Sigma lenses for the D90?

[jbaptis]

Hi guys,
I've been shooting with a Canon G10 camera+housing and decided to 'evolve' into a dSLR.
After a lot of ponderation and different advices (some of them from this forum) I've decided to buy a D90.
Now it's time to choose lenses and housing. This is a very INT€R€$TING hobby and since I do want to keep some money for my dive trips (and don't forget the housing ouch!) I am considering Sigma over Nikon but would love some help and your opinions:
Macro: 50mm or 70mm and why?
WA: 10-20mm or 12-24mm and why?
Topside: planning to buy a 18-250mm as an 'all rounder'.
Please feel free to comment, anyone! Thanks!

 

[AussieByron]

I can't see the point in trying to save money by buying Sigma Lenses over Nikon lenses.

You going to invest alot of money:
Camera
Housing
Ports
Strobe/s
arm
Sync cords
nice pelican case
Memory cards
filters
battery rechargers

Just to name a few.

So saving a couple of hundred on lenses makes no point in the big picture.

Personally I love my 60mm Nikkor Macro and my Tokina 10-17mm. I would recommend them straight away for your Nikon D90.

topside I love my 18-200 Nikkor VR but in the end you do get what you pay for.

Regards Mark

 

[shoturtle]

I would avoid the topsider all arounder of 18-250, it will give you more distortion then with 2 lens with less aggressive ranges. Maybe some thing like the sigma 18-125mm OS HSM, it will give you imagine stablization since it is a OS model, and the HSM means it will be quite a fast to focus. It will give you the all in one option, with less distortion of the mega range zoom.

There are really no bad macro lenses. But a 70mm macro will give you stand off distance if you not want to spook you subject and scare it away. A 70mm macro will give you a range of 105mm with the 1.5 crop factor, so you do not need to be ontop of you subject. Oppose to a 50mm with the 75mm crop factor.

The nikkor 60mm VCR marco is nice it gives you vibration control, which can save some shots.

 

[ScubaduoAdventures]

We would spend more money on our glass if we had to choose.:blinking:

 

[scottfiji]

You can always save money by buying a used lens.

Also, the sigma 10-20mm is an excellent lens that I use all the time topside.

Scott

 

[John Gulliver]

If you want an inexpensive macro lens, you can still get a brand new Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8 D lens, the older model which most of us are still using and love, for £280 from Hong Kong sellers, e.g. here: NIKON AF Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D 60 mm f/2.8 2.8 D new on eBay (end time 23-Feb-10 02:52:21 GMT) I bought mine from Hong Kong and the transaction was completely hassle-free. They also do all they can to see that you don't have to pay customs duty or tax.
I also second Scott's recommendation of the Sigma 10-20mm as an inexpensive wide angle lens.

 

[AussieByron]

I second John Gullivers post, but go for the Tokina 10-17mm over the Sigma 10-22mm

 

[JackConnick]

I'd actually recommend the Sigma 17-70 macro HSM. They have a new version with optical stabilization coming out as well. It's a great sharp lens that you can use with a dome. It will shoot from sort of macro to sort of w/a. Which can be veruy usefull if you don't quite know what you'll find.

The Tokina is great, but you've gotta get close. The 60macro is awesome. The D model is floating around used at very reasonable prices, but watch what ports you'll need.

Jack

 

[mike_s]

I've bought two sigma lens....

a Sigma 10-20mm HSM (same as AF-S feature) and a Sigma 150-500mm HSM OS. Both for use topside.

the 10-20mm is a good lens for when you need really wide angles. I've found it to be a good lens for the money, but not an "awesome lens" that you get in the lower f numbers. but still happy with the times I've used it.

the 150-500mm HSM OS just never produced a "crisp" picture.(most of the time) It seemed like many of the shots were out of focus or just not up to par, even when on a tripod and remotely fired in order not to have any "button shake". It was returned. I just wasn't happy with it for the $1,000 price. It was a real let down because I really wanted that lens to be better than it was....

 

[John Gulliver]

I second John Gullivers post, but go for the Tokina 10-17mm over the Sigma 10-22mm

I understand that the Tokina 10-17mm is an excellent lens, although I have no personal experience of it. In my opinion, though, the Sigma 10-20mm is a very good compromise for anyone who is on a budget, as I am and jbaptis evidently is. Two Sigma 10-20's have been sold on ebay.co.uk today, one for £310 (495 US$) including a Hoya uv filter, the other for £245 ($390). It is hard to find a used Tokina 10-17 and even if you do, the price is normally significantly higher. Apart from the difference in cost, an advantage of the Sigma lens is that you don't need a fisheye dome port. For example, Sea & Sea recommend their compact dome port and SS extension ring, which is much easier to pack for travel than their fisheye dome. Many experts would also say a rectilinear lens like the Sigma 10-20mm is more suitable for photographing wrecks than a fisheye. So perhaps the choice is not always self-evident even if you can afford the more expensive lens. In any event, I am very happy with my Sigma 10-20mm, not least because of its excellent close-focus properties combined with the ability to zoom to 20mm.