Sigma 70-200 on D40x

[epicwelshman]

Morning all,

I'm looking to pick up the Sigma 70-200 2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens. Now I'm familiar with Nikon's random letters (ED, DX, etc) but Sigma's I'm a little confused with. I believe that HSM means that it'll work with the D40/x/60 which have no focus motors - am I right?

I've heard some great things about this, and for half the price of a comparable Nikon it seems like the most sensible choice. What do you guys think of it? I am aware that it has no VR, and I'm fine with that, it'll be mainly used for portraits and fast action (sports etc) so VR becomes moot.

 

[cube]

HSM is the Sigma equivalent of Nikon's AF-S, so theoretically it should work.

 

[jhamerphoto]

HSM stands for hyper-sonic motor, which means it has the built-in AF motors that your D40x requires.

So to answer your question, yes, it will work.

I personally love sigma lenses, and I usually buy them over the actual branded lenses for myself or for my old school. Not only are they great quality optics, but at around half the price of branded lenses, you really can't go wrong.

 

[epicwelshman]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your prompt responses. I figured that's what HSM meant, but before putting down $800 I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask!

I thought of another, minor, question - is the 70-200 full-frame compatible? I don't think I'll be going full-frame anytime soon (D40x -> D3 is quite a jump) but, just in case, it would be nice if this lens worked.

 

[cube]

Sigma's DC is the equivalent of Nikon's DX. Crop.

Sigma DG are full frame "optimized for digital".

 

[cube]

Are you sure you want that lens and not one of Sigma's 50-150 f2.8 DC HSM (even if it's crop)?

 

[Mr.Noisy]

Morning all,

I'm looking to pick up the Sigma 70-200 2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens.

This is a cracking Lens, but the early version before the II came out is cheaper and will be just as sharp, I use one on a D70s & D2Xs & love it

 

[taylorwilsdon]

This is a cracking Lens, but the early version before the II came out is cheaper and will be just as sharp, I use one on a D70s & D2Xs & love it

But doesn't have the necessary hsm...

 

[Hmac]

I didn't/wouldn't buy a DX or crop lens. It's looking like full frame is the direction digital SLR's are heading. Most dSLR users these days will keep their lenses far longer than they'll keep their camera bodies.

I suspect cropped sensors ultimately will only be found on the lowest end of the dSLR market if at all. IMHO, anybody who's getting ready to spend several hundred dollars on a camera lens is somebody who's going to be looking hard at a full frame camera in the next 3-5 years as that becomes the bulk of the market and prices fall.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

I didn't/wouldn't buy a DX or crop lens. It's looking like full frame is the direction digital SLR's are heading. Most dSLR users these days will keep their lenses far longer than they'll keep their camera bodies.

I suspect cropped sensors ultimately will only be found on the lowest end of the dSLR market if at all. IMHO, anybody who's getting ready to spend several hundred dollars on a camera lens is somebody who's going to be looking hard at a full frame camera in the next 3-5 years as that becomes the bulk of the market and prices fall.

That is such terrible logic. This guy has a D40, he isn't going to buy a $5000 D3 any time soon. I'm all for being future proof, but full frame isn't going mainstream anytime soon and the only other lens available that fits his requirements costs $1700, and it doesn't even work right on the d3 (70-200 vr).

 

[cube]

Yes, the Sigma 50-150 might be DX, but its range is a better fit for a crop camera, plus it weighs almost half as the 70-200. But it seems a tad expensive, given that it only costs a little less.

 

[Mr.Noisy]

But doesn't have the necessary hsm...

Erm yes it does have HSM, it's official title is : APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM. and it's optically as sharp as my 70-200vr.

I didn't/wouldn't buy a DX or crop lens. It's looking like full frame is the direction digital SLR's are heading

DSLR's aren't heading in a full frame direction, full frame is used by the pro's and the D3 just happens to be Nikons first DSLR thats FF directed at Pro users, DX crop sensors will always be with us

 

[Hmac]

That is such terrible logic. This guy has a D40, he isn't going to buy a $5000 D3 any time soon. I'm all for being future proof, but full frame isn't going mainstream anytime soon and the only other lens available that fits his requirements costs $1700, and it doesn't even work right on the d3 (70-200 vr).

As sensors continue to get cheaper (Moore's Law), the move to full frame is inevitable. Other than cost, what advantages to you propose that APS-C (cropped) sensors have over a full-frame 35 mm sensor? Why else would anyone prefer the smaller, cropped sensor besides cost-efficiency? APS-C is a compromise. When full frame sensors get cheap enough...we no longer have to compromise.

Anyway, I said 3-5 years, he'll be looking at a camera with a full frame sensor, not that he'll be buying a D3 tomorrow. How much will a 12.1 mp full-frame sensor cost in 3-5 years? Same as today, do you think? No. But the lenses will cost the same, or more. I haven't bought a new lens in 4 years. I'm saying that within the lifespan of the lens that he buys tomorrow, he's going to be looking at upgrading to a $1200-$1400 (or more if he has the money) full frame camera. And when he does, he'll likely regret having spent $700 on a lens that won't work well with it - a lens that still works fine, but he takes a bath trading it in for a NON-cropped lens.

IMHO

 

[Hmac]

DSLR's aren't heading in a full frame direction, full frame is used by the pro's and the D3 just happens to be Nikons first DSLR thats FF directed at Pro users, DX crop sensors will always be with us

Full frame is currently used by pros because they are generally the ones that can afford it (business expense). So far. At the current state (and cost) of the art....

 

[ChrisA]

That is such terrible logic. This guy has a D40, he isn't going to buy a $5000 D3 any time soon. I'm all for being future proof, but full frame isn't going mainstream anytime soon and the only other lens available that fits his requirements costs $1700, and it doesn't even work right on the d3 (70-200 vr).

The lowest price option for a D40 ower is this: Sell the D40 and buy a used D50. (Cost maybe $100) then buy a used Nikor 80-200 f/2.8 for about $650. The total cost is about $750 but now you have a better camera (with a built-in focus moter) and a Nikon brand full frame lens. With the "new" D50 you can take advantage of all kinds of great Nikon primes too.

Some people don't like used gear but any brand new camera is "used" the day after to take it home. We all have nothing but used gear in our bags.

Yes the DSLR world is headed to full frame. But I think it will be 10 or 12 years before FF reaches the low end SLRs. If it ever does. But the low end will move below the $200 price point and the FF bodies will be priced like the D80 is today. IN 2018 I expect to be able to buy an $800 FF Nikon body.

already many pros are using medium format digital camera that have sensors that are just about double the FF size. Today you have to be selling your work to justify a $30K camera but they to will come down in price.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

The lowest price option for a D40 ower is this: Sell the D40 and buy a used D50. (Cost maybe $100) then buy a used Nikor 80-200 f/2.8 for about $650. The total cost is about $750 but now you have a better camera (with a built-in focus moter) and a Nikon brand full frame lens. With the "new" D50 you can take advantage of all kinds of great Nikon primes too.

I agree with this alternative. The 80-200 is a great lens (I have used a push pull one, 2 ring can only be better) and the internal focus motor opens up a whole world of non-afs AF lenses.

 

[66217]

Some people don't like used gear but any brand new camera is "used" the day after to take it home. We all have nothing but used gear in our bags.

That's just an incorrect way of seeing things. The D50 is used in the sense that someone else had already used it before you. And above that, is an old camera with old technology. The D40 is superior in almost everything except the built-in motor. Which isn't that a big disadvantage for a beginner. The D60 is even a little better than the D40.

 

[Hmac]

Yes the DSLR world is headed to full frame. But I think it will be 10 or 12 years before FF reaches the low end SLRs. If it ever does. But the low end will move below the $200 price point and the FF bodies will be priced like the D80 is today. IN 2018 I expect to be able to buy an $800 FF Nikon body.

In 1999, Nikon started the dSLR craze with the D1 (the Kodak was too expensive). It was revolutionary in that it was "affordable" at $5000. It was 2.7 megapixels. Today, that same $5000 will buy you full frame at 4x the resolution and associated electronics that give the D3 an IQ that blows the D1 away. Three years ago, there was only one consumer-level full frame dSLR, by this fall there will be five.

You could be right about the time frame, but silicon baking techniques are getting better and better with better and better yields and the dSLR market continues to get hotter and hotter thereby putting marketing pressure on the move to full-frame. And each successful new sensor design makes the next one that much cheaper to develop, especially since we all seem to be moving to CMOS.

I'll stick with my 3-5 year guess.

 

[epicwelshman]

Haha, you've gotta love how a simple lens question can lead to a full-blown battle of opinions

Here's where I stand.

I fully agree with Roco regarding the D50 issue. The only reason I would want a D50 is for the focus motor. I fully beleve that the D40/x is better in every way. Better viewfinder, better performance, better sensor technology etc. Sure, it bums me out to no end that a nifty-fifty would be manual focus only, but it's not the end of the world. Also, the D40x was a gift. If I had been buying my camera I would have gone for the D80. My next camera will be a D300 (or whatever the next gen of that model may be), and it'll be a moot point.

Who knows, there is a huge possibility that in 5 years the D300 "series" could be full frame, and I would jump on that.

Also, as far as I'm concerned these issues about me getting full frame in the future or not are moot, as AFAIK the Sigma 70-200 is a full frame lens anyway.

<rant>

There's something else that bothers me too. People, and I'm speaking in very broad terms here, seem to assume that D40 owners are "wanna be" photographers, or that they only want something better than a P&S. I don't think this is the case at all. Sure, these lower end DSLR's do help to appeal to the lower end of the market, but the simple fact of owning a lower end DSLR doesn't make one any less of a skilled photographer. I've routinely sold prints for a few hundred dollars made with my "lowly" D40x and the kit lens. I think we need to dispel the notion that just because a D40/x/60 doesn't have the bulk, build quality or the few additional features that the D300 offers that it's somehow not worthy of being used for "real" photography.

</rant>

Anyway, that being said. Thank you so much to everyone who has given me advice, and shared their opinions. The world would be a boring place if everyone agreed all the time. We just need to remember to stay civil and act like adults, something the MR community is very good at.

 

[66217]

Who knows, there is a huge possibility that in 5 years the D300 "series" could be full frame, and I would jump on that.

Also, as far as I'm concerned these issues about me getting full frame in the future or not are moot, as AFAIK the Sigma 70-200 is a full frame lens anyway.

I think that for all cameras to go full frame we still have a long waiting time. 5 years? 10 years? I'm not sure, I think the best indicator is if we see Nikon showing new professional DX lenses. Which I think they will.

 

[cube]

450mm wafers won't start until 2012, and it will be a very expensive transition.

http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208402622

 

[OreoCookie]

You could be right about the time frame, but silicon baking techniques are getting better and better with better and better yields and the dSLR market continues to get hotter and hotter thereby putting marketing pressure on the move to full-frame. And each successful new sensor design makes the next one that much cheaper to develop, especially since we all seem to be moving to CMOS.

No, there is no pressure at all to move the entire line-up to full frame. You've bought an entry-level dslr and it makes exactly zero sense to put a full-frame sensor in it. The image quality you get from even small sensors (think four-thirds which has half the surface area of a fullframe sensor) is so good that you don't need to increase the size of your camera and lenses.

Unless you have a clear plan to go pro, you should not buy lenses, pretending you have a full-frame sensor. In practical terms, the 50-150 is a lot better: the viewing angle range is pretty much that of a 75-225 lens (i. e. that's the 70-200 bread and butter lens). It's considerably lighter and having 70 mm as initial focal length is limiting more times than not.

 

[Hmac]

No, there is no pressure at all to move the entire line-up to full frame.

At the very basic entry level, DX format will persist for years for the same reason it exists now -- it's a suitable compromise to hit a price point. Beyond that entry level, full frame. 3-5 years. IMHO.

 

[OreoCookie]

At the very basic entry level, DX format will persist for years for the same reason it exists now -- it's a suitable compromise to hit a price point. Beyond that entry level, full frame. 3-5 years. IMHO.

Even if the D300/40D-class cameras have full frame in three (that'd be the next generation of the 300D/40D) or more like six years (= two generations), what good would that do? Would you be willing to use a lens that's not ideally suited for the DX format for that long? You will still be able to sell the 50-150 then or even continue to use it. And what makes you think that then, you will want to/can spend the money to get a full frame dslr? (Keep in mind that full frame sensors need first-rate lenses.) Full frame sensors make the cameras and lenses larger (a 50-135/150 weighs about half of what my Nikkor does), cameras with a small form factor that appeal to quite a few people will not be possible.

Just to buy full frame lenses, because you may switch to a full frame camera one day is stupid.

JFYI, I own a 2.8/80-200 Nikkor and not a 50-135/150 zoom (although I'd be happy to trade it for a Tokina 2.8/50-135).

 

[leighonigar]

As sensors continue to get cheaper (Moore's Law), the move to full frame is inevitable. Other than cost, what advantages to you propose that APS-C (cropped) sensors have over a full-frame 35 mm sensor? Why else would anyone prefer the smaller, cropped sensor besides cost-efficiency? APS-C is a compromise. When full frame sensors get cheap enough...we no longer have to compromise.
...
IMHO

Uh, Moore's law is really about things getting smaller, being able to put more in the same space. Since we need the sensor to be of a certain size getting smaller doesn't really help. Bigger will always be more expensive, there will always be price competition in the lower-mid part of a camera makers range. DX works well. Thus, for at least the foreseeable future DX will continue to exist and be the dominant amateur format.