New Lens - Topic

Member

Posts: 4,276

Joined: Aug 31 2005

Gold: 200.00

Jul 25 2009 06:54am

Hey'll! I'm back from vacation and ready for some photoshooting!

I'm considering buying a new lens, but as I'm only 17 I don't have that much money -.-

therefore I have these in mind:

SIGMA DC 18-200mm F3,5-6,3 OS
Price: $592

or

SIGMA DG 70-300mm F4-5,6 Macro
Price $240

The lense I got at the moment is a Sony 18-70mm F3,5-5,6

Which one is the better? (please also have the price in mind), or is there a better one out there in this price range?

oh and ofc, a nice picture:

Sambuca

Academic

Member

Posts: 1,489

Joined: Jan 5 2008

Gold: 1,611.20

Jul 25 2009 07:21am

Quote (Kri @ Sat, Jul 25 2009, 08:54am)

hey Kri,

I was in the same situation as yourself awhile ago and theres a couple questions you have to go through like:
what do you see yourself shooting in the next year or so? (sports, portraits, landscapes, indoor shoots, etc.)
what is your budget for glass?
how fast of a lens will you need?

since you already have the 18-70mm lens, it would be a little redundant to get another lens of almost the same focal range.
When i made my lens decision i had previously owned a 18-70mm/3.5-4.5 and a 50mm/1.8
I found myself leading more towards wildlife and sports photography which demanded a long range tele zoom lens.
so i ended up getting the 70-300mm to add to my focal ranges.

if you were to purchase the 18-200mm/3.5-6.3, i would see to sell your 18-70mm and put it towards the purchase.

since the 70-300mm has a fstop range of 4-5.6 you will want to use this with plenty of daylight or gratuitous amounts of studio lighting.
prime lenses tend to have a much quicker f-stop range, but will cost a lot more and you'll be stuck with no zoom.

Im not too sure what the rule of thumb for sigma glass goes, but 240$ for glass seems a little on the low side, I feel like the price justifies the slowness of the lens.

here is a graph representing contrast (red) and sharpness (green). you'll be able to see after an image height of 20mm or greater the image quality gets compromised significantly.

Kri

Member

Posts: 4,276

Joined: Aug 31 2005

Gold: 200.00

Jul 25 2009 07:57am

Quote (Academic @ Sat, 25 Jul 2009, 14:21)

hey Kri,

I was in the same situation as yourself awhile ago and theres a couple questions you have to go through like:
what do you see yourself shooting in the next year or so? (sports, portraits, landscapes, indoor shoots, etc.)
what is your budget for glass?
how fast of a lens will you need?

since you already have the 18-70mm lens, it would be a little redundant to get another lens of almost the same focal range.
When i made my lens decision i had previously owned a 18-70mm/3.5-4.5 and a 50mm/1.8
I found myself leading more towards wildlife and sports photography which demanded a long range tele zoom lens.
so i ended up getting the 70-300mm to add to my focal ranges.

if you were to purchase the 18-200mm/3.5-6.3, i would see to sell your 18-70mm and put it towards the purchase.

since the 70-300mm has a fstop range of 4-5.6 you will want to use this with plenty of daylight or gratuitous amounts of studio lighting.
prime lenses tend to have a much quicker f-stop range, but will cost a lot more and you'll be stuck with no zoom.

Im not too sure what the rule of thumb for sigma glass goes, but 240$ for glass seems a little on the low side, I feel like the price justifies the slowness of the lens.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/images/mf_50_28.gif

here is a graph representing contrast (red) and sharpness (green). you'll be able to see after an image height of 20mm or greater the image quality gets compromised significantly.

First off all, thanks for your comment!

I'm leaning towards the 70-300mm one, as I really like taking macro shots, landscapes and such!
Plus it's probertly a nice addiction to my 18-70mm, and ofc the price.

Again, Thank you for taking your time to write a very nice and explaining reply

TheBlackRose66

Member

Posts: 3,996

Joined: Oct 2 2008

Gold: 20.46

Jul 25 2009 08:40am

70-300, because you already have ranges 18-70, and 100mm more would help.

MotherOfTwo

Member

Posts: 25,541

Joined: May 8 2007

Gold: 4,020.00

Jul 25 2009 08:49am

Quote (Kri @ Sat, 25 Jul 2009, 08:54)

Well didn't read the other peopple's comment and I'm not a pro..
But from an amateur point of view, and from a broke single mom point of view also ...

I would buy the cheaper one.
The F number is not bad at all for a 300 mm lens!
I remember back when I was younger, the only 300 mm lens available (35mm camera, not digital back then) that were affordable were cheap lenses at F:8 and up!!!
So you have a huge improvement with yours, and it's not a fixed 300 mm lens, you still have the zoom to play with it more

I have a 70-200 for my 35 mm camera, and how often I wished I had a bigger lense to get closer to my subject I wanted...

And I see with the other lense you have, you already cover the part that you would gan wth the expensive lense...

Go Back To Photography Topic List