Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
I have a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 lens but I'm looking to buy a sigma 150-500mm. Would I be better off if I bought a x2 converter for the Nikon lens instead of buying a sigma 150-500?
Thanks for any advice.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
go with the sigma the 80-200 + 2x will focus slow and image quality will suffer.
I personally have experience with the sigma 150-500mm lens and IMHO it is an awful lens and definitely not worth its money, I also have experience on putting a 2x converter on 3 types of lens all f2.8 and they work very well indeed.
As long as you put the 2x converter on an f2.8 lens which would be fast and sharp you will not get problems, my opinion is if you go for the sigma 150-500mm it is not as sharp a lens by any standards and especially compared to your 80-200mm f2.8.
you also have more focal choice going for the converter too, example, 80-200mm f2.8, 160-400mm f5.6, with the sigma you will have f4.6- f6.5 i believe or somewhere close to those figures so you can see already you have lost a stop at it's closest focal length with the sigma.
I would definitely say in this case you are better off buying a converter, try it out and see what you think.
Money well saved in my opinion .
Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 + 2x sigma converter = great sharp shot.
Canon 100mm l is usm macro lens f2.8 + 2x kenko converter = closer sharp image.
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 l is usm + 2x canon converter = sharp shot
Hope this helps in your decision, I personally do not see any degradation in my photos from using 2x converters or any other problems other than focus hunting at times but then I have got used to that and am ready for it, plus it is minor anyway.
I have thought about getting a Sigma 150-500 to replace my Sigma 135-400 as it will have a little more reach. However the 150-500 has a maximum aperture of f/6.3 at the long end. I am concerned that the autofocus on My D7000 will suffer, as it is only supposed to work with apertures of f/5.6.
i had a sigma 150-500. I mistakenly bought a sigma converter and the auto focus did not work with it!
I now have redundant sigma due to the image quality of my 70-200 ED vr2 + 2x converter being way superior.
Quote: I personally have experience with the sigma 150-500mm lens and IMHO it is an awful lens .
A good workman never blames his tools Ian. Especially a superb tool such as the Sigma 150-500mm which is beautifully sharp, almost edge-to-edge throughout its entire zoom range.
Looking at the examples from other lenses that you posted above, none of them look particularly sharp - so maybe it is your technique that is the problem.
Here's one taken with the 150-500mm taken last month that, as you can see, is far sharper than any of your examples:
Quote: Especially a superb tool such as the Sigma 150-500mm which is beautifully sharp, almost edge-to-edge throughout its entire zoom range.
Sorry but I must strongly disagree with the above statement. (plus I think it's unfair to infer that Ian is a 'bad workman' because his experience & opinion with the lens is different to yours)
You cannot judge a lens by small on line examples, too much depends on the resizing/sharpening etc. carried out by the photographer.
You must have a far better version than I have!, mine is ok at best, if used in the right lighting conditions (i.e. bright sunlight!) & needs stopped down at least 2 stops from wide open to get what I consider to be good contrast etc. at 500 mm it is noticibly less sharp (at 1:1 magnification) than my Nikon 300mm with 1.7x attached (& a very noticeable difference in contrast/saturation at widest aperture).
Quote: Here's one taken with the 150-500mm taken last month that, as you can see, is far sharper than any of your examples:
Not on my screen.
Quote: You must have a far better version than I have!, mine is ok at best, if used in the right lighting conditions (i.e. bright sunlight!) & needs stopped down at least 2 stops from wide open to get what I consider to be good contrast etc.
Exactly my experience
Thank you Jo for your wise words, much appreciated and a sensible approach.
Left forum i do not blame my tools AND NEVER STATED I DID, I stated that the sigma 150-500mm lens is awful, and it is in my opinion,and i do have an opinion just like everybody else, I have used one or 2 of these lenses to feel it does not work for me and i know plenty of other people have done the same, so to be fair not everyone can be wrong can they.
I am not sure you can call my image not sharp either as they clearly are sharp where i want them to be sharp, wings of birds in flight should not be sharp in my opinion as this give a sense of movement however the face and eyes should be and if you look close enough they are sharp, saying that I don't tend to sharpen my images in ps too much either.
I can see you sharpen yours and a tad too much as there's a nice fine white halo around your Birds which of course you get from over sharpening and anyone that knows there ps will tell you that fact.
You will note no fringing on my Images however I could get those images over sharpened as you have but that is not the effect I want nor do I desire.
Hence to say the lens is that poor you need to sharpen so much you get halo's.
i am an amateur photographer & owned a sigma 150-500 but was not very happy with it. Yes it is soft at 500mm wide open, it is also very bulky and heavy to carry around all day.U will need a sturdy tripod with it.I am guessing the 80-200 will b comparatively lighter.Filters for 86mm are very expensive.Considering all the factors i would recommend the 80-200mm due to its versatility.But yes i have to agree with Leftforum that it is not a bad lens just didnt suit my needs.So take into account all the factors before going for any lens.hope you find this helpful.
well the Nikkor you have is an older lens but its very good quality lens , Iwould opt for the Nikkor x2 converter with that lens , Wouldnt bother forking out the money for the sigma to be honest
I ran some tests about three years ago, putting the Sigma 50-500 against the Canon 400 5.6 with a 1.4x converter attached.
The Canon set up came out on top every time, so I sold the Bigma and have never regretted it.
Fortunately with the 1d, I maintain AF at f/8
I agree with Tomcat. I was given the use of a sigma 150-500 last summer, shooting emperor dragonflies. I got better results (even after cropping to a comparable scale) from the 340mm combination of a 70-200 and a 1.7x converter. The sigma had a soft haze and generally lower contrast than the nikon combination, and the bokeh wasn't as good with the siggy (and I mean the shapes rendered in the background, not the depth of field).
However, I have also used a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with its mated 2x, and that was excellent. I'd pick that over the 150-500 any day.
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Are you a Nikon owner? Check out Nikon Nation to find the latest Nikon news, reviews, discussion and photos on ePHOTOzine.
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar