Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

CP5700 Images better than D100

oneiro

London, UK
11 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: Post a sharp sample, please. . . . . ."

oneiro Registered since 20th Jan 2003
Tue 28-Jan-03 05:00 PM

I like the Sigma a lot because I can shoot wideangle which I really like plus portrait work which I want to improve on. It's my first ever lens so I cannot really give any meaningful comments since I don't have experience with other lenses for comparison besides the fact that that the same lens costs £1000 more from Nikon (I bought the Sigma for £300 from www.warehouseexpress.com).
OK it's not that fast in focusing and not that silent but who will pay that difference anyway? It has constant aperture and is fast (f2.8) and that is what I always look for in a zoom lense. I don't want to loose in speed whenever I zoom in and out.

I've also put an order down for the 100-300mm f4 EX HSM IF DG DG bla-bla-bla. Again it has constant aperture and the same filter size (82mm) like my 24-70mm Sigma which is a BIG plus AND it comes with a free 2x tele converter for free from warehouseexpress again. The minus is that with the 2x conv AF doesn't work but who cares since it's free and I can always use smaller aperture to have more DOF.

I believe that Sigma have a very wide range of lenses for anyone's needs. Nikkor range seems very limited and pricey for an amateur like me (hobbist is more like it)


Here is a comparison I made between two Sigma lenses I wanted to buy:

100-300mm f4 APO EX IF HSM DG (82mm!!!!!!) -
1.580kg + 0.700(D100) + 0.234 (2x conv) = 2.514kg
+free 2x convertor,
+constant aperture (300mm at f4)
++Can use existing filters!
+max 600mm with 2x (f8)
-NO AF with 2x conv
----
£700


70-200mm f2.8 APO EX HSM (77m)
+faster lense
+AF with 2X tele
-no constant aperture
-need to buy filters
-max 400mm at f5.6 with 2x tele
----
£600
2X conv+
--------
£770
CP-F+
------
£870
+Hoya UV
43.30
-------
£913.7

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Be aware of your dream world!
Dream Lucidly!
oneiro

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Be aware of your dream world!
Dream Lucidly!
oneiro

This is a hot, active topic! CP5700 Images better than D100 [View all] , shuber182 Silver Member , Sun 12-Jan-03 12:24 PM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
1
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
2
     Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
3
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
4
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
5
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
6
     Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
7
          Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
8
          Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
9
          Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 -- Update II
23
               Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 -- Update II
36
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
19
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
10
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
11
Reply message Well, that says it all...but here's one step more
12
Reply message RE: Well, that says it all...
13
Reply message RE: Well, that says it all...
14
Reply message RE: Well, that says it all...but here's one step more
15
     Reply message RE: Well, that says it all...but here's one step more
16
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
21
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100
35
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 - UPDATE
17
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 - UPDATE
18
Reply message That QC issue may be bigger than any of us imagined
20
Reply message RE: That QC issue may be bigger than any of us imagined
22
     Reply message You should go...
24
          Reply message I've learned to deal with it...
25
Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 - UPDATE
26
     Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 - UPDATE
27
     Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 - UPDATE
28
     Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 - UPDATE
37
          Reply message RE: CP5700 Images better than D100 - UPDATE
40
     Reply message If you got the bucks...why not both?
29
          Reply message Where's my picture?
56
               Reply message RE: Where's my picture?
30
               Reply message RE: Where's my picture?
31
                    Reply message RE: Where's my picture?
32
                         Reply message RE: Where's my picture?
33
                              Reply message RE: Where's my picture?
34
Reply message Keep in mind that the D100...
38
Reply message 1486 and encounting...
39
Reply message RE: 1486 and encounting...
41
Reply message RE: Keep in mind that the D100...HAS AUTO MODE
42
     Reply message Just for clarification . . . . . .
43
          Reply message RE: Just for clarification . . . . . .
44
               Reply message RE: Just for clarification . . . . . .
45
                    Reply message RE: Just for clarification . . . . . .
46
                         Reply message RE: Post a sharp sample, please. . . . . .
47
                              Reply message RE: Post a sharp sample, please. . . . . .
48
                              Reply message a sharp sample
51
                                   Reply message RE: a sharp sample
53
                              Reply message RE: Post a sharp sample, please. . . . . .
49
                                   Reply message RE: Post a sharp sample, please. . . . . .
50
                                   Reply message RE: Post a sharp sample, please. . . . . .
54
                                   Reply message RE: Post a sharp sample, please. . . . . .
55
                                   Reply message RE: Post a sharp sample, please. . . . . .
52