Kit lens a bit wanting...

[Balmoral Green]

Kit lens that came with the camera is a Sigma 18-50 f/3.5-5.6. But I want to shoot things the other side of the fence that are moving, and BG junior wants to shoot his skater mates a flippin' and a grindin'.

So I need another lens, and have been surfing the net reading up. A sigma 70-200 f/2.8 can be had BNIB for under £400 from HK, maybe a chunk more if I get hit for duty at the door. But it has good reviews and appears to tick a few boxes for me.

But I ain't got a clue really, I only bought a DSLR (SD14 for £299) on a whim because it appeared to be a bargain. What should I be considering in a 2nd lens? and why?

Thanks in advance.

Edited by Balmoral Green on Thursday 3rd January 16:08

[LaSarthe+Back]

IMO, 200mm will still leave you a bit short I think. I was wanting more from my Sigma 70-300, but it coped in the majority of the situations.

Maybe the 70-200 & a 1.4TC. Or one of the Bigma's 50-500?

All a question of £. £299 for the SD14 seems a bargain though! Warehouse Express have it at £499 with cashback! Well done!

[Balmoral Green]

LaSarthe+Back said:

Maybe the 70-200 & a 1.4TC.

Yes, I was thinking that.

I can't believe how much the SD14 still is at many retailers, with or without the cashback. I got mine at Jessops after a heads up from my brother. It looks as though I may have bought a good camera on the cheap by accident

Having read the reviews, it appears to be a bit of a 'Marmite' camera though.

[DanH]

If you are going to start spending significant amounts on lenses I think you need to decide whether you stick with a Sigma body or chop it in for a Nikon/Canon...

just my 2 penies.

[.Adam.]

Just had a quick look, and it appears that the SD14 has a crop factor of 1.7, if this is correct then the 200mm lens is actually equivalent to 340mm on a 35mm camera, don't forget about that when looking at focal lengths.

[LaSarthe+Back]

DanH said:

If you are going to start spending significant amounts on lenses I think you need to decide whether you stick with a Sigma body or chop it in for a Nikon/Canon...

just my 2 penies.

I was just thinking this. I don't know, but I think Sigma has started with lenses, then moved into cameras and makes lenses for everyone, whereas they are the only people making lenses for their camera. This hurts when you want different things and their lens only offers you 65% of what you want. When/if you come to spend serious cash it's disheartening not to get your money's worth.

There's no harm in starting/getting better it, and if you decide you want to take it further, then you can chop it in.

To solve your problem now, and give you the opportunity to see if you do actually want to take it further, you can't go wrong with the 70-300 Macro APO. £140 is great value for money, and it's the APO version which is supposed to have better optics.

[Balmoral Green]

LaSarthe+Back said:

you can't go wrong with the 70-300 Macro APO.

Just looked that up, more like it for a starter. Thanks.

[LaSarthe+Back]

Balmoral Green said:

LaSarthe+Back said:

you can't go wrong with the 70-300 Macro APO.

Just looked that up, more like it for a starter. Thanks.

Most welcome!

[havoc]

I'd agree with the comments that sticking with the Sigma body COULD end-up being rather limiting if you get into your photography.

If you're not that fussed, and are pretty sure it'll just be a useful tool, then there's absolutely no sense in spending the extra on a different body though.

Lenses? Not used Sigma, but am told that (some?) Sigma -300s get rather soft at the top-end. From my experience it depends what photography you want to take:-

- Family / kids - fast focusing middling-zoom lens (28-105, for example)
- Landscapes - low f-stop wide-angle - the 18-50 sounds ideal for that.
- (Motor)Sport - high zoom fast-focusing (HSM lens ideally) - and trust me that a -300 lens at times only just feels enough.

...oh, and I'm not a fan of continually changing lenses out-and-about, as it's a right pain to clean the sensor.

So decide what's most important and get a lens to suit...e.g. my next lens will be the 17-85IS, as I'm missing a good landscape lens most at the moment, but want some length on it so it can double as a walkabout lens and replace the 28-135...on the other side of the coin, a friend swears by the 18-200 Sigma...

[Furyous]

Sigma 70-300 APO and Nikon D70S.

Goodwood FOS 2007.

My bestest pic yet.

Nuff said.

[Balmoral Green]

[Felters]

I've no idea whether Sigma do a Vibration Reduction system (Nikon do!) but the longer the lens then the more vital that becomes. Second I'd get a monopod. £50 will buy a good 'un and they make a significant difference to lens movement giving you a a much sharper image on longer lenses.

[LaSarthe+Back]

Felters said:

I've no idea whether Sigma do a Vibration Reduction system (Nikon do!) but the longer the lens then the more vital that becomes. Second I'd get a monopod. £50 will buy a good 'un and they make a significant difference to lens movement giving you a a much sharper image on longer lenses.

You'd need a head as well no? At least my 681B does. Another £50

[Felters]

LaSarthe+Back said:

You'd need a head as well no? At least my 681B does. Another £50

Nope... my Manfrotto bolts straight to the bottom of the body.

[LaSarthe+Back]

But them you have to work along the axis of the mount.

[lowdrag]

Felters said:

I've no idea whether Sigma do a Vibration Reduction system (Nikon do!) but the longer the lens then the more vital that becomes. Second I'd get a monopod. £50 will buy a good 'un and they make a significant difference to lens movement giving you a a much sharper image on longer lenses.

Actually not so really. VR (Nikon) or the Sigma equivalent work well hand held at slow shuuter speeds to avoid blur but for motor racing you need a fast speed and it is less, if at all, helpful. I've had the Nikkor 70/200 for 3 years with the TC14 and 17E (1.4 and 1.7 X magnification) and use it mostly with the VR turned off except in low light. The 70/200 on its own isn't useful for standard public seating mtor sport because it isn't long enough but with the TC17E works well but you will need the VR turned on because you lose 1.5 stops in aperture. After several years I bit the bullet and bought the 200/400 f4 lens which is a heavy beast but gets fine shots. You'll need a big wallet and monopod though! The alternative, still expensive but much less so and able to be hand held is the Sigma 120/300 f2.8 which is also a brilliant lens and works with teleconverters too. It all depends on your budget but if not then go for a consumer 70/300 f4.5/5.6 lens. A compromise and no use in low light but just about long enough.

[Balmoral Green]

lowdrag said:

go for a consumer 70/300 f4.5/5.6 lens. A compromise and no use in low light but just about long enough.

I've gone for that, a Sigma at £139 + carriage, it's cheap enough not to matter, considering I was getting carried away and was going to spend far more. I'll probably do for me.

[omohat]

Balmoral Green said:

.....I only bought a DSLR (SD14 for £299) on a whim because it appeared to be a bargain.

Edited by Balmoral Green on Thursday 3rd January 16:08

Mind if I ask where you managed to snag a SD14 for £299? Thats a huge reduction off the RRP. I've always been curious about the foveon sensor in the SD14 and at £299 I would be tempted

[Balmoral Green]

http://www.jessops.com/Products/ProductDetail.aspx...

Mine also came with a Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC (Sigma AF) lens, a filter and a lens cloth. But they appear to have dropped those from the offer since.