[sussexhifi]

i have around 750 ish to spend, just bought a Nikon D80 with 18-55 VR lens, and i got the Tamron 70-300 lens for half price,

find its still less powerfull than my bridge model camera,

looking for somehting around the 500 mark,

any suggestions,

2nd hand not a issue,

any advise welcome, as im a newbie

[Yandros]

I'm still mulling over a wildlife lens myself.

Sigma 100-300mm f4+1.4 teleconverter
Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-f5.6 VR
Nikon 300mm f4 + 1.4 teleconverter
Sigma 150-500 f5.6-6.3 OS

I was speaking to a friend of mine yesterday who has both the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) and the Sigma 100-300 f4+TC , and is planning on selling the Bigma. He says the 100-300 is sharp enough to stand heavy cropping, so he doesn't use the bigma or the teleconverter.

The main problem with getting ultra long lenses like the Bigma is that they tend to be a bit soft at the long end, and you need bucket loads of light to use them.

Even though it's as old as the hills, I'm quite tempted by the Nikon 80-400VR (though I'm still holding out for an AFS update). Similarly, the Nikon 300mm f4 would be VERY tempting if they added VR, as at the moment it's a tripod only job really.

[sussexhifi]

any idea when he might be selling?? or how much he is looking for?

or do you have first dibbs on it lol

also love to see some shots with the Bigma lens

[dazza74]

That sigma 120-400mm looks quite good for the money around £500

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by sussexhifi

any idea when he might be selling?? or how much he is looking for?

or do you have first dibbs on it lol

also love to see some shots with the Bigma lens

Pentax mount I'm afraid

[sussexhifi]

really looking for something around the 500 mark min, as i already have a 300 and find it not enough

thanks

[lurcher]

Last week got the Sigma 100-300 F4 for £570 del and just got a Sigma 1.4TC for about £120 del , not had much chance to use it yet ( for wildlife ) , dont know how it compare to the others in terms of quality and cost.
Very nearly went for the Canon 100-400L IS or Canon 300 F4 IS but had the pay the car insurance so went for the cheaper options.

[Pirate!!]

Originally Posted by sussexhifi

i have around 750 ish to spend, just bought a Nikon D80 with 18-55 VR lens, and i got the Tamron 70-300 lens for half price,

find its still less powerfull than my bridge model camera,

looking for somehting around the 500 mark,

any suggestions,

2nd hand not a issue,

any advise welcome, as im a newbie

Sigma 100-300mm EX DG APO IF (or non DG version - just as good) . . and a 1.4x Sigma EX DG Teleconverter (if afforable).

[Mike.P®]

Originally Posted by Yandros

Pentax mount I'm afraid

keep me in mind, I would be interested in that :-)

[lurcher]

Took this last night with the Sigma 100-300 , found it difficult to m/f , was using the live view on Canon 40D but moon was a very bright orb on the lcd screen , cropped and auto sharpen only.
Need more practice.

[sussexhifi]

not a bad picture, still feel id like something bigger though, i know i could get a better 70-300 lens and maybe use a 2x teleconvertor,

Hmmmm

[sussexhifi]

what do you think of this??

Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO DG HSM (Nikon AF)

Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO DG HSM (Nikon AF) - Jessops



£699.99 in jessops

[sussexhifi]

Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 RF DG OS (Nikon AF) - Jessops

or this for 749.99

Hmmm

[sussexhifi]

guess i could not use a 1.4 or 2x teleconvertor on either could i??

[lurcher]

Think you need to go and handle one first , the reviews certainly give it a thumbs up for the reach at that price but it"ll take some handling , maybe see whats available in a prime lens for your money.

[lurcher]

If I had more money would prob have gone for the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 , which I believe gets good reviews , 1.4/2 tc still gives a/f and out to 420/600 .

[sussexhifi]

what sorta money are we talking about??

[lurcher]

Think about £1400 , look around the web .

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Mike.P®

keep me in mind, I would be interested in that :-)

Cool. If he decides to sell, I'll point him over here

[sussexhifi]

wqay way too much, think im looking around 500-750 max either new or used

looks like its one of those 2 then,

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Pirate!!

Sigma 100-300mm EX DG APO IF (or non DG version - just as good) . . and a 1.4x Sigma EX DG Teleconverter (if afforable).

I was having a look at some A3ish prints from the Sigma 100-300 yesterday (airshow stuff) and it looks very very sharp


If the OP needs to use the TC a lot, the Nikon 80-400VR would probably be a better option though (stabilised for a start)

[sussexhifi]

i was going to try to avaid a tc to be honist, hence the interest in the 50-500, 170-500 and 200-500 simga lenses

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by sussexhifi

i was going to try to avaid a tc to be honist, hence the interest in the 50-500, 170-500 and 200-500 simga lenses

The problem with all of these is the amount of light you need to use them, and the compromised image quality. As I said earlier, someone who has both a 50-500 and a 100-300 f4 reckons that cropping a sharp 100-300mm image at 300mm is better than an uncropped soft 500mm, particularly as the 100-300mm would be at f4, vs f6.3 on the Bigma.

just out of interest, the Nikon 300mm f4 takes a 1.4 teleconverter with no loss of sharpness, so that's a razor sharp 420mm f5.6 (but you'll need a tripod!)

[sussexhifi]

can i get the nikon 300 and tc for the same amount of money though?

[lurcher]

Originally Posted by Yandros

The problem with all of these is the amount of light you need to use them, and the compromised image quality. As I said earlier, someone who has both a 50-500 and a 100-300 f4 reckons that cropping a sharp 100-300mm image at 300mm is better than an uncropped soft 500mm, particularly as the 100-300mm would be at f4, vs f6.3 on the Bigma.

just out of interest, the Nikon 300mm f4 takes a 1.4 teleconverter with no loss of sharpness, so that's a razor sharp 420mm f5.6 (but you'll need a tripod!)

Thats just about on his budget if he shops about , even though I went for the flexibility of a zoom ( 100-300 F4 ) , I may when funds allow go for a prime lens ie Canon 300L F4 or 400L 5.6 .

[RobDickinson]

I've just been through this...

If I had the money it would have been the 100-400L, easy.

I liked the 100-300 and 120-300 sigmas and would possibly have gone for either had they turned up used/cheap.

I discounted the bigma etc( 120-400, 50-500, 150-500) due to poor longeer focal length images & general all round slowness.

I found a 70-200f2.8 sigma EX HSM with a 2.0 TC on nz's ebay for a damned good price and went for that. Apart from lacking IS I'm quite happy with it. Will add a 1.4tc at some point too.

[Pirate!!]

Tamron SP AF 200-500MM F5-6.3 Di LD

[SonicHedgehog]

I have a Sigma 120-400 OS and am really pleased with it. Unless you plan to always use a tripod I would strongly suggest you don't bother with anything without an image stabiliser as it is virtually impossible to get a sharp image at the long end. Also, give some serious thought to future purchases - if you own or plan to own a 70-200 stabilised F2.8 lens, a 2x converter will give you 140-400 F4 and that would be a very useful lens.

[ryanyboy]

Originally Posted by sussexhifi

Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 RF DG OS (Nikon AF) - Jessops

or this for 749.99

Hmmm

I've been keeping an eye on that lens too. Of all the ones that's been mentioned it would be my choice.

Here's a very recent review:-

Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM APO - SLRgear.com!

It's been in my Amazon shoppping basket for weeks but I can't say I need it. Anyway, current price is £668.69

Your local "price comparison wiz" does it again!!

Ryan

[sussexhifi]

yeah i am tempted by the 150-500 or this

Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX APO DG HSM (Nikon AF)

as it has a slightly lower f/4-6.3 opposed to the 150-500 thats f5-6.3


not sure if makes much different as im a newbie though, so if im going to buy one of these

whats my best bet to go with??