which one??

Roy1961

Senior Member
Contributor
thinking hard on a new lens, my choice is between the 200-500 nikon or the 60-600 sigma, i am edging towards the sigma since i have the 50-500, i really like the range, any thing you can add to convince / change my decision??

Pros for and against are welcome, yes if i went for the nikon i would get a 1.4 converter, but i love getting down to 60mm on the sigma. Would love to be able to shoot at F5.6 (simga is a F9 best/sharpest)

Dilemma.......

More research time required.
 

Bengan

Senior Member
I can only say that having bought the 200-500 and the 1.4 TC I'm very impressed. AF is very good and Nikons 1.4 TC is the best I've ever seen or heard of. Nikon 200-500 VR is a little bit better (if only about ½ a step).
The pros for the Sigma: USB dock gives the possibility to fine tune AF for several focal lengths and install new firmware.
I don't think the extra reach has any real value since it is a bit soft.
 

Andy W

Senior Member
Since you would like getting down to 60mm, it seems to me that the Sigma would be the better fit. Pros: weather sealing and USB dock. Cons: weighs 6.5 lbs.
 

Patrick M

Senior Member
The Nikon 200-500;is superb.
Heavy though. I used a wimberley monogimbel on a monopod on a trip in February to Antarctica and it was awesome! Several photographers on the cruise had gear envy! Lol
I can’t comment on sigma.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

TwistedThrottle

Senior Member
I don't have either but I do have the 150-600 Sigma (C). It has a pretty specific use- when I cant use my other lenses to get that far, used 99% of the time for birds. Its heavier than any of my other lenses so I only take it when I plan to shoot long. Having the flexibility of 60-600 is tempting, but personally I would find it too heavy to carry around for anything other than the long end. The only reason I would look into the 60-600 is if I did not have (or didn't want) the option to swap lenses. What is your experience with the 50-500? Do you find the weight is limiting on when or how you use the lens? I must say that I am impressed with the IQ of both Sigma lenses I have. Both are zooms and both have been fine tuned with the USB dock at 4 different focal lengths at 4 different distances (16 adjustments). The 200-500 can only be generally fine tuned in camera. Many times, if tuning for the long end, the short end suffers and vise versa. Although in camera fine tune works fine for primes, zooms benefit a bit more with the flexibility provided by the docks from Sigma and Tamron. Plus, always having the ability to upgrade firmware through the dock beats sending the lens into the factory for an upgrade.
 

Patrick M

Senior Member
I don't have either but I do have the 150-600 Sigma (C). It has a pretty specific use- when I cant use my other lenses to get that far, used 99% of the time for birds. Its heavier than any of my other lenses so I only take it when I plan to shoot long. Having the flexibility of 60-600 is tempting, but personally I would find it too heavy to carry around for anything other than the long end. The only reason I would look into the 60-600 is if I did not have (or didn't want) the option to swap lenses. What is your experience with the 50-500? Do you find the weight is limiting on when or how you use the lens? I must say that I am impressed with the IQ of both Sigma lenses I have. Both are zooms and both have been fine tuned with the USB dock at 4 different focal lengths at 4 different distances (16 adjustments). The 200-500 can only be generally fine tuned in camera. Many times, if tuning for the long end, the short end suffers and vise versa. Although in camera fine tune works fine for primes, zooms benefit a bit more with the flexibility provided by the docks from Sigma and Tamron. Plus, always having the ability to upgrade firmware through the dock beats sending the lens into the factory for an upgrade.

As I only needed the long end of the 200-500 I tuned it for the best I could between 400-500. It really didn’t need it tbh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Roy1961

Senior Member
Contributor
no i don't notice the weight on the 50-500, I've had it for 7 years so maybe i am used to it??

i usually dont change lenses when i am out.

going to be a tough call

Thanks for your responses.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I'm such a big fan of the 200-500 that it's impossible for me to be unbiased, and I have no experience ta all with the Sigma. That said, the extra weight of the Sigma would make it a no go for me. I'd rather carry an extra lens. In fact, what I do is carry another body with a shorter lens in a backpack. In the end, it all comes down to what is most comfortable and fits your individual needs.
 

Patrick M

Senior Member
I loved the 200-500 but I sold it to fund the purchase of my z6.
Why? To be honest, I realised in 2 years I took it for 2 weeks to Antarctica...it’s only outing. Seemed a waste. In a way I regret selling it, but it’s done. I’m more travel, street , landscape, than wildlife or sport.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

ricfara

New member
i've bought an old 70-200 f2.8 tokina to shoot at motorsport event. unfortunately it seems too short for some circuits, so i was looking at 200-500 as best option. but in your case i think that depends on the type of pics you take: for nature/animals photos is fine to have that range, but my doubt on motorsport is for wider photos performed with panning that you may need to go under 200


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Top