Looking for a new lens option, which would you pick and why

jimbro

Senior Member
There are three lens options I'm looking at

Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200MM f2.8....with 2x AF converter. I know it's a great lens without it

Sigma 135-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO
Image not availablePhotos not available for this variation<style type="text/css">.vi-hide-mImgThr {display: none;}</style><img id="icImg" class="img img500" itemprop="image" src="http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Sigma-AF-170-500mm-f-5-6-3-APO-DG-Lens-/00/s/MTE1MVg4NDc=/z/WYIAAMXQTghRK8A4/$T2eC16J,!)kE9s4Z-5VwBRK8!4p5cg~~60_12.JPG" style="" clk="" />
Sigma 170-500mm f5-6.3 APO D

Mostly to be used to wildlife, airshows, sport, etc on my D200
Which would you recommend and why?


Image not availablePhotos not available for this variation<style type="text/css">.vi-hide-mImgThr {display: none;}</style><img id="icImg" class="img img500" itemprop="image" src="http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Sigma-AF-170-500mm-f-5-6-3-APO-DG-Lens-/00/s/MTE1MVg4NDc=/z/WYIAAMXQTghRK8A4/$T2eC16J,!)kE9s4Z-5VwBRK8!4p5cg~~60_12.JPG" style="" clk="" />
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
Hard to say since I have not tried the Sigma version but my experience with Sigma and other 3rd party lenses is that their AF is slower and noisier.

I would use a 2x TC on the 80-200mm f2.8. A 1.4 tc would be the most I would use in order to preserve some of the details.

BTW, use the link features so that the website that you are trying to share will work well.

A Nikon 300mm f4 might work better since you will be most likely shooting on the long end.
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
If you subject sits there under good light, higher f stop no problem. otherwise, if you increase iso, it is gong to be challenging. that is what i an facing now.
 

Epoc

Senior Member
Sigma 150-500. Few shots I took with it hooked up to my D7000 :)

ja5eqere.jpg


je6yhaju.jpg


qugyjumu.jpg
 

jimbro

Senior Member
I hadn't considered the 150-500mm Sigma when I posted this
Been looking at reviews on it and it gets good write ups and some great images taken with it

I've discounted the 170-500mm due to the reviews from owners on this site
Not too happy about having to use a 2x converter to reach just 400mm so the 80-200mm not looking like what I want

150-500mm looking good at the moment bearing in mind I'm not a professional, just a very enthusiastic amateur
If I make millions from my hobby, then I can buy all the long, fast Nikkor lenses:D

Until then, I think the 150-500mm Sigma would suit my needs(great shots BTW epoc)

Thank You guys
 

Epoc

Senior Member
Thanks. It's an awesome bang for bucks lens. One thing to note, it does like light. If your looking at any indoor shots, pretty well forget it. To get nice sharp images, it needs f8 or greater. This means jacking the ISO into very high settings for indoor work, which isn't good. I do not even consider it for anything low light. I have Sigmas even better 70-200/2.8 OS for that work. :)
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
I sold my Nikkor 80-200/2.8 recently. Loved it for the bokeh and low light capability, hated it for speed to focus. Too many compromises especially once I looked back at my Lightroom catalog and realized that the majority of my images we taken at or below 70mm (on DX).
 

Dave_W

The Dude
I think your choice of a 70-200mm with a TC is by far the best one listed. In a very real way you'll have two amazing lenses that have no peers (except maybe the 70-200mm f/4 but unfortunately it doesn't accept a TC)
 

crycocyon

Senior Member
I don't know if you considered a 400 mm prime lens? It seems that you would be shooting around f5.6 anyway regardless of the Nikon/TC or Tamron at the far end of the telephoto range. Would a Sigma outperform a zoom Nikon ED with Nikon teleconverter? I don't actually think so. Also in the long term the Nikon quality will win out in terms of robustness. And it isn't only sharpness to consider, it is also color rendition, flaring, etc.. The Sigma shots shown are great photos in terms of the quality of the moment but I find the contrast and color a bit flat compared to what I expect from a Nikon telephoto (hope you don't mind me saying). Just because a lens is f5.6 doesn't mean light transmission will be as good because that just refers to the relative aperture.
 

Epoc

Senior Member
Can I ask, which 400mm Nikon prime are you comparing to the Sigma?

The colour and contrast are not up to your standard, they can be easily fixed in post. It's horses for courses. Price vs quality. If you are looking for a long reach option and are on a budget, the Sigma has be be considered.
 
Last edited:

WalkaboutSean

New member
I think your choice of a 70-200mm with a TC is by far the best one listed. In a very real way you'll have two amazing lenses that have no peers (except maybe the 70-200mm f/4 but unfortunately it doesn't accept a TC)

Why doesn't the 70-200 f4 accept a TC?

I am weighing the "Bigma" 50-500mm against the Nikkor 70-200mm f4 with TC.
 

jwstl

Senior Member
Why doesn't the 70-200 f4 accept a TC?
According to Nikon's product page it does:

At just 30.0 oz and a mere 7.0-in. long, the AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR is well balanced and comfortable, even on long outings. Its f/4 fixed maximum aperture excels in low light and lets you maintain a consistent exposure while zooming, especially useful when shooting HD videos. The 70-200mm focal length range (105-300mm on DX-format cameras) has been the choice of pros for years, but for greater reach, add any of Nikon's teleconverters and achieve 1.4X, 1.7X or 2X magnification. The AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR even focuses as close as 3.28-ft with a maximum magnification of 0.274x, so you can capture the smallest of subjects while maintaining a comfortable working distance.

And according to the TC compatibility doc, the AF-S 80-200 2.8 will work with the existing TCs but the non-AF-S will not.

http://www.nikonsupport.eu/europe/Manuals/DrdIaQvRZv/TC_converter_compatibility-EN_01.pdf
 
Last edited:
Top