Should i sell?!

E

EYE_ON_ME

Messages
1,378
Name
Brendan
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I'm in a pickle at the moment, I have the nikon 70-200 vr1 and the nikon TC 2xIII, but I rarely use the 70-200 without the TC on. I would like a bit reach! So I was looking at selling them and getting the new sigma 50-500os as I keep hearing good things about it, also I wouldnt have to keep changing the TC etc. Is it worth selling just to get the 100mm reach? I will be using
It on the d700.

Any input would be great!
 
personally i would stay with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR1

Is a great lens with great optic and thats for sure. With the 70-200 you have to option to use the 70-200 f2.8 on its own if you either needed.
 
if you use the 70-200mm alot with out a tc its worth keeping but if you use it alot with a tc its worth looking at, have you got somewhere you can go try the sigma. i have a 70-200mm and the 50-500mm os the sigma is my fav lens and the image quality is up there with my nikon pro lenses, and the os is better than my nikon vr lenses.
i use my 50-500mm os on my d700 for rugby mostly, but for wildlife on my d300.
 
scottthehat said:
if you use the 70-200mm alot with out a tc its worth keeping but if you use it alot with a tc its worth looking at, have you got somewhere you can go try the sigma. i have a 70-200mm and the 50-500mm os the sigma is my fav lens and the image quality is up there with my nikon pro lenses, and the os is better than my nikon vr lenses.
i use my 50-500mm os on my d700 for rugby mostly, but for wildlife on my d300.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I only really use them at 400mm 95% of the time. As I have the 24-70 for portraits/landscape. I would love a prime 300mm but that's a no no :( hmm I really don't know.
 
if you use up to 400mm have you thought of getting a used Nikon 80-400 VR?

Those goes for around £550-700 used
 
badboy1984 said:
if you use up to 400mm have you thought of getting a used Nikon 80-400 VR?

Those goes for around £550-700 used
Click to expand...

I think that might be a step backwards from the 70-200+TC 2xIII as the autofocus is slow?! Correct me if I'm wrong?
 
This is how i see it, most likely you gonna use the lens during day time since both Nikon 80-400 and Sigma 50-500 is a slow lens to use at low light etc.

VR and OS which is better i not sure, i haven't use the Sigma before but the Nikon seems to do the job ok for me when i try my friends.

I see where you coming from on the focus speed. The Sigma is HSM and the Nikon is AF-D
 
Last edited:
badboy1984 said:
This is how i see it, most likely you gonna use the lens during day time since both Nikon 80-400 and Sigma 50-500 is a slow lens to use at low light etc.

VR and OS which is better i not sure, i haven't use the Sigma before but the Nikon seems to do the job ok for me when i try my friends.

I see where you coming from on the focus speed. The Sigma is HSM and the Nikon is AF-D
Click to expand...

There is no comparison the sigma has much better af and has the best image stabilization of any lens or camera i have used.
 
EYE_ON_ME said:
Thanks, I only really use them at 400mm 95% of the time. As I have the 24-70 for portraits/landscape. I would love a prime 300mm but that's a no no :( hmm I really don't know.
Click to expand...

Why not the 300mm AFS F4? Too slow?

I suppose it would only be F8 on your 2x but I bet the IQ would be superb.

That said I know the 50-500 OS is meant to be quite special. I wonder how the max aperture at 400mm compares to your current set up.
 
gad-westy said:
Why not the 300mm AFS F4? Too slow?

I suppose it would only be F8 on your 2x but I bet the IQ would be superb.

That said I know the 50-500 OS is meant to be quite special. I wonder how the max aperture at 400mm compares to your current set up.
Click to expand...

I did think about the 300mm f4 but not 100% sold on it at the moment as the sigma looks really good. I wish some ships near me had the sigma in stock lol
 
scottthehat said:
Well i will keep saying it its my fav lens even over my nikon pro glass. Have you thought about the sigma 120-300 mm os with tc.
Click to expand...

I know you keep saying it lol every thread I see about the 50-500os your in it lol, is the 120-300os the same price of the 50-500os.
 
EYE_ON_ME said:
I know you keep saying it lol every thread I see about the 50-500os your in it lol, is the 120-300os the same price of the 50-500os.
Click to expand...
no its not the same price(should of asked your budget) i cant help but big it up, people slate sigma lenses but i think they have defo got it right with the 50-500mm os and the 120-300mm os,
 
scottthehat said:
no its not the same price(should of asked your budget) i cant help but big it up, people slate sigma lenses but i think they have defo got it right with the 50-500mm os and the 120-300mm os,
Click to expand...

Well my budget is around £1400, which of the two sigma's is the best? I really need to find a review of them two.
 
would help if we knew what you would photographing with the 50-500mm.

Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 is about £1000 new
Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is about £2100 new for OS or £1500 for non OS

My reservations with the 50-500mm would be that it ain't a fast lens, f6.3 at 500mm, in good light no problems, step down to F8 and perhaps some sharper images (wildlife and motorsport) than I've seen at f6.3 which seem to me to be a tad soft.

The sigma 120-300mm had some issue with quality control and back focusing, I've been informed that the new OS model has improved on those issue, but a very good lens for the money, sharp and fast focusing and a lot less than the Nikon 200-400mm f4.

The Nikon 300mm f4 and 1.4x or 1.7x TC work very well as a package, check the motorsport forum for desantnik posts, he uses one and I've used the canon 300mm f4 and TC's for years with great results, bought the f2.8 version as well and been very impressed with the results. (I assume nikon's version just as good)

As an example for a images with a prime lens

300mm f2.8 + (2x + 1.4x TC stacked)
IMG_6377_copy_1.jpg


or both images below with a 300mm f4 + 1.4x TC
IMG_8000_copy_1.jpg


IMG_7959_copy_1.jpg


Peter
 
Last edited:
pete.rush said:
would help if we knew what you would photographing with the 50-500mm.

Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 is about £1000 new
Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is about £2100 new for OS or £1500 for non OS

My reservations with the 50-500mm would be that it ain't a fast lens, f6.3 at 500mm, in good light no problems, step down to F8 and perhaps some sharper images (wildlife and motorsport) than I've seen at f6.3 which seem to me to be a tad soft.

The sigma 120-300mm had some issue with quality control and back focusing, I've been informed that the new OS model has improved on those issue, but a very good lens for the money, sharp and fast focusing and a lot less than the Nikon 200-400mm f4.

The Nikon 300mm f4 and 1.4x or 1.7x TC work very well as a package, check the motorsport forum for desantnik posts, he uses one and I've used the canon 300mm f4 and TC's for years with great results, bought the f2.8 version as well and been very impressed with the results. (I assume nikon's version just as good)

As an example for a images with a prime lens

300mm f2.8 + (2x + 1.4x TC stacked)

or both images below with a 300mm f4 + 1.4x TC

Peter
Click to expand...

I didn't realise the sigma 120-300 was so much :( I will be using the lens for wildlife, planes, surfing. It will also be at the long end. Maybe it's best to stick with what I got?! I did have the old 50-500 on my D90 and loved it but the fact I couldn't use it in low light made me sell it, but with the iso on the D700 the new one should be better?
 
Last edited:
You would be better keeping what you've got and using them on a crop sensor. You have a great combination there. You will regret letting them go..

kev.
 
pete.rush said:
would help if we knew what you would photographing with the 50-500mm.

Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 is about £1000 new
Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is about £2100 new for OS or £1500 for non OS

My reservations with the 50-500mm would be that it ain't a fast lens, f6.3 at 500mm, in good light no problems, step down to F8 and perhaps some sharper images (wildlife and motorsport) than I've seen at f6.3 which seem to me to be a tad soft.


Peter
Click to expand...
have you used the new 50-500mm os peter, because all the os version i have seen have been nice and sharp, and mine is defo as sharp as my nikons without a doubt.
CCTVEDIT18.jpg


CCTVEDIT17.jpg


SJB_5011.jpg


SJB_7641.jpg


SJB_7591.jpg


SJB_7520.jpg

i could keep going.
 
The 50-500 OS I had was sharp open wide and the very good stabilisation made it easy to use even in cloudy conditions. For around £1000 it is one of the best wildlife lenses you can get IMHO
 
Actually thinking about it now and read more about the Sigma. i think i'm tempted to buy this Sigma 50-500 for my wild life use and keep my sigma 70-200 f2.8 for indoor use
 
Hopefully in a day or two I'll be able to help out a little - my 50-500 OS just arrived this morning, now I don't know the Nikon lenses but can compare to some of the best (budget) lenses Canon offer as I've had the 100-400 and 400 prime, both of which are top notch wildlife lenses.

Your thought on keeping the 2.8 seems a good one though as despite the great range of the 50-500 it will struggle with low light.
 
JohnN said:
Hopefully in a day or two I'll be able to help out a little - my 50-500 OS just arrived this morning, now I don't know the Nikon lenses but can compare to some of the best (budget) lenses Canon offer as I've had the 100-400 and 400 prime, both of which are top notch wildlife lenses.

Your thought on keeping the 2.8 seems a good one though as despite the great range of the 50-500 it will struggle with low light.
Click to expand...

Keep us updated with photos please :D
 
Scott I'm not doubting its performance under good conditions, but I would still have hesitations in using it especially for action photography in fading or poor light (especially at some rally stages or lowfly aviation photography where the lights continually changing).

Perhaps your D700 ISO performance enhances its capabilities a few degree's in poor light, and as a wildlife lens it ain't bad (very very good for the money) and you've taking some cracking shots.

As a action lens (unless the lights good) I still have very big doubts, but I'm sort of bias towards my primes. Canon hasn't really produced a decent fast zoom to match the sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and my longest zoom is only the 70-200mm. Shame Canon hasn't pull its finger (maybe something bigger) out of its ass and produce something to match Nikon's 200-400mm f4 and on current news, not going to happen very soon. :'(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top