Beginner Sigma 150-500 F5, 0-6, 3 DG HSM for Nikon D5100?

[rebdix]

I was asking about a nikon AF-S 70-300 before but would also like to know if anyone knows anything about this tele? for tennis photos, outdoors players moving about 10-20 metres away from me? apart from the weight and price what is the difference between this and a lighter 70-300? I am a beginner so need help please.

 

[StewartR]

apart from the weight and price what is the difference between this and a lighter 70-300?

Well, the most obvious difference is that one is 70-300mm and the other is 150-600mm.

This affects how much you can get in your frame, and potentially to a critical extent.

Let's say you want to get a full-length picture of a player serving, like this one of Serena Williams.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2015-01/31/c_133961373.htm

The field of view of that picture is roughly 3m tall. So to get that without cropping, your distance from the subject needs to be (roughly):
9m away with a 70m lens
20m away with a 150mm lens
40m away with a 300mm lens
60m away with a 500mm lens

Or say you want to get a tight crop like this photo of Roger Federer in the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...ai-duty-free-tennis-borna-coric-tomas-berdych

The field of view of that picture is roughly 1m wide. So to get that without cropping, your distance from the subject needs to be (roughly):
3m away with a 70m lens
6m away with a 150mm lens
12m away with a 300mm lens
20m away with a 500mm lens

This is all very approximate, but I hope it gives you a feel for it.

 

[rebdix]

thanks for this and for me to understand very easy and clear explanation

 

[gad-westy]

The 150-500 is a nice lens if you find a good one but there are some bad ones out there too. I guess they stopped making them now? So if buying used, I'd see if you can at least look at sample shots or ideally try before you buy. Sounds like overkill for your use though. The 70-300 will be lighter, faster to focus and actually has a wider aperture available at 300mm.

If you are in the mood for spending more though, you could look at the myriad of 70-200 f/2.8 options or even the Nikon 70-200 f/4. Sounds perfect for your usage but expensive and heavy. The 70-300 will be fine though.

 

[big soft moose]

Ive got the canon version of the150-500 (iritatingly they launched the 150-600 just after i bought) and since getting it (and its predecessor the 170-500 non OS) I hardly use my 90-300. The only proviso to that is weight - if i'm going for a long walk and just want more reach its the 300 that goes in the bag , but if i'm going out shooting nature or sport I always choose the longer lens.

If you were in a spending mood i'd suggest a sigma 120-300 f2.8 which works well with a TC , but they are a lot more expensive and pretty heavy