«

Hello fellow enthusiasts. Over the recent holidays I was disappointed
because my 70-300mm lens was not able to capture a meaningful picture a
a local hawk in the trees. I like doing nature photography. So my
question is about big lenses, or at least 500mm lenses. There are three
zoom lenses that I am considering. I have a mixture of zoom and prime
lenses out to 300mm and I am really just looking to extend my range a bit.

The three zoom lens considerations are

Sigma 170-500 f4.5-5.6
Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3
Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3

None of these is a stellar lens and I understand that. Each of them was
reviewed as being slow to focus especially fully extended. Other than
the Sigma 50-500, each lens has only ranked either good or acceptable at
500mm. My preference would be for a 500mm prime but the price may be
prohibitive at around $7,000 to $8,000 USD.

So, I ask you. If you used one or more of these lenses, which did you
choose and why?

Thank you, -G

In article <flgc64$a88$>, Mr. G D Geen <>
wrote:

> The three zoom lens considerations are
>
> Sigma 170-500 f4.5-5.6
> Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3
> Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3
>
> None of these is a stellar lens and I understand that. Each of them was
> reviewed as being slow to focus especially fully extended. Other than
> the Sigma 50-500, each lens has only ranked either good or acceptable at
> 500mm. My preference would be for a 500mm prime but the price may be
> prohibitive at around $7,000 to $8,000 USD.
>
> So, I ask you. If you used one or more of these lenses, which did you
> choose and why?

the sigma 50-500 is a 10x zoom, and any zoom with that huge a range has
a lot of compromises. it's certainly convenient to have one lens doing
it all, but realistically, how often will you need to drop to 50 when
you are wanting to go longer than 300mm?

the tamron 200-500 probably the best of the bunch. here's what
photozone had to say:

<http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_200500_563/index.htm>

On 2008-01-02 07:55:47 -0800, "Mr. G D Geen" <> said:

>
> The three zoom lens considerations are
>
> Sigma 170-500 f4.5-5.6
> Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3
> Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3
>
>
>
> So, I ask you. If you used one or more of these lenses, which did you
> choose and why?
>
> Thank you, -G

Well, I considered all those lenses and then went with the 80-400mm
f/4.5-f/5.6 VR Nikkor. It has served well, but I finally decided to get
the 400mm f/2.8 VR. I wanted the extra stop and teleconverters did not
play nice with the zoom. I figured on the 400 over the 500 f/4 or 600
f/4 because again I wanted the extra speed and if I want a 600 f/4 I
can always slap a 1.4 teleconverter on the 400 f/2.8.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Jan 2, 10:55 am, "Mr. G D Geen" <g...@ti.com> wrote:
> Hello fellow enthusiasts. Over the recent holidays I was disappointed
> because my 70-300mm lens was not able to capture a meaningful picture a
> a local hawk in the trees. I like doing nature photography. So my
> question is about big lenses, or at least 500mm lenses. There are three
> zoom lenses that I am considering. I have a mixture of zoom and prime
> lenses out to 300mm and I am really just looking to extend my range a bit.
>
> The three zoom lens considerations are
>
> Sigma 170-500 f4.5-5.6
> Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3
> Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3
>
> None of these is a stellar lens and I understand that. Each of them was
> reviewed as being slow to focus especially fully extended. Other than
> the Sigma 50-500, each lens has only ranked either good or acceptable at
> 500mm. My preference would be for a 500mm prime but the price may be
> prohibitive at around $7,000 to $8,000 USD.
>
> So, I ask you. If you used one or more of these lenses, which did you
> choose and why?
>
> Thank you, -G

Call the "used department" at the major retailer and check in the mags
and see what you can pick up used. You might get a better lens at a
cheaper price.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:55:47 -0600, Mr. G D Geen wrote:

> The three zoom lens considerations are
>
> Sigma 170-500 f4.5-5.6
> Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3
> Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3
>
> None of these is a stellar lens and I understand that. Each of them was
> reviewed as being slow to focus especially fully extended. Other than
> the Sigma 50-500, each lens has only ranked either good or acceptable at
> 500mm. My preference would be for a 500mm prime but the price may be
> prohibitive at around $7,000 to $8,000 USD.
>
> So, I ask you. If you used one or more of these lenses, which did you
> choose and why?
>
> Thank you, -G

My son recently bought the 170 -500 for his Pentax and is pleased with
it. It is quite a lump of glass and I can't borrow it. (My camera is a
EOS350D)

--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

C J Campbell wrote:

>> Sigma 170-500 f4.5-5.6
>> Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3
>> Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3

>
> Well, I considered all those lenses and then went with the 80-400mm
> f/4.5-f/5.6 VR Nikkor. I

Thanks C J. I found that one as well after I made my original post in
the online review section of one of the photo magazines. I wish I kept
the web page now. This looks like a good alternative. Also came across
the Sigma 500mm f4.5 EX. It is a prime lens at half the cost of others
but that is still $4K USD.

-G

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:55:47 -0600, in rec.photo.digital "Mr. G D Geen"
<> wrote:

>Hello fellow enthusiasts. Over the recent holidays I was disappointed
>because my 70-300mm lens was not able to capture a meaningful picture a
>a local hawk in the trees.

Could please expound on what you mean by this?
- too small
- not clear
-???
Posting a full size image of what you obtained might help diagnose issues.
Including how you had the camera setup for the shots.

> I like doing nature photography. So my
>question is about big lenses, or at least 500mm lenses. There are three
>zoom lenses that I am considering. I have a mixture of zoom and prime
>lenses out to 300mm and I am really just looking to extend my range a bit.

Under what circumstances? Handheld or on a tripod? Absolute focal length
isn't everything, there are other concerns, especially where birds are
concerned.

>The three zoom lens considerations are
>
>Sigma 170-500 f4.5-5.6
>Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3
>Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3
>
>None of these is a stellar lens and I understand that. Each of them was
>reviewed as being slow to focus especially fully extended. Other than
>the Sigma 50-500, each lens has only ranked either good or acceptable at
>500mm. My preference would be for a 500mm prime but the price may be
>prohibitive at around $7,000 to $8,000 USD.

I have no experience with any of the above. There may be solutions in
between which you might find to be more versatile for under double the
cost new and less used

70-200 f/2.8 VR + TC-2
80-200 f/2.8 + TC-2

or cheaper than the new 400 f/2.8 VR, 500 f/4 VR etc. buts still quite
pricey is the 200-400 f/4 VR + TC-1.4 combo.

Price is always a concern, however you may wish to consider lenses as an
investment for the future as well and as such look to those which allow
expanded use with TCs given their quality and light gathering capability
(you need at least f/5.6 combined for decent AF)

On Jan 2, 9:55 am, "Mr. G D Geen" <g...@ti.com> wrote:
> Hello fellow enthusiasts. Over the recent holidays I was disappointed
> because my 70-300mm lens was not able to capture a meaningful picture a
> a local hawk in the trees. I like doing nature photography. So my
> question is about big lenses, or at least 500mm lenses. There are three
> zoom lenses that I am considering. I have a mixture of zoom and prime
> lenses out to 300mm and I am really just looking to extend my range a bit.
>
> The three zoom lens considerations are
>
> Sigma 170-500 f4.5-5.6
> Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3
> Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3
>
> None of these is a stellar lens and I understand that. Each of them was
> reviewed as being slow to focus especially fully extended. Other than
> the Sigma 50-500, each lens has only ranked either good or acceptable at
> 500mm. My preference would be for a 500mm prime but the price may be
> prohibitive at around $7,000 to $8,000 USD.
>
> So, I ask you. If you used one or more of these lenses, which did you
> choose and why?
>
> Thank you, -G

Consider that a 500 mm is less than twice the magnification of a 300.
Birds in tree tops are indeed a really tough subject. One needs a
really long lens and a very good tripod. One thing to consider is a
teleconverter, a 2X. If you shoot at high f/# the performance on the
better quality ones is not that bad.