How important is high ISO?

[Abstract]

Haha thanks.

Ok, I found this.
Blah, now I want to sell this thing for an 18-55 2.8 (NIKKOR!) I'm starting to buy into the 3rd party lens cliche.

I haven't noticed this problem, but I don't own a D200.


Anyway, I think your lens is fine. You're not really going to get better results using an 18-55 mm f/2.8 or other lens if you're talking about CA. It's what you're shooting into. Just take the photos and accept the fact that all lenses will exhibit CA in some situations in the conditions you shoot under.

 

[coldrain]

Well, say what you want - I can be fine at ~60mm and the second I hit 70 my shutter/aperture changes and it'll underexpose - it's not a little known observation of mine either, Sigma issued a press release regarding it, and has offered to replace the firmware in all appropriate lenses to be compatible with the D200.
"Combination of new Nikon 200 digital SLR camera with our following products can cause improper exposure. To overcome this we will be supplying a free upgrade to our customers. We deeply apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused to our customers.

List of lenses require update for D200 camera:

Fixed Focal Length Lenses
28mm F1.8 DG ASPERICAL RF

Zoom Lenses
20-40mm F2.8 EX DG ASPERICAL
24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO
24-70mm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL DF
28-70mm F2.8 EX DG
28-105mm F2.8-4 DG
28-105mm F2.8-4 ASPHERICAL "

..and yeah it's not HSM, not sure why I said that (it's loud as hell) still fast/accurate however.

I did not say you were mistaken that the metering goes wrong, I just said that the lens itself does not meter. As to WHY the metering goes wrong, I gave some ideas that I could think of.

Why don't you get it upgraded/fixed by Sigma?

And about the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 I think you might have been referring to, it does have quite some CA at 17mm to 24mm... to avoid it, you will have to stop down to f5.6. So in that sense, it will not be a big upgrade from your Sigma, just an expensive one.

The 28-70 f2.8 would lose you the 24-28mm range.. it does not exhibit CA of any meaning at 28mm though. But this lens suffers from CA at 40mm and above wide open!

So abstract is basically right... by changing your Sigma 24-70 f2.8 for either Nikon, you will not get rid of CA problems.
BTW, the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L shows a bit of CA at 24mm wide open too, only the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS does not show CA, not even at 17mm.

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di may be your best choice for CA free stuuf at wide open aperture, but it only starts at 28mm...

My Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC also has CA wide open at 18mm, and my Tokina 12-24mm f4 too, as I showed in my posted sample.

 

[tomfifield]

I just got a Nikon 18-200 vr zoom to go with my lens collection. I went to the photo store with my D200 and tried a ton of lens and compared the images on an apple display at home. For the versatility this lens is incredible. Only a hand full of Nikon zoom lens were sharper. With the vr you can hand hold at higher iso settings although for what I do noise has not been a problem. The real issue of high iso settings is getting action shots in low light.

 

[coldrain]

I just got a Nikon 18-200 vr zoom to go with my lens collection. I went to the photo store with my D200 and tried a ton of lens and compared the images on an apple display at home. For the versatility this lens is incredible. Only a hand full of Nikon zoom lens were sharper. With the vr you can hand hold at higher iso settings although for what I do noise has not been a problem. The real issue of high iso settings is getting action shots in low light.

If you want to travel light, I would agree that the 18-200 VR is a lens to consider. But if light and compact is your goal, then a D200 would not be the best choice at all. A D80 or 30D are quite a bit lighter. So what you gain with the lens being a nice light travel lens, you lose in the D200's body again.

But for landscape photography? I don't think it is a smart choice for that. It distorts quite a lot at 18mm... and at 18mm the borders are VERY soft. There are quite a lot of lenses that are much more suitable.

 

[compuwar]

But if light and compact is your goal, then a D200 would not be the best choice at all. A D80 or 30D are quite a bit lighter. So what you gain with the lens being a nice light travel lens, you lose in the D200's body again.

That depends, the D200 has better sealing than the alternatives you recommend. Lots of great landscape shots happen as a storm is rolling in, so if you're not just a fair weather landscape shooter (or you include seascapes and waterfalls in the category) then the D200 may indeed be the best choice.

 

[coldrain]

That depends, the D200 has better sealing than the alternatives you recommend. Lots of great landscape shots happen as a storm is rolling in, so if you're not just a fair weather landscape shooter (or you include seascapes and waterfalls in the category) then the D200 may indeed be the best choice.

It would help if you do not take my post out of context though...
I was talking about the 18-200 : "If you want to travel light, I would agree that the 18-200 VR is a lens to consider."

Somehow yous quote just ignores that part.... why?
IF you choose the 18-200 lens because it is compact and light for the covered focal range (only reason why I would consider it), then the D200 is not a smart choice! Simple as that, since it is by far the heaviest of mentioned cameras. And then wheather sealing does not come into the picture now does it... the 18-200 is not weather sealed as far as I know.

That was what my post was about, it was not about letting rain poor down on you. And im not afraid of a bit of rain or some waterfall drops on a not sealed camera, though...

I agree of course that if you are in need of taking photos in rain storms the D200 is a smart choice of course... but with a good lens.

 

[compuwar]

It would help if you do not take my post out of context though...
I was talking about the 18-200 : "If you want to travel light, I would agree that the 18-200 VR is a lens to consider."

Somehow yous quote just ignores that part.... why?
IF you choose the 18-200 lens because it is compact and light for the covered focal range (only reason why I would consider it), then the D200 is not a smart choice! Simple as that, since it is by far the heaviest of mentioned cameras. And then wheather sealing does not come into the picture now does it... the 18-200 is not weather sealed as far as I know.

That was what my post was about, it was not about letting rain poor down on you. And im not afraid of a bit of rain or some waterfall drops on a not sealed camera, though...

I agree of course that if you are in need of taking photos in rain storms the D200 is a smart choice of course... but with a good lens.

Reports of a non-extra-sealed Nikkor 18-70 working in a Typhoon exist, so the lack of additional sealing of a G lens (no aperture ring, so only two possible points of entry) may not be a factor, and certainly doesn't factor in the acquisition of additional lenses later. B&H's user reviews of the 18-200 includes:

I shoot no less than 60 photos a day most of which are
outdoors in any kind of weather. The 18-200 seems to fog a
little less than some lenses I have used and seems to clear
quickly. I am impressed with how well it works in dusty
situations. I shoot a lot of woodworking photos where dust
is thick and the lens handles that well.

Lots of folks are fair-weather landscape shooters, I simply point out an example where the D200 is an advantageous body to consider regardless of lens.