Vaman From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1582 times:
I am bidding on an N60 with a 28-80mm Sigma and an 70-300mm sigma. Not quite new but mint. 370USD!! Or should i retract my bid for an older F90X with Nikkor 75-300mm included currently at 157usd with bag. It is older but it is still almost mint. 1 scratch on body i think. What should i do!!. What is a UV fillter. And how good is the nikkor vs Sigma?
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1508 times:
As far as the body is concerned, the F90X is head-and-shoulders above the '60, even though its design is over 4 years old. However, I must say I'm surprised by the low price of $157 plus lens. Any decent used 90X would cost more than that. Is it possible that it may have more than just a scratch?
As for the Nikkor 75-300 f/4.5-5.6, it was the first AF Nikkor lens in this range, so it is definitely an old design. Performance is still OK, but compared with the latest offerings from Nikon in this range (the newer 70-300 f/4-5.6 ED, introduced in early 98), the old lens is heavier, bulkier, and not as sharp optically.
I'm not too familiar with the two Sigma lens, but the way that they were offered with the N60, I suspect they form part of a package when purchased new. The 28-80 is basically your run-of-the-mill "standard zoom" lens that come with almost every entry-level SLR these days -- which means OK performance but nothing to write home about. As for the 70-300, Sigma actually makes 2 versions of it -- a more expensive version with extra-low dispersion glass and a cheaper version without it. Do you know which one is being offered? If it is the cheaper 70-300, I suspect its performance might not match the older Nikkor 75-300.
The UV filter is basically a piece of optically-coated glass that screws onto the front of your lens. As its name implies, it filters out UV rays and therefore help to enhance sharpness of your pictures in many circumstances. Since it doesn't affect the color of the image, it often serve as a lens protector. If you happen to bump the front of your lens onto something hard, it's better to have a filter out front to take the hit. Replacing filters are much cheaper than replacing the front glass-element of your lens.
Anyway, if you are confident with the conditions of the 90X, then by all means go for it. Pocket the difference in price and bid for more lenses.
Vaman From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1504 times:
Well, i checked back and it is now at 255usd and rising quickly.
The sigma lens is the "quantary" which is made espicially for ritz camera i believe. It also comes with a bag and a slik tripod. It has thr 55mm uv filter. What does this do to the performace of the 70-300 lense. I'm sure of the condition of the F90X. Um, the sigma is the lower quality one. How much more is the next one. I'm am currantly purchasing an AF by sigma, but they also make the APO which i think is the higher one. Is it worth the upgrade because is should have about 360usd left over in christmas funds. Consedering i'm only 12,(almost 13) the money doesn't exactly flow throught the windows and unless i can sell a plane on ebay i won't have the 360. Anyway do you know how much the APO runs and with 350 what kind of 70-300 should i get or should i stick with the cheapy and save from their 135-400 or an 170-500 or what should i do.
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1496 times:
For starters, I think the 70-300mm range of lens should work out just fine, unless of course, if your shooting environment involves some very very long shooting distances.
You might want to consider the AF Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6D ED (the "newer" Nikkor lens I mentioned). I don't know how much it costs in your neck of the woods, but here in HKG, it sells for about US$320 brand new. Perhaps you could find some used ones for less. Considering the fact that most 70-300 lenses from independent manufacturers cost about the same (here in HKG; not sure about the US), why not go for the original manufacturer! I'm quite convinced that it is Nikon's intention to shoot down the independents with this lens.
UV filters do not change the color of the light entering the lens, nor do they cut down the amount of light entering. Therefore, they do not affect the performance of a lens.
Mikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
I would highly recommend the AF Nikkor 70-300 f/4-5.6D ED. I bought this lens from B&H in NY for about $290-$300US. It was a great lens until I was finally able to pickup the (backordered) 80-200/f2.8. I actually sold it on ebay for a few dollars more than I paid for it several months later. Beside quality, you get great resale value when you buy Nikon/Nikkor.
Here's an old shot that I took with it through a window:
Dsmav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1484 times:
The Nikkor 70-300 F4-5.6 is a great lens. I use this lens as a backup to my 80-200 AF-S 2.8. Its compact size, high-quality ED glass, and low price make it tough to beat. The only thing I don't like about it is the construction, too much plastic.
Vaman From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 328 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
So, the nikon ED is better than the sigma apo. So i'm kinda new at this so bear with me. If the 199 dollar sigma has the same rating 4-5.6 as the nikon ed what makes it so much better. Thank you so much for your help.
Ps. Another thing, how much better is the nikon 80-200 2.8 vs the sigma and can i see some pictures taken with the 80-200 vs the 70-300 and how much a difference they actually make.
Nscaler From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 243 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
I've got the Nikkor 70-300 f4.0-5.6 on my N80. Love the lens. I picked it up as there is no way I can afford the much better 80-200 f2.8 right now (one of the best pieces of glass you can buy imho). I've had great success with it and for the price, it can't be beat. Here's a recent shot of mine with it:
Jormy From Finland, joined Jan 2000, 231 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1484 times:
I've been also thinking that the Nikkor 70-300 ED would be a great lens but after checking photodo.com I was really surprised. The Nikkor AF 70-300 f/4-5.6D ED gets only a grade of 2,4 (5 is max) !!!
Now that is really low grade. Even the much cheaper Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 II gets 3,1. The Sigmas might not be a bad choice afterall...
Dsmav8r From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 579 posts, RR: 8 Reply 13, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1480 times:
Sometimes I wonder how photodo.com comes up with their ratings. If I remember correctly, they also gave the Tokina 28-70 AT-X 2.6-2.8 poor ratings as well, which in my opinion is a better lens than the more expensive, high-rated, Nikkor counterpart.
Jormy From Finland, joined Jan 2000, 231 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1471 times:
I've found photodo.com to be a very reliable source of information to every lens. Tests are made by pros and those are the same for every lens, and they mostly handle sharpness but also distortions, etc...
These numbers won't tell how the pics will come out but they will tell alot of other usefull data. Now, I wouldn't even consider buing a lens which has grade below 3,0. In that case lens is usually very poor in sharpness and in other areas.
Off course www.photographyreview.com is worth of checking out. There are also pro's who may have photographed more than 20 years and they know what they're talking about. But then there are also newbies who may not know so much about these things.
I would still rely much more on accurate data from photodo.com than user inputs.
N949WP From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 1437 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (12 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1464 times:
There are many other factors to consider when rating a lens, including such things as ergonomics, ease of handling, value-for-money, etc. Empirical data from lab. tests (which is the basis of the photodo ratings) may be useful, but it is definitely not the Holy Grail, and should not be the sole basis of choosing one lens over another. A lens that do well in optical tests in the controlled environment of a laboratory could just as well be heavy as hell and handles like a pig in real-life usage.
For me, I'd lend my trust anyday to a user evaluation that looks at the big picture.