otherwise, I tend to either use lenses that don't need the internal motor or ones that are MF only anyway. It's never a bad thing to have, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I've got one modern lens that needs the motor - the Tokina 11-16mm. They released a v2 which has it's own and eliminates some flare, but costs a fair chunk more than what I paid for mine. Otherwise, I tend to either use lenses that don't need the internal motor or ones that are MF only anyway. It's never a bad thing to have, though. I'm sorta debating on whether it is actually really necessary for a first body. However, considering its versatilty and features, getting a used D7xxx will last me a very long time I reckon. Thank you for all your help and input!
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
The small buffer is p much the only downside of the 7k. It's a p great camera. Get a 35/1.8 and live happily vet after.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The small buffer is p much the only downside of the 7k. It's a p great camera. Get a 35/1.8 and live happily vet after. My fav lens on my D7100 was the Nikkor 40mm Micro f/2.8 because holy poo poo that thing is so sharp they should ship it with protective gear for your eyes. It's a great lens for just walking around and if you want to you can get up really close to stuff because it's a macro lens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Been shopping around for another deal: What does the thread say to a used D7000 body with a shutter count of about 13.000? Included in the package is a Nikkor 18-105mm and a Nikkor 55-300mm. Also included would be the battery grip for the camera, a lens hood and a D7000 book. Everything together would go for about 750$. Everything seems to be in pretty good shape and well maintained. Yay or Nay?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Fluegel posted:Been shopping around for another deal: What does the thread say to a used D7000 body with a shutter count of about 13.000? Included in the package is a Nikkor 18-105mm and a Nikkor 55-300mm. Also included would be the battery grip for the camera, a lens hood and a D7000 book. Everything together would go for about 750$. Everything seems to be in pretty good shape and well maintained. Yay or Nay? It looks like KEH would sell you that minus the grip for about $750 plus tax and shipping, so yah it seems like a reasonable price to me. It's a good combo of lenses, too, although you'll have a bit of trouble indoors and in the evenings. I'd also get a 35mm f/1.8 DX asap  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
13k shutter count is not very high either. I took >2k over 3 days in Alaska two weeks ago, and average ~300 for a morning of bird photography in the park any given weekend. That's a pretty lightly-used body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Hell, I put 40-50k on my first camera in something like 10 months, and the camera I replaced it with 2 months ago is already at 13K.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:I'd also get a 35mm f/1.8 DX asap Yeah, find a favorite focal length and get the fastest prime you can at it. I personally preferred my 50mm/1.8 to the 35mm, but never regretted buying the 35. It's cheap and decent, and those included have good range but will have poor aperture speed and won't be your best friend in darker situations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
GrAviTy84 posted:I was recently gifted a D700 but all my glass (save soundmonkey's old 85 1.8D) are dx. Looking for a cheapo zoom to cover kit duty until I can afford better glass. Any opinions on the 24-120mm 3.5-5.6D vs the 28-85mm 3.5-4.5D? The latter is closer to my kit 18-55 vr but the extra range on the former could be useful. I suppose I could use the 18-55 vr in crop mode but idk I wanna buy a thing but don't have a ton of money atm I have a 35-70m f/2.8 which is pretty clean and works well that I'd like to sell. Maybe not cheapo enough for you though? If interested I'll get pictures up and whatever in the appropriate thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
I asked about sony vs fuji in the mirrorless thread but I should probably ask here to do my due diligence. Can anyone give me a good reason for a DSLR instead of mirrorless? Fuji is tempting but I'm not finding a good enough reason to go with them so far. Budget is more or less $1k. It'll stretch a little but less is nicer. Finally got some money. Going to upgrade my wife's canon xsi + sigma 30 mm 1.8 (not art). Mostly to shoot stills of the kids. Video is shot with our phones for youtube clips, so not a much of a factor currently. Sony a6300 with sony 28 f2? Since I don't care about video would the a6000 be good to keep it closer to $1000? Or Nikon D7200 and 35mm 1.8? Her main want is something that will talk to her phone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
Hdip posted:I asked about sony vs fuji in the mirrorless thread but I should probably ask here to do my due diligence. Can anyone give me a good reason for a DSLR instead of mirrorless? To me SLRs are first and foremost the ability to see exactly what I'm going to shoot and the speed at which the camera boots up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
Hdip posted:I asked about sony vs fuji in the mirrorless thread but I should probably ask here to do my due diligence. Can anyone give me a good reason for a DSLR instead of mirrorless? Fuji is tempting but I'm not finding a good enough reason to go with them so far. Budget is more or less $1k. It'll stretch a little but less is nicer. the d7200 is a much larger camera, like probably close to twice the weight/size of the a6300. if you're just taking pictures of your kids I would opt for the cheaper, lighter option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
I really wanted to buy something from the Sony a7 family but everything I've read says that d750 is better bang per buck from sensor performance to af, to metering. I bought a d750 and love it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Hdip posted:I asked about sony vs fuji in the mirrorless thread but I should probably ask here to do my due diligence. Can anyone give me a good reason for a DSLR instead of mirrorless? Fuji is tempting but I'm not finding a good enough reason to go with them so far. Budget is more or less $1k. It'll stretch a little but less is nicer. After using a Nikon DSLR for years I picked up a Fuji X100, because I realized I was mainly sticking to the same focal length (~30mm). The DSLR was my first serious camera, and mind you the X100 is a pretty early mirrorless camera. There would be times I'd only take the X100 out, other times I'd only take the DSLR, and other times I'd have both. Here are some things I like about the DSLR - easy to adjust/configure to the environment Your dials and buttons are all there, and nothing requires more than 1-2 button clicks to change the setting. On a mirrorless you'd need to go through layers of menus. It's not very intuitive when you can learn to instinctively use a DSLR - boot time Both power on with just a switch but the DSLR doesn't have any boot screen. Flick it and you're pretty much ready to go - viewfinders You can't beat the ease of composition with a DSLR. There's no latency like a digital viewfinder would have - size Sure a small mirrorless is easy to carry around and bring with you, but when you're actually taking photos it's so much easier to use something that fits your hands comfortably. If you're comparing by size, a mirrorless is also much larger than your phone which you'd already have on you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Are there any former D700 users in here who are now using the D750? How was the change? I sold my D700 a few months ago to go mirrorless exclusively, but I must admit that I miss the D700 sometimes. It just fit my hands, all the buttons are placed perfectly and it's solid as a rock. I've actually been thinking about getting a lightly used D700, but it's an eight year old camera at this point. Better ISO performance and some more megapixels would be nice, although I managed just fine with the D700. In a perfect world Nikon would've just updated the D700 chassis with better stuff inside - but perhaps the D750 feels just as good? Xabi fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 13:36
|
|
