sigma 50-500mm and converter help

Zoundz · #1 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 07:57 AM

Ooookay... I'm going to annoy everyone a little further with questions! As I've said in a previous thread, I have a Nikon D80 - and currently the kit lens and a tamron 55-200mm (i think

) but I want to extend my reach and was thinking about digiscoping. Having looked closely at all the options, I now feel buying the Sigma 50-500 would be a better option for me,so that's what I plan to do. In the mean time though, I'd like a converter for my other lenses, and actually, it may be useful on the sigma too. I also do plan to get a macro lens at a later date, and would like to perhaps use the converter with that too. Obviously, it's not a huge deal if i can't/don't use the converter with those, but I'd like some advice on which converters are likely to work with all/any of those, and what I need to look for in a converter.

Also, is the 50-500 a good lens to go for? I've done some reading on here, and it seems to be the lens of choice for bird photography. I must admit it's been driving me wild lately as I've just moved to Ireland, and I live near esturies with some amazing waders and seabirds, but I can't get close enough!

Any help appreciated!

xx

glsammy · #2 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 09:01 AM

The Sigma 50-500mm is a fine all round lens, no doubt about it. However,I've found that it doesn't work well with TC's, unless the lighting conditions are just about perfect. There are of course plenty of other options, including the Sigma 150-500mm, which has image stabilization which can be very handy when working at the 500mm end.
If you want the absolute ultimate in image quality, then a prime lens is the way to go, but you lose a lot of the flexibility the zooms offer, that's the trade off you have to consider.
That's a choice I've recently made, but I'm still to see the real advantage I was expecting in the shots I've taken so far. In tests the prime lens certainly proves to be better at resolving finer detail so at the moment I'm blaming user error for the results I'm currently seeing.

If you do get a 1.4XTC, and you eventually get a decent macro lens, such as the Sigma 150mm, then it will work well with that, in fact it's my preferred set up. I use the Kenko pro 300 range of TC's and I can't fault them.

Zoundz · #3 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 09:35 AM

thank you for that - very helpful! so is the 150-500 better than the 50-500? I've read that the 150-500 is a disappointment after using the 50-500, but i could have mistaken it :/

xx

Zoundz · #4 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 09:46 AM

also, you mentioned a 1.4x tc -would a 2x be any good? as that's what i'm used to using with my old film SLR - but i don't know if they work with the setup i'm looking at for digital - perhaps a 2x would make image quality worse? sorry for asking so many questions, it's all rather confusing,andI want to be sure of what i'm doing before i splash out!

xx

glsammy · #5 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 12:29 PM

I only once tried a 2X with the 50-500mm, the results were terrible! Not a viable option in my opinion. Your left with a minimum aperture of F13, and the images are so soft as to be just about unusable.

As for if the 150-500mm is better or worse, I can't say. The reviews I've read are very mixed, some say the 150-500mm is good, others not so hot. Do a goggle search for reviews. There's quite a few around now.

Zoundz · #6 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 01:15 PM

thanks for that!

will try to have a good read around next week when I can get back online and see what is said about each lens!

xx

oitsnik · #7 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 04:51 PM

Hi Zounds,Would it not make more sense to go to a decent camera shop with your own camera and try the lens out,or more than one lens then you can see the results and make your own mind up on which lens you prefer before handing over your hard earned cash,Regards Nick.

eeyore · #8 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoundz

thank you for that - very helpful! so is the 150-500 better than the 50-500? I've read that the 150-500 is a disappointment after using the 50-500, but i could have mistaken it :/

xx

you may be thinking of the 170-500 which isnt a bad lens but doesnt compare well with its big brother.

the 150-500 benefits from the OS system which the bigma lacks - but this depends on whether image stab is important to you and that in turn depends on what you are photographing - for birds in flight it will not be much advantage as the shutter speeds used are suficiently fast to eliminate wobble anyway - on the other hand photographing seals from a boat for example you would find it invaluable.

Zoundz · #9 (**permalink**) 08-11-2008, 10:09 AM

thanks again all!

I would love to try these lenses out, but sadly we have no camera shops at all near us, and the nearest ones are in the city (long way away) and in any case, none have much of a range of lenses. This really bothers me, as spending this sort of money I do like to try things out first :/

It could be that I was thinking of the 170-500 - in which case perhaps the 150-500 wouldn't be bad. It is a bit cheaper (which is always nice) and the image stabilisation may well be useful, as we live near some rather windy cliffs... maybe it wouldn't help - but then, perhaps it would?

xx

Tobyh · #10 (**permalink**) 17-11-2008, 11:12 AM

I have a 50-500 and don't shy away from TCs but I do recognise the limited use they have.

I took this yesterday using a D300, Sigma 50-500 and a Kenko DG pro 1.4 TC - also flash as it was a dull day.

I'm personally happy with this shot (sharpness etc) but I can see that it's a little soft when compared to shots taken without the TC.

I think it shows that in the right conditions they are a useful option to have.

I can't see me using a 2x though - so far I've not really seen the need for it - for shots like these I use a bag hide to get closer.

TobyH