| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/16/2008 08:33:39 PM · #1 |
Hopefully this title intrigued people to read this thread haha.
I currently have a tamron 200-500 F5-6.3. I was looking to possibly sell this lens for around 400 (a price quote), and put that money towards either the tamron 70-200 2.8 or the sigma 70-200 2.8. I don't have enough money to get a nikon version (though lord knows I wish I did)! Would you say this is a good idea. I went to the zoo today and was using the 200-500 and I was kinda frustrated with the photos. None of them were out of focus, they were all just soft... it made me really frustrated!!!! So yea, thoughts, suggestions, critiques? Send em my way please. :)
Thanks in advance,
Evan |
|
|
|
06/16/2008 08:39:44 PM · #2 |
| could go for the bigma - 50-500 - had generally good reviews i suppose. I have the sigma 70-200 2.8 and it is pretty sharp you can go wrong with it i suppose for the price. But you might feel a bit short considering 200 was the low end of your zoom. (the 2x TC does it no favours - cant vouch for the 1.4 tho) |
|
|
|
06/16/2008 09:11:37 PM · #3 |
What to go with on the perceived budget? Sorry, I don't know (but I have a suggestion). I did swap my Nikon 80-400 for that Tamron 200-500 at a kitesurfing race last year for about 30 minutes and I can see what you mean. I compared the shots that I got with both lenses and I was very glad that I didn't jump in with my savings prematurely and buy the Tamron instead because the shots that I took with the Tamron were very disappointing.
Before I bought both the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR and the Nikon 80-400 VR I was torn between those two lenses, the Tamron 200-500, and the Bigma. I haven't tried the Bigma but I have heard a lot of good things about it. I very much prefer both Nikons over the Tamron. Now, with that in mind, I must assure you that the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 blows away the Nikon 80-400 in every way except the reach.
So, unless you can test the Bigma and compare it to either of the these Nikon telephotos, I suggest you save a little more until you can afford the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR.
BTW, I first purchased the Nikon 70-200 and I have always been very pleased with it's performance. When I wanted more reach I bought the Nikon 1.7 teleconverter and I was very disappointed with the combination. The store where I bought it surprised me and allowed me to return it for a full refund over a month later. Several months after that I came across a fantastic deal for the Nikon 80-400VR while I was in St.Thomas USVI and bought it as well. Now, I always use the Nikon 70-200 unless I absolutely need the extra reach of the 80-400. |
|
|
|
06/16/2008 09:53:02 PM · #4 |
| I had the sigma 80-400 OS albeit in the canon flavor. Was very sharp and I would have kept it except I wanted faster glass (sigma was f5.6). Cost around $1000. Worth considering. |
|
|
|
06/17/2008 09:13:07 AM · #5 |
You haven't said what you intend to use it for?
Portraits & Sports - than yes, moving to a 200mm f/2.8 is a good move.
Birds & Wildlife - hold onto your 500mm, cause 200mm just doesn't cut it. |
|
|
|
06/17/2008 01:12:09 PM · #6 |
It really depends on what you're using it for, but my experience is that 200 is long enough for zoo photos, but not long enough for actual wildlife, at lest not without a teleconverter.
The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is probably within your budget. It doesn't have VR, and focuses a bit slower than the Nikon 70-200 VR, but otherwise it's an excellent lens in every way. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/28/2025 05:20:07 AM EST.
