As long as it's the newer version that has HSM, the lens will auto focus on your camera. If it's the older non-HSM version, you can only use it with manual focus..
For $99.00 it's not a bad lens. The Sigma 70-300mm DG APO is a better lens, although the cost is higher and it's larger and heavier.My humble photo gallery: http://ntotrr.smugmug.com.
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
The Nikon 55-200 VR is said to be very good: if you can afford it that would be a better option.Best wishesMike..
I've owned this lens. For $99, it's not a bad deal, but I think you would tire of it's character pretty quickly. I agree with the poster that recommended the Nikon 55-200VR. It's IQ + VR make it worth the extra money. Remember, your camera is only as good as the lens mounted to it.RoscoMy Advise is always free. So take it at it's face value http://www.pbase.com/roscot..
Thanks for all the replies..
I agree. I think ill wait to get a lens.. I am also thinking of the 70-300mm VR lens from Nikon...
What do you guys thing?.
You can have a look at this site:photozone dot deThere are lens tests, the sigma has been tested on Canon instead of Nikon.You can hardly compare lenses when one is 3 to 4 times the cost of the other....
This difference will mean more luminosity, faster and more reliable focus, better image quality with lens open, durability, better operating 'feel'... and better recognition from other photographers!.
However, if you have to wait several years before you can afford your dream, why not jump immediately to the low cost deal, which can give good results if you know how to optimize aperture, shutter, ISO and train for steady shots, with or without a tripod? Excellent for learning..
I totally understand, but I think I will probably wait because an overall better lens is worth a little wait..
In terms of IQ which lens do you guys think is better (overall)55-200 mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR70-300 mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR.