Lens #6 ???

18-270

18-270

Messages
1,114
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I need some opinions/help on my next lens. Ok the remit...

1. I need to have a greater focal length than 300mm
2. It needs to be fast and sharp in low light (I have the Nikon TC-20E II on the 70-200 2.8 and no matter what it still remains a little soft)
3. It will be used for mainly motorsport, but the occasional day out shooting wildlife will happen.
4. I'm not a millionaire. So at very VERY most the budget it 1.5K.... ish :thinking:

My first thought is the Nikon 80-400 any users of this lens have a word of advice? Anybody else use something a little different and get good results?
Thanks in advance :thumbs:

My current bag
Lens #1 Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (I've fallen in love) :love:
Lens #2 Nikon 24-70mm AF-S f/2.8G ED (was always on the camera until I got the 50!) :'(
Lens #3 Nikon 70-200mm AF-S f/2.8 VR IF-ED (Because I must stop time from afar!) :D
Lens #4 Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 Di II VC (trust me it's a great light country walk lens!)
Lens #5 Nikon 18-55 kit lens from a D60 (ok I know...) :bang:
Lens #6 ???
 
Nikon 80-400 is a very good,fairly compact, high quality zoom, but by christ is the AF slow.If you need quick AF,look elsewhere.

Try the Sigma 120-300 coupled to a 1.4tc, fabulous piece of kit, though it ain`t a Tamron.........:D
 
fracster said:
Nikon 80-400 is a very good,fairly compact, high quality zoom, but by christ is the AF slow.If you need quick AF,look elsewhere.

Try the Sigma 120-300 coupled to a 1.4tc, fabulous piece of kit, though it ain`t a Tamron.........:D
Click to expand...
.

LOL I only like two Tameron lenses the 18-270 and the 90mm Macro, the rest have much better options. For eg, the 70-200 F2.8 is a dog and should never be bought! (Sorry if you already own it) :cuckoo:
 
18-270 said:
.

LOL I only like two Tameron lenses the 18-270 and the 90mm Macro, the rest have much better options. For eg, the 70-200 F2.8 is a dog and should never be bought! (Sorry if you already own it) :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

No I don`t, but I do like my little 17-50 Tamron......:thumbs:
 
my mates got the sigma and loves it amazing moon photos taken with it and awesome at the RSPB reserve in minnsmere deffo worth looking at IMO
 
Joe T said:
It's not bad at all with a 1.4x - giving you 420mm - is that not enough? :)
Click to expand...

I bought 1.4 today and left it in work :bang:

I will try it on the Nikon 70-200 and see how much sharper it is, but I still really like the idea of that Sigma 150-500 as I can get it for almost £700... I could sell just one child and have the change!
 
18-270 said:
Ohhh now that's interesting! (good suggest!) Anyone have this lens to give me a first hand account of it!?
Click to expand...

this lens does produce top quality images, but does need alot of light and at 500mm i find i need mine at f8 to produce image sharpness im happy with.
heres some samples.
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/DSC_3285.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/perigrinefalcon1.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/DSC_0417c.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/DSC_3498-1.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/b1.jpg
http://i727.photobucket.com/albums/ww272/scottthehat/internet site 200kb pics/DSC_0672.jpg
 
i picked up a sigma 500mm f4.5 within your budget last year. i couldnt be happier with it. it is honestly superb wide open and with it being slightly smaller than the f4's i find i can easily handhold it in decent light. if you ever see a second hand one of these knocking about i would definately recommend taking it for a demo to see if you like it. the only thing i would add would be vr but then im not a millionare either!!
 
355858 said:
lol, thats better...
80-400 is supposed to be good but for tht price have you though about this:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-150-500mm-f5-6-3-dg-os-hsm-lens-nikon-fit/p1025306
Click to expand...

Not a great lens, slow autofocus, probably as bad a nikon 80-400mm, soft at 500mm, well really 450mm, not true 500mm, f6.3, you'll need some good light to get the best from that lens. Definitely not a great lens for motorsport.

1. I need to have a greater focal length than 300mm ✓
2. It needs to be fast and sharp in low light (I have the Nikon TC-20E II on the 70-200 2.8 and no matter what it still remains a little soft) X
3. It will be used for mainly motorsport, but the occasional day out shooting wildlife will happen. X motorsport / ✓ wildlife
4. I'm not a millionaire. So at very VERY most the budget it 1.5K.... ish ✓

You would better off getting the 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 than the 150-500mm f5-6.3

An alternative is the sigma 100-300mm f4, great lens, takes the 1.4x TC well, or you could look at a prime like the nikon 300mm f4, which also takes a 1.4x or 1.7x TC well or as suggested, the sigma 120-300mm f2.8, takes a TC well, fast autofocus, ideal lens for motorsport, but it would be a 2nd hand model as prices new are over £2000.

Not sure you would get a 300mm f2.8 2nd hand for £1500, I paid considerable more for my canon 300mm f2.8 2nd hand and new prices for both lenses are similar in price, maybe the non VR model.
 
burrachaga said:
i picked up a sigma 500mm f4.5 within your budget last year. i couldnt be happier with it. it is honestly superb wide open and with it being slightly smaller than the f4's i find i can easily handhold it in decent light. if you ever see a second hand one of these knocking about i would definately recommend taking it for a demo to see if you like it. the only thing i would add would be vr but then im not a millionare either!!
Click to expand...

I used to own a Sigma 500 f4.5 (on a Canon) and would agree that it is a very good lens for the money. Fast AF, great image quality (even wide open) and it took a 1.4x tc with no real issues. Sure it's not as good as a Canon/Nikon 500 f4 but for the money they are very hard to beat. Other thank that the already suggested option of a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 or a 300 f2.8 prime would seem like good options. Much smaller and lighter than a 500 prime, work well with tcs (so I've heard, not used one in the field so can't really comment) and has the f2.8 when you need it.
 
burrachaga said:
i picked up a sigma 500mm f4.5 within your budget last year. i couldnt be happier with it. it is honestly superb wide open and with it being slightly smaller than the f4's i find i can easily handhold it in decent light. if you ever see a second hand one of these knocking about i would definately recommend taking it for a demo to see if you like it. the only thing i would add would be vr but then im not a millionare either!!
Click to expand...

I will have to track down a lens rental place around me and take a look :thumbs:

pete.rush said:
Not a great lens, slow autofocus, probably as bad a nikon 80-400mm, soft at 500mm, well really 450mm, not true 500mm, f6.3, you'll need some good light to get the best from that lens. Definitely not a great lens for motorsport.

1. I need to have a greater focal length than 300mm ✓
2. It needs to be fast and sharp in low light (I have the Nikon TC-20E II on the 70-200 2.8 and no matter what it still remains a little soft) X
3. It will be used for mainly motorsport, but the occasional day out shooting wildlife will happen. X motorsport / ✓ wildlife
4. I'm not a millionaire. So at very VERY most the budget it 1.5K.... ish ✓

You would better off getting the 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 than the 150-500mm f5-6.3

An alternative is the sigma 100-300mm f4, great lens, takes the 1.4x TC well, or you could look at a prime like the nikon 300mm f4, which also takes a 1.4x or 1.7x TC well or as suggested, the sigma 120-300mm f2.8, takes a TC well, fast autofocus, ideal lens for motorsport, but it would be a 2nd hand model as prices new are over £2000.

Not sure you would get a 300mm f2.8 2nd hand for £1500, I paid considerable more for my canon 300mm f2.8 2nd hand and new prices for both lenses are similar in price, maybe the non VR model.
Click to expand...

I now have the 1.4x TC as well as the 2.0x TC so I'll have to take some time to look at the 120-300 with both convertors and see if the jump in cost will be worth the extra 100mm from my 200mm. The prime does appeal but the fixed composition options with a prime track side may put me off more than the price.

postcardcv said:
I used to own a Sigma 500 f4.5 (on a Canon) and would agree that it is a very good lens for the money. Fast AF, great image quality (even wide open) and it took a 1.4x tc with no real issues. Sure it's not as good as a Canon/Nikon 500 f4 but for the money they are very hard to beat. Other thank that the already suggested option of a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 or a 300 f2.8 prime would seem like good options. Much smaller and lighter than a 500 prime, work well with tcs (so I've heard, not used one in the field so can't really comment) and has the f2.8 when you need it.
Click to expand...

Yeah the 120-300 f2.8 or a 300 f2.8 prime are now of more interest. Still can't help but try and get a 150-500 in and try that as well, the 500mm at such low cost appeals. With a 1.4X TC could I move over the 500mm and remain sharp?
 
burrachaga said:
i picked up a sigma 500mm f4.5 within your budget last year. i couldnt be happier with it. it is honestly superb wide open and with it being slightly smaller than the f4's i find i can easily handhold it in decent light. if you ever see a second hand one of these knocking about i would definately recommend taking it for a demo to see if you like it. the only thing i would add would be vr but then im not a millionare either!!
Click to expand...

I had one of those, soft and lacked contrast, traded it for the 200-400, would not suggest the OP bought one without trying it first, as I suspect sample variation is at work, plus I would imagine even now these are going to be in excess of £2000 used. To be honest my 300 f4 + 1.7TC gives better results.

To the OP 300 f4 AF-S works great with the 1.4 & 1.7TC, image quality far superior to the 80-400, and to those Sigma Zooms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top