Help me choose a 500mm

Vycor

Okay so I started getting into wildlife photography and i realized that my measly 300mm isnt quite gonna cut it. Id liek to go with a 500mm zoom lense, so I can keep a range of zooming (hey animals move ya know, cant be swapping lenses on the fly).

I have a Nikon D200 with my main lense an 18-200mm. I have a 70-300mm f/4.5 but i find I don't use it much.

What i was looking at are the following

Tamron 200-500mm (879 from BH)
Sigma 170-500mm (769 from BH)
Sigma 50-500mm (999 from BH)

My local camera shop sells the 50-500 for 949 actualy so they are usually a lil cheaper (and let me try out glass, which is why ive bought all my gear from them).

Unfort like most local stores, they don't reguarly stock any of the 500mm lenses so I cant try it out really.

Whats everybodysthoughts. Im not rich, i do this on the side freelance for a local paper and only sell 1-2 stories a month. I have a budget of about $1000. Id really like to spend less then $1000. Anybody have any thoughts? I was looking at the 50-500mm becasuse of the broader range and better reviews then the 170-500 - can anybody shed some input here...

canon400d

Vycor wrote:

Okay so I started getting into wildlife photography and i realized that my measly 300mm isnt quite gonna cut it. Id liek to go with a 500mm zoom lense, so I can keep a range of zooming (hey animals move ya know, cant be swapping lenses on the fly).

I have a Nikon D200 with my main lense an 18-200mm. I have a 70-300mm f/4.5 but i find I don't use it much.

What i was looking at are the following

Tamron 200-500mm (879 from BH)
Sigma 170-500mm (769 from BH)
Sigma 50-500mm (999 from BH)

My local camera shop sells the 50-500 for 949 actualy so they are usually a lil cheaper (and let me try out glass, which is why ive bought all my gear from them).

Unfort like most local stores, they don't reguarly stock any of the 500mm lenses so I cant try it out really.

Whats everybodysthoughts. Im not rich, i do this on the side freelance for a local paper and only sell 1-2 stories a month. I have a budget of about $1000. Id really like to spend less then $1000. Anybody have any thoughts? I was looking at the 50-500mm becasuse of the broader range and better reviews then the 170-500 - can anybody shed some input here...

I have the 50-500mm and it is a fantastic lens and is ideal for shooting wildlife. When fully zoomed I recommend a tripod best hand held at 400 or just over. You will not be disappointed as many members advised me on here when I was buying one. I got mine for around £380 from Photo Enterprise, New York.
Regards
Bob

swintonphoto

I use the Sigma 135-400mm lens. It's nearly half the money of the 50-500. I knew I didn't need the short end of the 50-500 zoom because I alread had a 40-150 zoom, and I was on a budget so I sacrificed the extra 100mm of zoom on the long end. So, I went with the 135-400. I like that it is smaller and lighter than the 50-500, and a much better price. I like mine. It's not as fast at focusing as some of my other lenses, but, it works well for me. It seems very well built as well. I use it when standing at the back of churches for weddings, and for sports photos. So, you might look at it. I think it sells new for around $580.
Here is a link:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/401636-REG/Sigma_727306_Zoom_Telephoto_135_400mm_f_4_5_5_6.html

hgernhardtjr

I use the Bigma (Sigma 50-500). Heavy and large, it is a very cost effective lens that takes great photos.

It also works fairly well with Sigma's matching 2x TC in very BRIGHT outdoors settings, but their 1.4 TC performs much better. Like almost any similar zoom, the Bigma gives best (sharpest) results, IMHO, in bright light since it is quite slow at full extension.

For the price, Bigma is very hard to beat. But I do love my Canon L-glass!

Vycor

I think im gonna get the Sigma (how come you guys call it a Bigma, my friend said the same thing, BIGMA, in an email). Ive had a few folks and reviews say its a good lense for the price. Just waiting for Cameta to call me back regarding if they can order it for me or have it in a warehouse somewhere.

BBiggs

Ok I'm a canon guy so I know were both using different mounts, but here is what I have to say about your choices. First off I spent a good number of weeks looking over samples and reviews of most of the longer lenses available to me for my camera. I was in the same boat as you, as I wanted to do wildlife photography. I narrowed my choices down to the Bigma aka the 50-500mm sigma and canon's 100-400mm aka dust pump. I chose the 100-400mm as I often don't like to use a tripod and like to get into tight places, but thats my style of shooting. The 100-400mm has Image Stabilizer, and yes as it is not a cure all it does help. Both of the lenses produce exceptional images from what I have seen. The Sigma is the best choice for you because of what you get, and that is exceptional image quality, and great range. The extra 500mm would have helped me alot in many cases because sometimes cropping dose not cut it Good Luck!

Art Scott

Vycor wrote:

I think im gonna get the Sigma (how come you guys call it a Bigma, my friend said the same thing, BIGMA, in an email). Ive had a few folks and reviews say its a good lense for the price. Just waiting for Cameta to call me back regarding if they can order it for me or have it in a warehouse somewhere.

Cameta is a good company, as I have purchased several lenses and also camera bodies from them but a lot of the times BH and also Adorama is just as inexpensive....that being said......if you do not need the zoom area from 50-150 or 200 then save a bit o'money and get either the Siggy 170-500 or the Tammy 200 - 500......I could be very wrong but I do believe that Dr. It had the BigMa and sold it and I also thinK that Pathfinder has or ahd the Tammy 200-500 or the Siggy 170-500......can't find the threads right now but under what lens for wildlife is some great info.......

The Sigma is so affectionately called the BIG MA because it is one BIG lens and the Ma is frorom the last 2 letters of SIG MA......this has always been my take on why it is so named......and it is a huge lens that you will not want to carry vry far and probably never around your neck...unless you have a neck like the HULK:D

Good Luck with Your decision.

Harryb

A better way, IMHO, to get up to 500mm is the Nikon 300mm F/4 and TCs.

BBiggs

Vycor wrote:

I think im gonna get the Sigma (how come you guys call it a Bigma, my friend said the same thing, BIGMA, in an email). Ive had a few folks and reviews say its a good lense for the price. Just waiting for Cameta to call me back regarding if they can order it for me or have it in a warehouse somewhere.

You'll know why its the bigma when you get it! Its alittle heavy and looks like a cannon barrel.

hgernhardtjr

BBiggs wrote:

You'll know why its the bigma when you get it! Its alittle heavy and looks like a cannon barrel.

Correct: caNNon barrel, not Canon barrel!:D

jonh68

Harryb wrote:

A better way, IMHO, to get up to 500mm is the Nikon 300mm F/4 and TCs.

I would second that. If you go with the 300, you will have a reasonably fast lens for low light and a very sharp lens. Add a TC and you get more reach and it is still reasonably fast.

Tango

Harryb wrote:

A better way, IMHO, to get up to 500mm is the Nikon 300mm F/4 and TCs.

harry, im a fan of your wildlife shots and i assumed you got them with very nice glass....
my 200mm ofcoarse is not long enough for eagles here in utah.
i was thinking about a 2x tc for my 70-200 2.8, but i was afraid the tc would slow it down and not be fast enough to get great shots....(like yours and other dgrinners i watch)
so i thought... the extra money for a f4 500mm or something like that would in-turn help me get the shots i am after...
but after your statement... it makes me backstep a bit...
whats your specific set-up?

Vycor

What bout the following:

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E II

That'll give me a 140-600mm lense with VR at f/6.5 - and it'll be Nikon glass. Total cost (from BH Photo) would be $909.90

My other option im looking at is the Sigma

Sigma Zoom Normal-Telephoto 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM

That lense will cost me $999 - No VR, but an f-stop starting at 4 and ending at 6.3 - whereas with the Nikon my beginng f-stop was 6.5 - and ending in 7.6

Seems im better off getting the "Bigma" which I can add a teleconverter to later on for even greater distance... i don't mind a big lense at all, i carry computer equipment all day so dont mind a 4 pound lense

Tee Why

I personally would recommend the bigma, so named b/c it's the Big Sigma.
The bigma has a nice HSM AF motor, while the other lenses have the older noisier and slower AF. The bigma is just much more versatile. From what little I've heard, I hear that the Sigma 135-400 isn't as optically good as the bigma. But I've not seen direct comparisons though. The tamron 200-500 may be a touch sharper than the bigma, but when I tried out the Tammy, it felt light, plastlcky, and cheap.

I'd say if money is the most important factor, consider a Sigma 145-400 or a 170-500. If you want the best optics but least zoom range, get the Tamron.
If you want the best build/AF/range/versatility, get the bigma.

I do all my zoo stuff with my bigma. Take a look.
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/575260#184946898
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/2650346#140109289
http://tomyi.smugmug.com/gallery/1210156#109256853

ian408

I think Harry's suggestion of a good 300 plus a TC is an excellent one.

Not to forget that combination is often much lighter than the 500 and a 300
with a TC is often as fast as the 500. Only with a good fast 300 though.

Harryb

AaronNelson wrote:

harry, im a fan of your wildlife shots and i assumed you got them with very nice glass....
my 200mm ofcoarse is not long enough for eagles here in utah.
i was thinking about a 2x tc for my 70-200 2.8, but i was afraid the tc would slow it down and not be fast enough to get great shots....(like yours and other dgrinners i watch)
so i thought... the extra money for a f4 500mm or something like that would in-turn help me get the shots i am after...
but after your statement... it makes me backstep a bit...
whats your specific set-up?

Let me qualify what I'm about to say. First I am very lucky that I live 15 minutes from the Viera Wetlands which is the best location I have ever found for wildlfie shots. With the Viera Wetlands you are not trekking any long distances and usually you are shooting either from your car or close to it. This allows me to carry with me more equipment than any sane person would carry.

Right now I take 3 camera bodies out with me (the D3, D300, and D2X). This will shortly be reduced to "just" the D3 and D300. My "normal" lenses are the 500m F/4, 300mm F/4, 80-400MM VR, 70-200 2.8 VR, and either my 18-200 VR or my 28-70 2.8 for landscape shots. If I'm in the mood I'll add the 60mm 2.8 or the Sigma 105 2.8 for macro shots.

If circumstances permit my first choice is the 500mm + 1.4 TC mounted on the full Wimberly head. The problem with this is that frequently circmstances don't allow me to set up that rig. When I can't exit my car and/or set-up my tripod I go to my 300mm F/4 with the 1.7 TC. This gives me 510mm and its light and handholdable. With the D3 and D300 the AF speed is sufficient to get flight/action shots. I tried this with the d2x and the D200 but found on those bodies that the AF with the 1.7 slowed down too much to be useful for action shots so I stuck to the 1.4 TC with those bodies.

Harryb

Vycor wrote:

What bout the following:

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E II

That'll give me a 140-600mm lense with VR at f/6.5 - and it'll be Nikon glass. Total cost (from BH Photo) would be $909.90

My other option im looking at is the Sigma

Sigma Zoom Normal-Telephoto 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM

That lense will cost me $999 - No VR, but an f-stop starting at 4 and ending at 6.3 - whereas with the Nikon my beginng f-stop was 6.5 - and ending in 7.6

Seems im better off getting the "Bigma" which I can add a teleconverter to later on for even greater distance... i don't mind a big lense at all, i carry computer equipment all day so dont mind a 4 pound lense

The 70-300 won't work with Nikon TCs.

I'm not a Bigma fan. If I'm going to carry that much weight with me I want a much faster lens for the hassle.

Vycor

The new 70-300 will its an AF-S lense, they came out with it recently I think

Harryb

Vycor wrote:

The new 70-300 will its an AF-S lense, they came out with it recently I think

the list of lenses the Nikon TCs are compatible with, from the NikonUSA website:

*Compatible with 200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor, 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor, 400mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor, 80-200mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S ,70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor, 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor, 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor, 500mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor, 600mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor

Vycor

I dont think they've updated that in a while... they state AF-S lenses, and they have a lot of newer AF-S lenses they didnt list on that TC page

BigAl

Harryb wrote:

I'm not a Bigma fan.

But I am

http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/Birds
http://bigal-sa.smugmug.com/Animals

Vycor

How bout the 80-400mm f/4.5 with OS lense from Sigma??? My friends recommending that, hes owned both.

Tee Why

I think photozone.de has a review of it in a Canon mount and they state it's a good lens with OS good for about 2 stops. Only down side is that it "only" goes to 400mm and it's AF is not HSM.

Vycor

I can get the 50-500 for $856 so thats sabving me $100 plus an additional $70 or so on tax... so now im tempted to buy the 50-500

Vycor

I ended up ordering the 50-500. I like the longer lense and Im getting it for $850 new. Can't beat that. I would have loved the 80-400 but I honestly didn't wanna go nuts spending money. So im happy. I dont mind the weight of a lense, and i'm used to shooting with poor light.

gus

Without wishing to cause any arguments here but more for clarification...isnt the sigma 50-500 actually a 50-460mm or there abouts

I remember some people telling me this (and quite possibly incorrectly) a while back.

Telecorder

Wtg...!

Vycor wrote:

I ended up ordering the 50-500. I like the longer lense and Im getting it for $850 new. Can't beat that. I would have loved the 80-400 but I honestly didn't wanna go nuts spending money. So im happy. I dont mind the weight of a lense, and i'm used to shooting with poor light.

I think that you'll be quite happy with the new Bigma. I was lucky and, after a few months of being outbid, picked a 9++ used non-DG Bigma for $535 a couple of years ago.

Its been my main stay and its so great to be able to zoom backwards to 50-mm for a landscape


and out to 500-mm for a BIF...





and then pop a 1.4X TC for some real reach..



For a perspective on the above scene - here it is at 105-mm


For the price point, its hard to beat. I do have a new 70-300 VR on the brown truck, though, as the Bigma is a bit much for vacation with the wife, though...

BigAl

gus wrote:

Without wishing to cause any arguments here but more for clarification...isnt the sigma 50-500 actually a 50-460mm or there abouts

I remember some people telling me this (and quite possibly incorrectly) a while back.

Gus, I haven't actually done any tests myself, but this guy reckons 495mm on the Bigma and 380mm on the Canon 100-400 at the long ends.

rpcrowe

Zoom Lens Focal Length
The focal length of a zoom lens is measured when the zoom is focused at infinity. Usually when focused at a distance shorter than infinity, the focal length will be less that marked on the lens....