Ok, Nikon user, currently D70 and 70-300 4-5.6 sigma, plus kit lens.

Looking for a slightly better / possibly faster lens. Started thinking down the 70-200/2.8 option, sigma's seems ok, but the previous version twin ring 80-200 nikon seems like a good buy at the money... then I'm worried about loosing range.. 100-300f4 sigma? Seems to be no nikon equivalent.. of course I could put a TC with the 70-200 to get back to 300ish, or if I had 300 I could add a TC to get 450ish :) Then again, what happens if I stack a couple of converters? Bad? Or I could just get the 50-500 bigma for muchos reach, but less quality, and slower..

Now I'm going round in circles!

Having tried a sigma 10-20mm on my D2H with disastrous results I would advise you to try shooting with a sigma on a D70 first before you lay out the cash as it appears the sigma lenses and nikon bodies may cause problems (the 10-20 worked fine on my mate's D70 BTW). The Sigma 50-500 is slow and lacks quality from what others have said on here and what reviews have also said. Don't stack TC's as you'll (a) lose more stops (b) lose more quality. I think you just missed out on a good Nikon lens (80-400VR) which HankScorpio was selling on here. The previous 80-200 2.8 from Nikon is an outstanding lens and with the crop factor you're looking at a 300mm lens - add a 1.4 TC and you've got nice reach at f/4 and quality optics.

I went from Nikon 70-300 ED to 70-200 F2.8 AFS VR and TBH didn't really miss the extra range (depends on what your shooting of course) I did recently buy a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x for the odd zoo trip etc though, which I've used about twice...does make a good combo at 280 F4 and only £100.

I've had no problems with Sigma (have the 10-20) but did test it out before buying, bought it local so I could test it first.

I've had no problem with my Sigma 10-20 and a Nikon D2X but think tha later versions seem to be better.

I have a sigma 100-300 f4 on my Canon and I'm delighted with it.

Don't stack TC's as you'll (a) lose more stops (b) lose more quality. I think you just missed out on a good Nikon lens (80-400VR) which HankScorpio was selling on here. The previous 80-200 2.8 from Nikon is an outstanding lens and with the crop factor you're looking at a 300mm lens - add a 1.4 TC and you've got nice reach at f/4 and quality optics.

Tell me about it - I assumed that'd go for 1k+ - when I saw what it fetched, I was a bit gutted.

Mind you, I wonder if I don't want the slightly wider appatures; stacking converters might loose me stops and quality, but only if I really want to use all the reach.. I guess I just sometimes feel the 300's short on reach, but then that's probably in a scenario where even a 500 would be a bit short.

I guess I'm also thinking 200+1.4 = 300/f4, possibly +1.4 = 450/f5.6
300/f4+1.4 = 450/f5.6 (I know the maths isn't exact!)

Last thought prompted by the 80-400 - anyone have any experience of the 80-400 f4-5.6 EX OS (sigma VR)??

An acquaintance (Adrian) is selling his Sigma 400 F5.6 APO Nikon Fit AF on ebay with 3 days to go. May be worth a look.

He's used it for some excellent wildlife shots.

Search on Sigma 400mm F5.6 APO Nikon Fit AF Lens

Tell me about it - I assumed that'd go for 1k+ - when I saw what it fetched, I was a bit gutted.

Was offered on here for a flat 600 first but no one took it!

My 2p as someone who has gone through a lot of lenses since buying the body....

Apperture is king.
At first I was striving for reach, going through a several lens and TC combos ending up with the 80-400 VR. Ideal for motorsport but in other situations I shoot commonly like family events, kids parties etc, it just couldn't cut it in terms of shutter, bokeh (sp?), requiring higher iso etc. Results were good but when compared to shots taken with the 2.8 i had (Sigma 70-200) the differences were very apparent. As I've semi retired from the track stuff, the 80-400, although it's a wide range, isn't that good an all rounder and had to go.

Do I regret buying the 80-400... No
Do I wish I could justify owning both a long lens and big app medium...yes

Being sensible and analysing what I'm shooting, I'm now going with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 (love VR as I have a slight hand tremor), i'll add a TC for the occasional track event.

Remember that in these days of high pixel counts, creative cropping can give you the zoom factor and still leave perfectly printable results.

I can heartily recommend the sigma 70-200 2.8, it went to someone on here and I believe they're making regular good us of it too. It's fast, has accurate focus and gives great results.

Let us know what you go for in the end.

BTW, just to give you an idea of the lenses I've owned since buying the body:
Kit 18-70 (gone)
Nikon 50 1.8 (gone)
sigma 55-200 (gone)
sigma 70-200 2.8 (gone)
Nikon 20-35 2.8 (gone)
sigma 1.4 tc (gone)
sigma 2.0 tc (gone)
nikon 80-400 (gone)
nikon 24-120 VR (my "walk around")
70-200 + tc (to come)

As you can see, I've had a lof trial and error! My mistakes were - not asking for advice and not being analytical enough when looking at what the lenses would be used for. Two years on, I think I've got the right mix for my circumstances. (Until the 1.8 10-600 with VRIII comes out anyway! :D )

I don't know how I didn't spot the price, but I didn't, and assumed.

Interesting about the appeture; I thought the VR is supposed to pull back a couple of stops letting you shoot slower? Guess it didn't work out as such..

Historically it's been aeroplanes, cars/motorsport (more circuit, some rally), or just general sport - windsurfing and such, and wildlife that I've wanted the reach for.. but to be honest I've been a lot more diverse of late, and with city living spent a lot more time wideangle.. with the planes and such, it's often a case of never long enough, maybe a 70-200/2.8's a more versatile choice.

missyc - thanks for the thought, had a quick look and couldn't find.. but I'm a bit shy of ebay for that sort of thing, prefer to be able to handle and play before buying.

As I own both D70s and Sigma 70 - 200 (infact its Hank Scorpio's old 1!!!!!), mine works fine as a combo. The lens is even better on the D200. Not a patch on the Nikon, but then that lens is 600 - 800 quid more. You gets what you pay for.

Remember that in these days of high pixel counts, creative cropping can give you the zoom factor and still leave perfectly printable results.



Hell yes!!! A programme called genuine fractals is brilliant. Alot of pro guys I know inc me use it to enlarge pics.

Assuming your starting with a decent enough cropped pic (1500 pixels along the long side) They claim it can enlarge up to 700% with little distortion.

I usually go from 2200 (smallest Ive used so far) pix on long side to 5000, never had a problem on quality.

Yeah, VR can help you hand old while shooting slower but dosen't give you the dof benefits.

The simcam give a good illustration.
http://www.photonhead.com/simcam/shutteraperture.php

You've got the initial view you see on the left.

Set the simcam to shoot at 1/125 and f 5.6 (which gives a decent exposure)

Nice result and you'd probably hand hold at that but I'd probably need VR.

Then set the cam to 1/500 and 2.8 (2 stop adjustment either way), shoot it and you get much more blurring of the background and I find this much more pleasing. Also very difficult to get camera shake at 500.
The effect is obviously exagerated a bit in the example but that site really helped me get my head round some of he concepts.