Nikon D7000 with Sigma 170-500mm f/5-6.3 APO DG (1 Viewer)

[n1000]

Hi everyone.

I own a Nikon D7000 from a month with 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. I was using it to capture birds from short range but I've decided to buy something 'bigger' to take close pictures of birds flying in air and airplanes.

And now the question: Is there a big difference in quality of photos between Sigma 170-500mm and Sigma 150-500mm except 20mm difference and the price :king:

The main reason I prefer to buy 170-500mm is a smaller price. What do You think: should I wait for more money and buy the 150-500mm or buy 170-500mm now? Or buy Tamron 200-500mm f/5-6.3?

Thanks for reply.

 

[ericbowles]

I have the Tamron 200-500. It's a good lens with proper long lens technique. The lens has a very long lens hood and extends when you zoom, so it becomes quite long. As a result, you must use good technique with a hand across the barrel. Otherwise mirror slap creates vibration for several seconds and must settle before images are truly sharp.

The lens is better for subjects within 150 feet. It's also better under 450mm.

The lens is much lighter than the alternatives. That makes it part of my light kit - over my Nikon 200-400. Image quality is better if stopped down a full stop.

AF is a little slow but pretty good.

There is no VR - so its not a good choice for low light. But if shutter speeds are kept above 1/500 sec or faster, you should get sharp images. And VR is not useful at shutter speeds above 1/500, so the value of VR is relatively small overall.

I'd give a small edge to the Sigma 150-500 due to OS. The Sigma build quality is only fair. Optics are about the same as the Tamron - maybe with a small edge to the Tamron. I'd rule out the Sigma 170-500. The other two options are better and worth the cost difference.

 

[Frogfish]

I've seen many shots from both those lenses (on Pentax cameras). The 50-500 (and also 150-500) are much better lenses than the 170-500 (everyone who buys it sooner or later seems to sell it to buy one of those other two) which in the main is not a good birding lens.

 

[n1000]

Thanks for help. I've ruled out the 170-500mm. I also saw other lenses like Nikkor 400 mm f/5.6 Ai-S IF-ED - what do You think about that one. Test images seem good - sharp edges etc. Take a look: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=13196

 

[Frogfish]

Thanks for help. I've ruled out the 170-500mm. I also saw other lenses like Nikkor 400 mm f/5.6 Ai-S IF-ED - what do You think about that one. Test images seem good - sharp edges etc. Take a look: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=13196

Sorry I don't know that lens .. however you won't be able to add a TC to it (unless you are OK with manual focusing) because the D7000 doesn't permit AF at f8 min f-stop.

 

[ericbowles]

The 400mm f/5.6 is a manual focus lens isn't it?

Optically its just fine. But I don't know that a manual focus lens is really practical. You'll have to focus using Live View and will not be able to photograph moving subjects without a lot of practice.

With long lenses you get what you pay for. If you are just getting started with a longer lens, stick with the 200-500, 150-500, or a 70-300. Don't expect teleconverters to work very well and don't expect heavy cropping. Focus on technique to get close enough where these lenses do the job.

 

[n1000]

I found next lens, much cheaper and it's a Tamron 200-400mm F/5.6 LD (IF) AF. It has a little dot on glass as the seller said. Test photos I found on internet: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/af_200400_56_ld

Thanks for reply

 

[Pasquier]

I really cannot recommend the Tamron lens - it is optically not very good.
Hope you are OK with it.

 

[n1000]

I really cannot recommend the Tamron lens - it is optically not very good.
Hope you are OK with it.

You mean the 200-400mm or all Tamron lenses?

 

[Pasquier]

No, specifically the 200-400mm zoom.
The tamrom 90mm Macro has a good reputation.
I previously used the 200-400mm for a while, and was never very happy with it - and switched to a Nikkor 300mm f4.