D80, I want to match the Sigma 18 50mm F2 8 is there anything wrong?

The first thing to do is to clarify what your main subject matter is. Generally speaking, it is better to choose a good lens than to seek the full focal length, so it is correct to choose the direction of 18-55mm, but the head quality of Sigma is not very stable, sometimes like **, there must be a proportion of the middle and not, so you have to be careful.

If you are really not very assured, you can buy an AF50, or AF50, or AF85, and shoot all kinds of subjects, especially portraits, which have a good performance, although it is a fixed focus, but it is actually very simple to adapt. Then gradually add equipment later.

If you still have any questions, please feel free to continue the SMS discussion.

Buy a set of machines without a pullover, unless you have money, there is no need to buy a Sigma head, this Sigma can be much stronger than that pullover, do you understand?

What's wrong with asking why there's nothing wrong with that.

But 18-50 and all I want saliva underwater.

After multiplying 18 by 27, the original ultra-wide angle has become a standard wide angle, and if you really buy it for wide angles, then you should take a look at the wide angle lenses of the Sigma DC series.

Not necessarily Litu is better than Nikon, Nikon's lenses are good and retain value, and now Sigma's lenses are not the most stable, you still use Nikon's, if you don't want to buy a set of machines, you can match Nikon's other lenses, it will not be worse than Litu Sigma's, Nikon lenses are very famous, but some are very expensive.

The Nikon 180 was a prime lens from the film era, and it was used to shoot portraits first-class. Bokeh control is good. I am satisfied with both the color reproduction and the excessive dark bits.

Of course it's 189 and there's no need to compare it at all.

That's it, the all-metal body, the workmanship is very good.

The hood is integrated into the lens. That's good.

Sigma is a sideline, no matter how good it is, it can't work. It's a must. Original.

Good imaging. I have 180 to tell you the truth ... I sold it, why. Because I found it too inconvenient. A prime is so long, it's uncomfortable to die, and it's not very useful. It's better to buy a 105 macro.

Why, because of the 105 macro, in addition to being able to shoot macro, everything else can also be taken, and... The essential...

Focus on the whole process.。。 From the nearest, to the farthest. How cool. So, I sold 180 right away

If there's no need for macro, it's Nikon's.

Sigma is still okay with this macro shot

The lens is good from the original. I never think about the vice-factory, speaking from experience.

In terms of performance, the 1835 is much better than the 2470.

Sigma's 2470 is the weakest of the 2470 currently in production.

18-35 is APSC specifications,24-70 is the full width head,You with 7100 to see what 24-70 do,The focal length has changed the taste,18-35This head specification is scary,Unfortunately, the full aperture is average,But it is enough to laugh at the truncation pair,Of course, the money is more or the original 17-55 is good,Because 18-35 is still relatively new,Not many people use it。

It's definitely 18 35 good, it's painful to use a fx head in the DX format, there is no wide angle, and it's okay to take a portrait. The best choice for the D7100 standard variant is 17 55, followed by 18 35, then 17 50.