DSLRUsers.com

G'day

It's time to lengthen the available focal lengths. Budget is a factor, and spending must be below $1,700. Usage will mainly be for animal life, I've never tried sports or motors but perhaps an option to work in that environment would be good.

I have a Dee300 so I can handle any lens, Gillian uses a Dee40ex so the lens must have it's own focussing motor. I currently have Nikon 18-200 lens, Gillian has Nikon 18-55 and 55-200VR lenses.

For longer focal lengths within budget, I see two main options.

1) Manfrotto 055XDB tripod with 804RC2 Pan/Tilt Head + Sigma 50-500mm
2) Manfrotto 055XDB tripod with 804RC2 Pan/Tilt Head + Sigma 70-200mm + 2 times tc

Will the tripod do a good job with the weight of either option? I do not want to find later a legs/head upgrade is needed.

Any views on the lens options? Especially in the 300-400 range? How much better is the 70-200 than the 50-500 in the 100-200 range?

Thanks in advance

Bob (and Gillian)

Bob, I pesronally think the 70-200 Sigma is a great lens, I was very impressed with Chris (sirhc55). One thing to think of, the 50-500 is 1.84kg, the 70-200 1.38kg. On days where you didn't need the extra reach, the 1/2 kg may be a lot and after using a 70-200 I doubt you would use the 18-200 in that range by choice.

I would choose based on where you think you will spend most of your time, if it is under 200 get the 70 -200 +TC, if over 200 pick the 50-500.

F2.8 is always nice

Despite my love of the Sigma 70-200, I found in suffered when using a 2x TC from softness.

If sharpness is important (for feather or fur) I would be tempted by the 50-500. You might find this also focuses reasonably quickly with the D300 also (several lenses seem to already).

Happy lens hunting.

i have read reviews about the new 70-200,some of the reviewers stated that this lens over heats, i don't know if this is true

i think Big Pix has the 50-500 and has taken some great shots with it.

Raskill wrote:If sharpness is important (for feather or fur) I would be tempted by the 50-500.

Bob,

If sharpness is important, (when is it not?) then I'd look at either the Nikon 80-400VR or the Nikon 70-200VR (plus the 1.7 TC for reach) or the Siggy 70-200: as Glen says, Chris turns out wonderfully sharp images with the Siggy.

I have not seen a great deal of satisfaction from owners of the 50-500; I know of but one happy camper with it, and I know of heaps who have moved to something else in its stead.

re your question on the tripod i have an old optek, it holds my d50 +Nikon f4 300mm...2.3 kgs with the teleconverter.

I had the 50-500 for my Pentax. I found it a good lens but had never used any serious glass to compare. A few shots with it all shot hand held, propped up against the sides of a car/truck mostly depending on what we were in for that part of the trip.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/dawesy/art/45472-11-zebra-serengeti-tanzania
http://www.redbubble.com/people/dawesy/art/41624-11-african-buffalo
http://www.redbubble.com/people/dawesy/art/32746-10-cheetah-awakened

I could drag out EXIF if you want more detail.

Can't really comment on the others as have never owned or used.

gstark wrote:If sharpness is important, (when is it not?) then I'd look at either the Nikon 80-400VR or the Nikon 70-200VR (plus the 1.7 TC for reach)

Yup, either of those options would be nice (esp #2), BUT the budget is $1,700 including the tripod.

Cheers
Bob

all shot with the 50-500........

http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/3188300_Z5ena#162369873

The 80-400VR fits within your price range and is a super lens. I would not look past it.

gstark wrote:

Raskill wrote:If sharpness is important (for feather or fur) I would be tempted by the 50-500.

Bob,

If sharpness is important, (when is it not?) then I'd look at either the Nikon 80-400VR or the Nikon 70-200VR (plus the 1.7 TC for reach) or the Siggy 70-200: as Glen says, Chris turns out wonderfully sharp images with the Siggy.

I have not seen a great deal of satisfaction from owners of the 50-500; I know of but one happy camper with it, and I know of heaps who have moved to something else in its stead.

Gary, he's restricted to sub $1700. You rarely see a 70-200 VR under that price. Rarely, but not impossible. You can pick up an 80 - 400 Nikkor for very slightly over that amount, but my understanding is it's image quality is similar to the 50-500.

You can turn out very sharp images with the Sigma 70-200, as sharp as the Nikkor version, but not after you attach a 2x TC. I had this set up, and it turned me off TC's for a long time.

Alan

Raskill wrote:Gary, he's restricted to sub $1700. You rarely see a 70-200 VR under that price. Rarely, but not impossible. You can pick up an 80 - 400 Nikkor for very slightly over that amount, but my understanding is it's image quality is similar to the 50-500.

The 80-400 should be around the 1500-1600 mark, from HKG. There is no comparison with the image quality of the 50-500; the 80-400 is in another league altogether. I have made an image - which included a chain wire fence in very sharp focus - that was about a half KM away. Think about that.

Most people who buy the 50-500 instead of the 80-400 eventually (often within a few months) move to the Nikkor. I have seen that happen time and time again; I know of just one person who is satisfied with the 50-500.

You can turn out very sharp images with the Sigma 70-200, as sharp as the Nikkor version, but not after you attach a 2x TC. I had this set up, and it turned me off TC's for a long time.

That's why the Nikkor represents better value, longer term. It always comes back to the simple question: "how many times do I want to make this purchase?" Most people buying the 50-500 make the same purchase at least one more time. That greatly increases their total expenditure. I prefer to just short circuit that process and try to make the correct purchase first time out.

Thanks for your contribution all.

The tripod and Bigma have been ordered. Tripod from Stu at Quality Cameras, the lens through Quikshop.com.au

I do hope that the Bigma does not turn out out to be a buy now replace later option, but if that is so, then so be it. The Nikon 80-400VR was not an option in the budget of $1600 ($1,700 max) and that amount HAD to include a suitable tripod, there was also a secondary constraint of payment via a UK credit card which meant puchase via the forum or direct from hksupplies.com was not an option.

The opportunity for the purchase was a generous one-off and time limited gift from a friend and I am not in a position to supplement the purchasing budget.

Thanks all
Bob (in Bull Creek)

Bob, have you seen this post here mentioning Quickshop and there are a few more on Whirlpool