My wife currently has the 70-300 AF-S VR lens which is a great lens for the money. In reality I think it's regarded as great 70-200 and ok 200-300 although personally I think it's worth every penny given what it delivers. My wife has hankered after a bit more length for some time (I'm assuming she means focal length), but the reality is that longer focal length means big weight. Anyway the subject has come up again and I think it might be time to bite the bullet. It basically comes down to three options:
1. Sigma 150-500 - Great bang for your buck up to (So the reviews say) 400mm. It is not an exotic but can deliver as many of Jake's pictures demonstrate. Out of the options here this is definitely the biggest and heaviest lens which is not good for this requirement. This is a lens that is really suited to outdoor stuff where focal length is required given the aperture.
2. New 80-400AF-S. Gets great reviews and probably has the edge optically over my other choices. The downsides are price and aperture. It's not a trinity or exotic telephoto so it's been priced purely on a pent up demand for a replacement of the old lens. It will either stay at the inflated price or current buyers will kick themselves when it drops. It also requires a £150 Kirk collar to replace the tat that comes with it. This is a lens that is really suited to outdoor stuff where focal length is required given the aperture. For that purpose alone I think this would be the one to go with.
3. 70-200 2.8 VR II +TC-20e III. I already have this combo so I know what it's like as you can see here. I use that example as it's handheld and wide open at F5.6. On that basis any blurred or unsharp images that I take must be my failing not the camera and lens, although the lens and body has been to Nikon to be AF tuned as it was out of range. Whilst I haven't compared the two options, I suspect this is not quite as good optically as the 80-400, but better than the 150-500, although that's also based on reviews rather than real world experience so don't shoot me if you know otherwise. Even if those suggestions are wrong I know this combo can deliver, however, more importantly it gives two options because it turns into a completely different top notch 70-200 when the TC is removed which is good indoors and out. In reality I use mine more without the TC that with it.
My question is, has anybody used option 1 and 3 or even 1,2 and 3 such that they can dispute my logic of recommending option 3?
For selfish reasons I'd recommend the 80-400 as I'd like to have a play with it
but I don't think she would be happy if we were out and I took the TC off mine and carried on shooting as the light went down.
1. Sigma 150-500 - Great bang for your buck up to (So the reviews say) 400mm. It is not an exotic but can deliver as many of Jake's pictures demonstrate. Out of the options here this is definitely the biggest and heaviest lens which is not good for this requirement. This is a lens that is really suited to outdoor stuff where focal length is required given the aperture.
2. New 80-400AF-S. Gets great reviews and probably has the edge optically over my other choices. The downsides are price and aperture. It's not a trinity or exotic telephoto so it's been priced purely on a pent up demand for a replacement of the old lens. It will either stay at the inflated price or current buyers will kick themselves when it drops. It also requires a £150 Kirk collar to replace the tat that comes with it. This is a lens that is really suited to outdoor stuff where focal length is required given the aperture. For that purpose alone I think this would be the one to go with.
3. 70-200 2.8 VR II +TC-20e III. I already have this combo so I know what it's like as you can see here. I use that example as it's handheld and wide open at F5.6. On that basis any blurred or unsharp images that I take must be my failing not the camera and lens, although the lens and body has been to Nikon to be AF tuned as it was out of range. Whilst I haven't compared the two options, I suspect this is not quite as good optically as the 80-400, but better than the 150-500, although that's also based on reviews rather than real world experience so don't shoot me if you know otherwise. Even if those suggestions are wrong I know this combo can deliver, however, more importantly it gives two options because it turns into a completely different top notch 70-200 when the TC is removed which is good indoors and out. In reality I use mine more without the TC that with it.
My question is, has anybody used option 1 and 3 or even 1,2 and 3 such that they can dispute my logic of recommending option 3?
For selfish reasons I'd recommend the 80-400 as I'd like to have a play with it
but I don't think she would be happy if we were out and I took the TC off mine and carried on shooting as the light went down.