sigma 70-300mm or 28-300mm? Does anyone have any suggestions on which one is better quality and/or more worth buying?
102791
Don't fool around. Go with the 28-300mm. Less lens changes and it just the perfect walk around lens. I know, I've been shooting for 35 years.
2251843
Image quality is good ...but not better than my Pentax 55-300mm and 17- 70mm Lens, changing lenses is not easy in outdoor photography....so the Sigma 18-250 is very useful.
1790371
Yes, the two lenses are worlds apart. The 70-300 is a top quality 'prosumer' lens, intended for advanced amateurs and pros on a budget; worth every penny! The 55-200 is an affordable, 'entry level' lens and an excellent value.
1357474
I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR. I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me. http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html
1542988
The 70-300 IS is the newest version and according to reviews, it is much better than the 75-300 IS. If you want more info on Canon lens review, go to http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Hope this will help you with your future lens choice. You should really try to get the best lens you can afford to make your 30D shine.
1966949
I almost decided in favor of Sigma, but then I realized that Sigma is made for a crop camera only. While I'm not looking to buy an FF one any time soon, when I do, it will be costly, so I wouldn't have the money to follow it up with expensive lenses, not to mention that a good prime is a good prime, which I expect to last me a long while... So that is becoming a big drawback for me...
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
1594405
I have never used the 11-16 but did research it before buying this lens. I think you will be quite happy with either one and can't really go wrong. They are both sharp, excellent lenses. In my mind the principal trade off is whether you want a slightly wider angle view (there really is a pretty big difference btwn 12mm and 11mm) and a wider aperture or whether you want the extra versatility on the other end since the 12-28 lens goes up to 28mm. Pics are definitely usable at 28mm in my opinion. Ken Rockwell has a great review of both. The only thing I don't agree with him on with regards to the 12-28mm is that I am noticing some CA that I have to remove in post processing (not a big deal to me but worth noting). I will try to post a few sample pics later today. Hope that helps and happy shooting!
710382
You cannot go wrong with Olympus 70-300mm. I got it for only $350 and it takes great pictures across the focal range.
385957
I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm, but the 24L is something different. $1100 is worth different things to different people. I found it to be a better focal length on a crop sensor (7D) for general indoor low light shooting.
963337
Outperforms the 70-300 VR in that is can zoom back to 28mm. That is why it is twice the price. It does not produce better images between 70 and 300mm. I would chose the 70-300 for the longest shots, and the 28-300 for shorter. Both lenses are as professional as the person using them, do not be impressed by reviewers waving wads of bills at you, because like a Violin, a Camera/lens is only as good as the user!
1200245
I'm going to suggest a different question. Do you really want a newer version? I recently bought a used 300mm F4 for 950. Its sells new for around 1300. This lens has been due for replacement for quite some time. So i had to ask myself the same question you have, when will a replacement come out, because it is certainly overdue. Problem is, when it does come out, it will be of lesser build quality, it will remove the aperature ring(G lens), add VR, and cost well over 2000. While I would like the VR on this lens, is it worth the huge proce difference, and the reduced build quality. I also used the same logic on a 17-35 i just bought. So what I would suggest, is to judge the current lens on its merits. The only gripe I would have with this lens is that it is AF and not AF-s. It will be much cheaper than a new one, probably much better build quality, and who knows when a replacement might arrive.
1966947
This is no easy call. Both lenses are said to perform similarly in terms of IQ. I've owned the EF 28mm f/1.8 and was never happy with it due to innacuracy of AF and image softness. Some folks like it quite a bit. Not my case. I wouldn't recommend this lens. I've read good reviews about the Sigma 30 mm, but I lack first hand experience. My two cents worth...
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
901097
You can use the sigma tc. I have the 300mm f/4 and love it. You can also check out sigma compatibility by going to www.nikonians.org and scanning through nikon lens forum. I believe they have a tc compatibility page Tekneektom
305765
I generally use prime lens so, perhaps, I am not the best person to ask. With this said, the 28 f1.8 is excellent optically. On a D800E, the 100% view is tack sharp (assuming good shooting technique). You print excellent quality 17 16 by 20 or so. I haven't tested beyond that. The rendering is also very good. Hard to believe that the 28 - 300 would be an equal.
1786217
Thanks for the information. I'm definately looking to unload the 28-80. I hadn't thought about third party lenses. I was always told to stick with Nikon. I'll check out the Sigma.