[Dana G]

I very happily use a 70-200 f/4 constant aperture zoom (SMC-A series) and plan to get the very useful 50-135 f/2.8 DA constant aperture zoom. I ordered one from Adorama for around $835 or so, and when they receive it they'll ship it.

Faster zooms will be more expensive, and constant-aperture zooms are harder to design properly, so the cost of R&D is more. The target market for these fast constant zooms is pros and enthusiasts with money, so they tend to be well-built (you can't afford to have a cheap varifocal lens die in the middle of a job).

[palmor]

Thanks again, everyone.

I was looking for the lowest numbered, constant-apertured lens that my monetary limit would afford me. The only one I have seen, thus far, is the Sigma 70-200mm @ f/2.8. The focal travel of that lens is within the scope of what my present Tamron (18-200mm) lens gives me, which means that I would be duplicating, in a sense, what I already have (minus the faster properties of the Sigma). I am not really into macros (not yet, anyway), so I am not putting a great deal of focus on the 'tight' end of the lens. By the same token, I am not looking to define the hairs on the body of a fly, from a distance of 100 yards (an extreme example, I know, but you get the picture ).

Just something to note, because the Sigma 70-200 is such a high quality lens with a constant f2.8 it works very well with teleconverters (1.4x or 2.0x) like other posters have mentioned. So while the lens itself may duplicate your existing lens it will provide much higher IQ by itself and then it gives you the option of adding TC's (still with good IQ) when you need it.

I use the 70-200 with a 2x TC for birding and it works pretty well. Eventually I'll get a larger (400mm) prime lens but I'm waiting for Pentax to announce their plans and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a 400 f/4. Anyway...

Poke around my pbase site, 80-90% of the shots there are from the non DG version of this lens (one generation older then the one you looked at).

palmor's Photo Galleries at pbase.com


John

[Lowell Goudge]

Just something to note, because the Sigma 70-200 is such a high quality lens with a constant f2.8 it works very well with teleconverters (1.4x or 2.0x) like other posters have mentioned. So while the lens itself may duplicate your existing lens it will provide much higher IQ by itself and then it gives you the option of adding TC's (still with good IQ) when you need it.

I use the 70-200 with a 2x TC for birding and it works pretty well. Eventually I'll get a larger (400mm) prime lens but I'm waiting for Pentax to announce their plans and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a 400 f/4. Anyway...

Poke around my pbase site, 80-90% of the shots there are from the non DG version of this lens (one generation older then the one you looked at).

palmor's Photo Galleries at pbase.com


John

I agree, and while I understand the question of "duplication" If it were my choice, I would take the 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4 TC and trade the 28-200 for a wider angle, and shorter zoom (16-50mm perhaps) That way you get more speed, a great lens for tele shots, and a better and wider short lens.

[NLAlston]

If you get the 70-200, sell the 18-200 and get yourself the Sigma 17-70 DC, it makes a great two lens combination.

Thanks.

It is something to really think about. I don't mean to sound stingy, here, but I hate to think of taking a monetary hit, on selling my 18-200, when I have only had it for just a few months. But, one does what one has to do. We'll see how it all works out.

[HawaiianOnline]

If you do a lot of travelling, it might be better to hold on to that 18-200mm if you don't want to bring your whole kit with you. I have the Sigma 70-200 DG non-Macro version and it's heavy and bulky compared to the 18-200mm. It really depends on what you want to do and what situations you commonly find yourself in. In a studio type situation I'd use my 77mm Limited or even my Sigma 50mm Macro rather than the 70-200 although I have used it for that before. If I had to be able to quickly recompose like at an indoor sports event, I would defintely use the 70-200 for its relative versatility and speed over the compactness, portability and lightness of the 18-200.

Ultimately, you've got to try to decide what you want to do with a lens before you can choose one.

[NLAlston]

You've got to try to decide what you want to do with a lens before you can choose one.

You are absolutely right about this, and I think that maybe I should slow down a little bit . I've been doing alright, with my 18-200 & day shots, but I desire to do much better with my low light/night-time shootings. I really hate to part with my stuff, and think that I will hold onto my 18-200 no matter WHAT I get. At least this is my present feeling on things. So I guess that I will hunt for as much information as I can, on this lens issue, and see what I can come up with.

[Lowell Goudge]

If you do a lot of travelling, it might be better to hold on to that 18-200mm if you don't want to bring your whole kit with you. I have the Sigma 70-200 DG non-Macro version and it's heavy and bulky compared to the 18-200mm. It really depends on what you want to do and what situations you commonly find yourself in. In a studio type situation I'd use my 77mm Limited or even my Sigma 50mm Macro rather than the 70-200 although I have used it for that before. If I had to be able to quickly recompose like at an indoor sports event, I would defintely use the 70-200 for its relative versatility and speed over the compactness, portability and lightness of the 18-200.

Ultimately, you've got to try to decide what you want to do with a lens before you can choose one.

Let's add a little more confusion to the mix, now that we really have his head spinning.

WHile the 28-200 is a broader range, does this really make a travel camera. It is like one of the Electronic Viewfinder cameras with a 10+:1 zoom, but the widest angle is about 35-40 mm equivelent to film.

The 28mm minimum is just too long for an APS-C sensor. When you travel, generally you want wide not long. You do scenics, buildings etc. Even a 16-50mm is pushing it, as a 24mm equivelent to film, I found to be still not quite wide enough, but I could live with it, and if you only take one lens to travel, that would be the one I would take.

Somebody once said, if you try to make something such that one size fits all, it doesn't fit any.

[kbrabble]

You are absolutely right about this, and I think that maybe I should slow down a little bit . I've been doing alright, with my 18-200 & day shots, but I desire to do much better with my low light/night-time shootings. I really hate to part with my stuff, and think that I will hold onto my 18-200 no matter WHAT I get. At least this is my present feeling on things. So I guess that I will hunt for as much information as I can, on this lens issue, and see what I can come up with.

I do a lot of hiking, while the 70-200 is a great lens, I ultimately sold it. It is big and heavy. Another thing you may want to consider, is a fast prime lens or two. If you want small and lightweight, the DA Limiteds are excellent.

[srudolph]

Before you spend your hard earned money, I'd look at where you are using your 18-200 the most. Are most of your photos going toward the 18mm end, the 200mm end, or some where in the middle? Look at the photos you have already taken, check out the EXIF info, I wouldn't be suprised if you see a predominance of shots in a narrow focal range, say for example 40mm-80mm. That's where I would look to spend your money. If you need the speed for low light interiors, unless you are taking photos in a church/concert/sports setting, I think you would find that the long end of a 80-200 would be wasted.

I guess what I'm saying is, find your personal field of view, and put your money there. Keep the 18-200 it will be a good all around lens for you, and figure out what focal range you need the speed.