«

I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?
Also, is this Sigma lens a good buy? I've seen sample pictures and it
looks pretty good, and I heard that the APO glass is better than their
normal glass.

If you own any of these lenses, could you let me know if they are good?
Thanks.

sgtdisturbed wrote:
> I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
> newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
> Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
> better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?

The 18-70mm has a considerably *better* reputation than the 18-55,
actually; the 18-70 was the kit lens for the D70, the 18-55 was made for
the cheaper D50.

No personal experience with the 18-55; I've got the 18-70, and it's
adequate, though rather flare-prone. (I'm comparing it mostly to primes
and f/2.8 zooms, mind you).

No info on that Sigma, sorry.

[posted and mailed]

"sgtdisturbed" <> wrote in
news: oups.com:

> I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
> newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
> Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
> better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?
> Also, is this Sigma lens a good buy? I've seen sample pictures and it
> looks pretty good, and I heard that the APO glass is better than their
> normal glass.
>
> If you own any of these lenses, could you let me know if they are good?
> Thanks.

I have the 18-55 lens. It came as the kit lens with my D50 and I'm
satisfied with it. It was inexpensive and does what I want it to. Instead
of the Sigma, why don't you check out ebay for a used Nikon 70-210 AF F4-
5.6. You can probably get it for about $100 or so. It's probably better
than the Sigma. I have one and I like it.
Jack

In article < .com>,
"sgtdisturbed" <> wrote:

> I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
> newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
> Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
> better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?
> Also, is this Sigma lens a good buy? I've seen sample pictures and it
> looks pretty good, and I heard that the APO glass is better than their
> normal glass.
>
> If you own any of these lenses, could you let me know if they are good?
> Thanks.

I got an 18-55 with my D 50 and it works OK. I plan to replace it with
an 18-135 when they are available. For anything longer than 135 for
hand held use, I would advise one with VR or get used to lugging a
tripod along. For my 70-300 I use it hand held only in bright
conditions so I can shoot at at least 1/300 second. That is a
significant constraint.

No personal experience with Sigma vs. Nikon, but am happy with Nikon
lenses.

BTW, the 50/1.4 Nikon for about 100.00 US is available widely and is a
great lens for general use particularly at low light if you do not want
to use a flash.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

On 2007-01-14 14:08:15 -0500, "sgtdisturbed" <> said:

> I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
> newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
> Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
> better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?
> Also, is this Sigma lens a good buy? I've seen sample pictures and it
> looks pretty good, and I heard that the APO glass is better than their
> normal glass.
>
> If you own any of these lenses, could you let me know if they are good?
> Thanks.

The 18-55 Nikon is a reasonable light weight but slow lens. It seems
reasonable for what it is. Dad has it on his D50. I have the 18-70
on my D79s. I wouldn't trade the 18-70. The 18-70 Nikon is a superb
lens and a bargain. Spend the extra cash. I don't notice any real
flare problems compared ot my 28-85 AF 3.5/4.5 Nice lense, but watch
where that sun is hanging out.

As far as the Sigma's go.. they seem to hold up pretty well in review
land. Take that for what its worth. My experience is with the 80/200
Nikon 2.8... and that is just about perfection and for my light weight
I have the 70-300 Nikon ED AFD 4.5/5.6. It's chief advanatge is weight
(lack of it) and it performs well up to about 280mm.... At full zoom
it is soft. So, I would seriously look at te Sigma.

My gut tells me, forget the 18-55, go with the 18-70 Nikon and go with
the Sigma 70/300.




--
Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo

"sgtdisturbed" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
> newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
> Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
> better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?
> Also, is this Sigma lens a good buy? I've seen sample pictures and it
> looks pretty good, and I heard that the APO glass is better than their
> normal glass.
>
> If you own any of these lenses, could you let me know if they are good?
> Thanks.

I got the 18-70 with my D70s, and just recently the 18-55 with my D40. My
18-55 is the new version you get with that camera, the Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor
18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6GII ED, to give it its full name. How or if it differs from
the original 18-55, other than a minor change in styling, I don't know. The
basic specs for both lenses are the same (7 elements in 5 groups, one ED
element and one aspherical, etc.).

The 18-55 and 18-70 are both excellent value in my opinion. The 18-55 is
very compact and light weight, and therefore goes especially well with the
small, lightweight D40. The 18-70 is substantially bigger and heavier,
usually costs more than twice as much, and looks and feels more like a
quality product, though I have no complaint with the feel of the 18-55. The
18-70 has the advantage of that extra 15 mm at the long end, which is
useful, and also it is faster at the long end, f/4.5 as opposed to f/5.6 for
the 18-55. And it is a much more complex lens design (15 elements in 13
groups, three ED and one aspherical element), which is probably a reason
it's much more expensive.

As for optical performance, both lenses are fine. There are many lens tests
and reviews that you can find by searching the Internet, I've read probably
most of them, and the bottom line is that while one may be a trifle better
or worse than the other in some particular, on balance they are about even
within the limits of their specs, and both are exceptionally good value for
the money. That is certainly my opinion too. The 18-70 is probably more
durable -- it *feels* more solid and well-built while the lightweight 18-55
inevitably feels a bit plasticky. But I don't think you would make a mistake
buying either lens.

I don't know anything about the Sigma 70-300 "APO" lens. That is supposed to
stand for "apochromatic," meaning that the lens is corrected for three
wavelengths of light instead of two. Whether so-called APO lenses really are
apochromatic has been questioned, but it is probably safe to assume that
they are at least somewhat better than similar lenses (if any) from the same
manufacturer that aren't designated "APO." I would not attach a great deal
of importance to the APO designation, however. Sigma lens quality (and
durability) has been questioned also, and often, but several Sigma lenses
I've owned have been very good.

Neil

"sgtdisturbed" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
>I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
> newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
> Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
> better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?
> Also, is this Sigma lens a good buy? I've seen sample pictures and it
> looks pretty good, and I heard that the APO glass is better than their
> normal glass.
>
> If you own any of these lenses, could you let me know if they are good?
> Thanks.
>

----- Original Message -----
From: "sgtdisturbed" <>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: Are these 2 lenses worth my time?


>I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
> newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
> Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
> better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?
> Also, is this Sigma lens a good buy? I've seen sample pictures and it
> looks pretty good, and I heard that the APO glass is better than their
> normal glass.
>
> If you own any of these lenses, could you let me know if they are good?
> Thanks.
>

Can't talk about the Nikon, but WRT the Sigma :-

Try:-
http://www.photodo.com/topic_36.html

To quote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary the main positive points of the Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 APO DG
Macro are:
Excellent optical performance for price.
Good close focus ability (1:2)
Light enough to carry all day.

Negative points are:
Long extension when close focussed and zoomed.
Front element and extension rotates during focussing

you get what ya pay for, and a zoom of this range has almost intrinsic
problems- but seems good. I have the 18-70 Sigma - I love it

HTH

Tack

"sgtdisturbed" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
. com...
>I am looking at 2 lenses to buy, a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro, the
> newer version, and a Nikon 18-55mm ED DX lens. Are these 2 lenses good?
> Has anyone used these before? I've heard that the Nikon 18-55 provides
> better clarity than the Nikon ED 18-70mm, but can anyone verify that?
> Also, is this Sigma lens a good buy? I've seen sample pictures and it
> looks pretty good, and I heard that the APO glass is better than their
> normal glass.
>
> If you own any of these lenses, could you let me know if they are good?
> Thanks.
>

Tests with Sigma 70-300 older version, not apochromatic.
This is a minor concern when not using a full frame, as most problems would
occur outside of the 1,6 crop factor.
http://baron.phpnet.us/sigma/index.htm
I found it very versatile. OK for the price.

mb