Sudden urge to buy camera gear, how to get over it

That's true, third party brands are much, much better value for money considering the optical performance you get. You may get better with the Nikon variants but there's no way you'd get a performance benefit to match the price difference. I went with a lens that was aesthetically an absolute dog, it may not be pretty but optically it's fine and it was much cheaper.
 
What are your aspirations? Just to keep it a hobby or go further?
Click to expand...
Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. I guess there are two schools of thought here:

The optimist: make a hobby your business and you'll never have to work a day in your life
The pessimist: make a hobby your business and you'll ruin your hobby

That said, I really do love photography and I'm probably willing to go through a lot of crap to be able to do it all the time.

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is dead cheap compared to the Nikkor and not that much worse.
Click to expand...
True, however, the Nikon 80-200/2.8 is not much more expensive than the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and is much better. I tried all three lenses mentioned here and, money no object, the Nikon 70-200/2.8 wins hands down (obviously). Throw it back into the equation and the 80-200 is the clear winner, in my opinion. The Sigma is noticeably soft and has CA issues.

You and BCS will disagree on this, but I see far too many reports of miscalibrations with third-party lenses and do not feel like taking the risk of having to wait a month or longer to use a brand new lens. You also never know what forward compatibility Nikon may be already building into their lenses. Yes, in a better world, the big names would be (required to be) publishing their specs.

I am however of the opinion that buying nice lenses is far more worthwhile than upgrading the body. I know your body is somewhat of a limitation seeing as it will only work with AF-S (at least I think this is the case) lenses...
Click to expand...
I agree, which is why one of the main reasons I'm considering the upgrade: with the ability to use AF-S and AF-D, there are a lot more options available for good and relatively affordable glass. Better control interfaces is the other main reason.

...but what about the 80-200 or 70-200 AF-S?
Click to expand...
The 80-200 AF-S is about as easy to find as a unicorn and I think the AF-D is better value for the money. The 70-200 AF-S is more money than I'm willing to spend on just about anything other than a car ;)

I went with a lens that was aesthetically an absolute dog, it may not be pretty but optically it's fine and it was much cheaper.
Click to expand...
Which lens was that?
 
Last edited:
I don't think you'll notice the softness of it on your 10 megapixel sensor and CA is easily remedied anyway in ACR or Lightroom.

These were all taken with the 70-200 at the last ringmeet and have been cropped some, so not as sharp as they could have been if they were resized straight from 12 megapixels:

http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0307.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0033.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0049.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0077.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0085.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0100.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0108.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0114.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0117.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0121.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0151.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0184.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0224.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0229.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0249.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0278.jpg
http://img.phyrefile.com/icebone/2010/02/15/_ICE0298.jpg
 
Seriously? It's almost twice as expensive, it has far older optics and no sonic drive. With a lens like that you need lightning fast autofocus and you won't get that with the 80-200.
 
ORLY?

Nikon 80-200/2.8: $1100

Sigma 70-200/2.8: $1125

And, no, I'm not buying from the US or otherwise because it makes dealing with warranties a pain and, sometimes, you are screwed on the warranty altogether. I tried both and I couldn't detect any difference in AF speed. The 80-200 AF-D is surprisingly and satisfyingly quick on a D90.
 
Last edited:
The lens I bought that was aesthetically a dog was my Nikon 70-200, I love it to pieces, by far my most used lens now (and ever since I bought it). I know you don't wish to buy second hand so the 80-200 AF-D is a nice sensible choice, I don't think anyone would take the Sigma over that at those prices. Don't get me wrong, Sigma lenses at their best can rival any other manufacturer, the problem is that there are a proportion that come out of the factory with one defect or another. These defects can be fixed for free but you still have to go through the hassle and time to get the issue sorted. It doesn't seem to be such an issue with their primes as we've seen from the eye candy taken on the Interceptors 150 macro.
 
Last edited:
Weeeeell... my 24/1.8 came with quite a bit of front focus. :D



EDIT: but hey, if you can get it for that cheap, go for it. I just know I'm perfectly happy with the 70-200. :)
 
Last edited:
Maybe the problem is that Sigma mostly employ long and short-sighted people on their manufacturing line, depending on which technician did it you will either get front or back focus. If you're extremely lucky you get a technician with great vision and thus get a lens worthy of much drooling.

This is my crackpot theory and I'm sticking to it.
 
If the Sigma was actually half the price here (~$550), I probably would have bought it already by now.
 
epp_b: well, in the country, apart from Nikon themselves, you can't even buy the 80-200, the nearest store that has it is in Germany and over there it's almost twice the price.

And like Dr_Q said, it's free and easy to fix, just takes a bit of time.
 
Just to clarify, I don't own the Sigma I can just see why you'd want to have it. I try and fail to stay neutral in all things surrounding camera gear. HOWEVER IT'S COMMON KNOWLEDGE NIKON MAKES ALL THE WOMEN HOT FOR YOU AND IMPROVES YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE.
 
And, today, I'm reminded of another reason I'm hesitant to buy any more gear (much less spend a crapload of cash on it) ... I was out for three hours at peak lighting and came back with nothing I'd consider putting my name on :(

Financially possible or not, so often, I don't feel I deserve better gear.
 
Last edited:
You have any idea how often I produce shit? :p

Keep at it, becoming a master takes years, if not decades.
 
It doesn't matter how good you are, for the most part there will be very few photographs you are personally proud of. The real annoyance is that when you do advance (well at least think you do) you can often look back on what you once liked a lot and not like it at all.
 
Dr_Q said:
It doesn't matter how good you are, for the most part there will be very few photographs you are personally proud of. The real annoyance is that when you do advance (well at least think you do) you can often look back on what you once liked a lot and not like it at all.
Click to expand...

This is a sign of developing photographer, the skills improve but the satisfaction with pictures obtained gets less and frustrations grow. I spent a whole night doing a shoot by a local pier and hated almost all my shots.

It's only natural to become more discriminating and a harsh judge of one's own work once you develop even moderate talent. That's what pushes one to occasionally capture GREAT photos.
 
That's exactly how I've been feeling lately... that my standards are improving more quickly than my talent :\
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top