I am trying to decide on a new lens:
Due to funds the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro for Sigma AF ($200) or the Nikon 70-300 ED ($300).
Is the Nikon internal focus?
I would really like to swing for the Sigma 70-200 2.8 (new $700) but don't have the funds right now (3 kids) - I've seen some of these in the "non" DG lenses on Ebay for around $500+ - but I think I would want the DG version (right?) (newbee, sorry)
Would my better bet be a used Sigma 70-200 (non DG) and maybe add a 1.4 converter if needed? or the 70-300?
Pictures will mostly be kids sports and some wildlife used on D70s.
Bug light ... the ca shows up in sharp transitions of bright to dark - so in that set of shots look at the glare on the tops of the car. It's completely blown out and the cars are much darker and it is also towards the edge of the frame rather than in the center. That is the place that CA is most likely to live. If you look at the f 5.6 shot there is CA visible as a purple fringe. Half a stop down and it is severely reduced and a full stop there is only a barely visible bit left. F 11 ... not a bit.
Now it's small here ... but if you see it like this it may be far more intrusive in some subject matter. On this lens it shows as purplish ... on many it appears as a blue fringe. In any case I would call this Ok .... and on a 129 lens ... I'm a smiling!
Oh btw ... it is usually much more likely to appear on wide angle lenses ... it's more rare on tele's.
I think the performance is very good for such a priced lens ( $300 ) I'm used to Canon lenses ... and the cheaper ones can be scary. This is a nice surprise ... but they told me so!
and going from f 5.6 to f 8.0 there is no flare left worth noticing:
That is pretty darn good ... but of course this isn't a 12mm lens neither http://www.invl.com/300/noflare.jpg
CA is easily fixed Most of the time , if you shoot Raw then open in NC , the software "corrects" this aberation in the background as you open the file. CA will be a non issue soon , it is only a nuisance even now
Yup ... but still an indicator of some of the differences between lenses. I find contrast to be much the same. It's great to have a great lens in that respect but a good one (for half the price) is three seconds in photoshop and will look more snappy than the best results with a top notch lens with film combo.
Times "they are a changin' ".
jmcfadden...and yet, another reason to shoot RAW! I guess I just don't like the extra step that's required with shooting raw. I like being able to use the builtin Windows image & fax viewer to run through my images and delete things that way without having to import everything and use the slower Nikon software that came with my D70s.
BugLightGeek wrote:
Thanks for the explanation and examples, Pavel!!
jmcfadden...and yet, another reason to shoot RAW! I guess I just don't like the extra step that's required with shooting raw. I like being able to use the builtin Windows image & fax viewer to run through my images and delete things that way without having to import everything and use the slower Nikon software that came with my D70s.
Patience is a virtue.
The files would be slower if, for no other reason, they are larger (RAW). Although Capture and View are relatively slow, the tools within it are worth the wait. Once you get in the habit of using them... you'll seldom shoot jpegs again, IMO.
Bibble is very fast to browse and takes about two and a half seconds to process a file on my G5. Photomechanic is great for viewing- shot to shot is instant and Capture one (my fave) while not as speedy as Bibble is tremendous for eating through hundreds of files very quickly.
I love the look of C1 and rarely take a trip to Photoshop after I've converted using it. Only for selective focus or other such things that fall more into the category of touch ups.
I've never met a jpg straight out of a camera that I didn't think would benefit from meeting Mr. Photoshop ... so it's not as fast for me.
