Next lens purchase. What would you do?

benjo09

benjo09

Messages
82
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
So a bit of background on me. I've had my D3100 for 2 or 3 years now and started with the 18-55mm kit lens. I then bought a Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro as a very cheap entry into longer focal lengths and finally I bought a Nikon 35mm 1.8G as a fast, cheap lens.

Now I'm looking at one of 2 options., either a UWA say Sigma 10-20mm or Tokina 11-16mm or a better telephoto like the Tamron SP AF 70-300 F/4-5.6 Di VC USD or Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM.

I'm thinking of getting a better telephoto as I enjoy sports photography (mainly golf), wildlife and air shows when I get the chance and feel my current Sigma misses out on image stabilisation and image quality. The UWA would have limited use but would be good when visiting cities. I recently visited Dubai and the 18mm wasn't quite wide enough.

So which would you choose?

- The Sigma 150-500mm looks great but would take a a few months to save for. It would also leave a massive gap between 55-150mm so I would have to save for the Nikon 18-140mm. This looks a good option to me but it would be right at the end of my budget and I'd have that gap for a little while.
- The Tamron 70-300mm seems to get great reviews and would allow me to get a UWA as well and not be left with gaps in my range.

The 2 telephotos I think are as fast as each other so which would you choose if this was your dilemma?
 
The Tamron 70-300 VC is a very good lens, and great value, easy to use and very versatile. Sigma 150-500 is big, heavy, and much more specialised. Not a bad lens for the money, but get to try one before you buy.
 
Just to add another option... The Sigma 50-500. A bit (quite a big bit) more expensive than the 150-500 but allegedly better than the 150-500 and wouldn't leave a gap to fill in the focal length range.

However, as Hoppy said, it's a big, heavy lump to carry round; in fact, I ended up trading mine in since I couldn't be bothered lugging it about and kept my 70-300 as my longest lens.
 
The Tammy 70-300 VC really is a nice lens, i had the cheaper Tammy 70-300 non VC, then upgraded to the VC after only a few months and was very happy with the results, i have now moved on to a 300mm f4 prime as i wanted something faster (in both aperture and focus speed) than i could get from a Tele-zoom, that was mostly due to my move to shoot quite a bit of wildlife and the odd airshow

As for the dilemma about losing 55-150mm focal range, how often do you actually shoot between those ranges. The reason i ask this is when i moved from the 70-300 to the 300mm i had a similar dilemma, but once i looked back through my photos and sorting them via focal length, i found that 95% of my shots with the Tele-zoom were shot at maximum reach anyway, with about another 3% shot at around 200mm, and the remainder below that, so in reality i was only losing the ability to shot a very small % of my shots, and since going down the 300mm prime route i have only had a couple of occasions i wish i had a tele-zoom, as opposed to the many many more i was glad to have the speed of the prime

I'm not saying for one second you should look at primes, but my point is, have a look at how often you shoot at different focal lengths and you might find the choice a little easier to make

Just to make the point, the other lenses i have are a Sigma 17-50 and a Tokina 12-28, so i have nothing in the range from 50-300mm o_O
 
Thanks for the replies.

HoppyUK thanks for mentioning to try the Sigma before buying. I knew it was big but I didn't realise how big! Just seen some users own pictures of it on Flickr and as a replacement for my 70-300 that I will quite happily walk around all day with, I think its too big. I'm still going to pop in to a shop and try it though just to be sure.

rpsmith79 I've had a look and you're right about focal lengths. I shot (with my camera ;)) the deer in Richmond Park this week and 90% of my shots were between 220 and 300mm. The only times I went lower were when a doe walked right up to me and when I was getting a landscape shot and didn't want to change lenses.

I did find though that 300mm wasn't often long enough when trying to catch a heron in the pond. But seeing as how little I shoot birds, although I enjoy it, it isn't worth it to getter the bigger, heavier, more expensive lens. I will go to a shop though and try the two but I think I know what I'm going to do. Some of the shots with the 150-500mm on Flickr though look fantastic.
 
Hi mate, I've owned both the Tamron 70-300 vc and currently own the 150-500 os. Both are great lenses. The vc/os is superb on both lenses and both focus reasonably quick for such big focal ranges. The Siggy is obviously huge in comparison, but it depends if that's the way you want to take your photography.
 
Well I decided on the Tamron in the end as I just couldn't justify the extra cost for a lens I may end up using lots but was unsure of. I haven't used it properly yet as it only arrived yesterday but I'm amazed by the VC. It really does stop the viewfinder dead.

On the plus size of having a shorter focal length I can now afford an UWA and a replacement kit lens for about the price of the Sigma 50-500.
 
benjo09 said:
Well I decided on the Tamron in the end as I just couldn't justify the extra cost for a lens I may end up using lots but was unsure of. I haven't used it properly yet as it only arrived yesterday but I'm amazed by the VC. It really does stop the viewfinder dead.

On the plus size of having a shorter focal length I can now afford an UWA and a replacement kit lens for about the price of the Sigma 50-500.
Click to expand...

Good choice, i'm sure you will enjoy it

I'm actually thinking of buying another one myself as i traded mine in against a 300mm f4, but i'd quite like one as a walkabout/travel lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top