Sigma 24-70 F2.8, Sigma 70-200 F2.8 on D90

Just looking for your impressions of these lenses on the D90. Looking to purchase one, or both of these in the near future, and stretch my dollar a little further then the Nikon versions will let me go.

From what I've seen here, both are good. Each one has it's specialty. I guess it depends on what type of shooting you do most. I base my purchases on that reason. I like sports so the 70-200 fits my needs. Just food for thought. I hope this helps.

24-70 = 36-105mm in D90, kind of weird range though.
70-200 = acceptable range.

into Sigma, try get the 18-50mm f/2.8.

I was looking for two F2.8 lenses that would overlap. 18-50 and 70-200 leaves me with a dead space in there.

Currently, I'm running around with a D60 (upgrading this week sometime) with an 18-55 and a 55-200, and I find myself usually trying to sit right between them (I seem to love anwhere in the 50-60mm range). Want to get some quality glass (ie., not go for a superzoom like an 18-200) that suits general photography, ranging from landscape, to wildlife, to some light portrait. Also want to be able to afford the glass, hence the Sigma.

Also planning on getting a $150 Nikkor 50mm F1.8.

Thanks for the input, going to go look at the 18-50 now and do some reading/research on it and check out some prices.

Don't worry about "dead space" in the focal range. People are too concerned with covering every mm of the focal range. In your case, you're talking about 20mm. Take a step or two forward and backwards and you're covered. Two fast lenses with a tiny bit of dead space will be far more useful than a less speedy or poorer quality set of lenses that cover the full range, imho.

I appreciate your feedback. Made a mistake when I bought the D60 due to my sheer ignorance of the SLR world stepping up from P&S. Not saying the D60 is a bad camera, just not what I was looking for in reality.

Whatever, drift is wrong. The 24-70 is an excellent lens on the D90. I use the Nikkor 80-200 rather than the Sigma and am very happy with it, too. The 24-70 is a heavy lens but an excellent walk-about lens. I believe it is superior in build quality and image quality to the 18-50.

drifit said:

24-70 = 36-105mm in D90, kind of weird range though.
70-200 = acceptable range.

into Sigma, try get the 18-50mm f/2.8.

Click to expand...

--
OK, not so purely a hobby.

CKL958 said:

I appreciate your feedback. Made a mistake when I bought the D60 due to my sheer ignorance of the SLR world stepping up from P&S. Not saying the D60 is a bad camera, just not what I was looking for in reality.

Click to expand...

dont worry too much on making mistakes. D60 still a tool for us to take photos.
also dont worry too much on the overlapping or continuous range must have.
you may go with;
1. sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 or 10-20mm f/3.5 (or f/4-5.6)
2. 24-70mm f/2.8
3. 70-200mm f/2.8
or
1. tokina 11-16mm f/2.8
2. tamron 16-50mm f/2.8 or sigma 17-50mm f/2.8
3. sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or tamron 70-200mm f/2.8
whatever the lenses, as long as you need them to take good or great photos.

Word, especially in the middle like that. Im missing 50-80 and, well, Im not really missing it.

What I would miss more is the wide end of the spectrum. I loved the Nikon 24-70 but couldnt have it be my do-all lens like the 16-50. Too many times you cant step back in a tight space.

Quash said:

Don't worry about "dead space" in the focal range. People are too concerned with covering every mm of the focal range. In your case, you're talking about 20mm. Take a step or two forward and backwards and you're covered. Two fast lenses with a tiny bit of dead space will be far more useful than a less speedy or poorer quality set of lenses that cover the full range, imho.

Click to expand...

I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 II and love it. I use it for portraits and sporting events. It is a big heavy lens, but that hasn't bothered me yet. Tac sharp, super fast AF...if you have a chance to "try before you buy" do so. It sealed the deal for me as I was compairing it to the Tamron 70-200. The Tamron has much slower AF and occasionally "hunted" in low light, which sealed it's fate for me. Can't comment on the 24-70(Nikon or Sigma) but I use the Nikon 35-70 for my wider stuff, or when I can't back up from my subject. Like everyone else has stated, don't worry too much about covering your mm range. I used to worry about this, but when I got my D90, I also got the Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.8, and the Sigma 105. Just force yourself to let your feet do the zooming and you'll be ok. It's a lot easier than I thought it would be.

macnmore said:

I used to worry about this, but when I got my D90, I also got the Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.8, and the Sigma 105. Just force yourself to let your feet do the zooming and you'll be ok. It's a lot easier than I thought it would be.

Click to expand...

it is not only forcing yourself to move around.

fix lenses make you move around and this will let you see the subject in different perspectives. this is a very very good to enhance your photography skill.
for zoom lenses user, fix the focal point and move around for the best angle.

drifit said:

macnmore said:

I used to worry about this, but when I got my D90, I also got the Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 85 f1.8, and the Sigma 105. Just force yourself to let your feet do the zooming and you'll be ok. It's a lot easier than I thought it would be.

Click to expand...

it is not only forcing yourself to move around.

fix lenses make you move around and this will let you see the subject in different perspectives. this is a very very good to enhance your photography skill.
for zoom lenses user, fix the focal point and move around for the best angle.

Click to expand...

I fully agree. Zoom lenses are convenient, especially for situations when movement is not possible (at the edge of the Grand Canyon, for instance). But they also invite (at least for me) a lot of sloppy, unimaginative compositions. Forcing yourself to shoot with a prime or a zoom lens of restrained range (like my AF 35-70) will make you really work at how you frame things, and along the way, unveil some nice compositions. And think of all the calories you'll burn!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.



D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

Agree - nothing wrong with the d60, just not what I was looking for once I got into the hobby - good starter camera though, simple, easy to use, easy to learn. Considered D300 as well, but realized I wanted some glass too, so decided to go for a little less body, and a little more glass. Going to pick up a 50mm prime when I do get the D90 (work has not been co-operating in terms of me getting off early enough to go out shopping), and then look at my other F2.8 zoom options.

Agree with whoever said about the skill of using primes, but, at the same time, having a young (3 wks) nephew, I want the ability to throw a zoom back and forth to be able to capture him, as all too soon, he will be moving faster then I can "foot zoom."

Going to definitely mix it up, and have a little bit of both world in my bag - 70-200... a wide angle zoom, the 50mm, and then grab something like a 105mm prime.

Of course.... this may be a 2 or 3 year plan....

CKL958 said:

Going to pick up a 50mm prime

Click to expand...

yes, zoom lenses do have their advantage in certain situations.

50mm in FX format or full 35mm format is nice. it has almost the angle of view of what our eyes see(exact is around 42-45mm). subject size almost the same too.

in DX format, to have that kind of angle of view, we need 30-35mm lens. a 28mm lens will be great.

That 35mm Nikkor seems to be getting good backing by lots too