Sigma 50-500 or Sigma 70-200 + 2*tc

[BullcreekBob]

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)

[Glen]

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

[Raskill]

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.

[Pa]

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.

[gstark]

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.

[Pa]

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

[dawesy]

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.

[BullcreekBob]

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

[big pix]

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

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

[Oneputt]

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

[Raskill]

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.

[gstark]

Alan

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.

[BullcreekBob]

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)

[Glen]

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