View Poll Results: Which should i get?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sigma 80-400 OS

    3 30.00%
  • Sigma 50-500

    6 60.00%
  • Other ........

    1 10.00%
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Sigma 80-400 OR 50-500 ?

  1. #1

    Default Sigma 80-400 OR 50-500 ?

    the purpose for the above lense is for fun... i mean serious fun..
    i doubt u wun spend a thousand dollar for something that u r not happy, even thought it's not for commerical but just for hobby or something call it "fun".

    the purpose of this lense is for wildlife... in fact no much WILD life outthere but only zoo or sme birding....

    not for macro as i have prime macro....

    i've though of Nikon 80-400 Vr. but it's 2.5 grands...

    anyone know the above 2 lense's selling price?
    or you have any BETTER option ?

    another question is.... anyone know the price of sigma 12-24 without 1.5 crop factor?
    is that mean the angle will be wider if mount it on DSLR ?

  2. #2

    Default

    Between only HSM and only OS, I'll take HSM anyday. Much more essential to have fast AF than OS IMO. Btw, i do have the 50-500 and it's a pretty awesome lens for the price. Only downside is the huge size and weight that pretty much forces you to at least use a monopod.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    i saw some images for 50-500 but find the images a tad soft... instead of getting 80-400 did you consider getting a 70-200 nikon (which is a must have range) plus a TC2?

  4. #4

    Default

    The 50-500 is slightly soft wide open but from 50-400mm it's sweet spot is F6.3. 400mm-500mm is about F8. At least from what I've observed. This makes it quite hard to get tack sharp images out of this lens since at F6.3-F8 at that kinda focal length, you either need very good light, very steady hands, a monopod or best a tripod.

    But it's quality is definately way better than a 70-200 + 2x TC. I've tried that with the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and EX 2x TC and even stopping down to F8 the sharpness, CA, contrast and colours just fly out the window.

    Just my $0.02

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Denosha
    But it's quality is definately way better than a 70-200 + 2x TC. I've tried that with the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and EX 2x TC and even stopping down to F8 the sharpness, CA, contrast and colours just fly out the window.

    Just my $0.02
    Can post sample image? Was thinking of this setup till I read your post.

  6. #6

    Default

    Abit OT liao but sample image from the 50-500 or the 70-200 + 2x TC? I sold my TC after I got my 50-500. Became quite obsolete.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    I dun think it's OT lah... besh will prob want to explore all options...

    My thinking is to spend on a Nikon 70-200f2.8 then add a TC II, you still can use at f5.6 onwards so shd be pretty decent... i am sure quite a few people tried this combo..

  8. #8

    Default

    I recommand the TC17EII over the TC20EII when used with the 70-200AFS.

    Lose a bit of the tele but you get much better image quality.

    if not 200-400?

  9. #9

    Default

    used 70-200 AFS is about 2.2k........ brand new 80-400 VR is about 1.5k...... diff is 2,8 and 4.5......

  10. #10
    Senior Member glennyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,587

    Default

    80-400 can still stack a 1.7 TC and not lose out much..

    70-200 stacking with a 2x will require lots of sunlight for it to work well. tats simple. and another disadvantage is that when stacked, it tends to go af hunting for a while

    but having VR at such ranges do realli help IMHO.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •