500mm lens for Nikon D80...but which one? (1 Viewer)

oncebittern · Dec 18, 2008

Hi all.

I've got a D80, and I want to get a 500mm lens for it. A pukka Nikon would be nice, but a tad out of my price range I suspect, so I'm thinking of a Sigma.

The Sigma 50-500 seems to get the thumbs up from just about everyone, so that's probably what I'll be getting, but I have also seen the odd reference to a Sigma 170-500. That lens hardly gets a mention in birding forums, and I just wondered what the problem is with it, or is it actually one to consider?

I haven't looked at a detailed spec for it yet, so if I've overlooked some major incompatibility, my apologies.

Thanks

Steve.

seaspirit · Dec 18, 2008

Sigma's 170-500 is an older lens than the 50-500, i.e. non HSM AF, and as far as I know now discontinued (so you may be able to get a good deal on it).
Another long zoom lens that is frequently compared to the Bigma is the Tamron 200-500, both have their fans. This one also doesn't offer HSM-AF. Last time I checked the Tamron price has become quite a bit friendlier, while Sigma recently (like last month) jacked up their prices by 15-20% in my neck of the woods. Was thinking about a 300mm 2.8 sometime in the new year, but now's $500 more than last month so I will have to reconsider. The 50-500 also went up ~$200 compared to what I paid for it last Spring. Not sure how pricing politics is in other parts of the world.

Ulli

dave123 · Dec 18, 2008

i use the 170-500 on a nikon d50 look on my blog and gallery for results.

oncebittern · Dec 18, 2008

dave123 said:
i use the 170-500 on a nikon d50 look on my blog and gallery for results.

Thanks Dave. Your photos are superb, and are of the quality I aspire to, so I think you have answered my question fully!

However, as a regular user, are there ANY downsides to this lens I should be aware of prior to purchasing one?

dave123 · Dec 18, 2008

it can be slow to auto focus and give rather soft images.
but after plenty of practice can be a good lens for the price.
good field craft to get close to subjects can yield good results

oncebittern · Dec 18, 2008

dave123 said:
it can be slow to auto focus and give rather soft images.
but after plenty of practice can be a good lens for the price.
good field craft to get close to subjects can yield good results

Thanks again Dave.

I can live with slow AF for now, though looking through some of your photos, I can see no sign of particularly soft images. Its for close-in work that I really want this - for longer stuff I have the digiscoping setup - so I think this might be the answer. Certainly seems good value, and as I'll be looking for a used one, it can hopefully be picked of for less than half the price of a used 50-500.

Telecorder · Dec 18, 2008

Keep in mind that...

the 'knock' on the older 170-500 is that it is hard to get a good copy. If you do, it's apparently a capable lens but, with it being an older, out of production lens, one can't be sure. It may well be that cropping a 70-300 VR to 500-mm might be a better way to go for that price range (The 70-300 VR, unfortunately, doesn't take kindly to use of a TC)

Add in that long reach imaging techniques are key to good imaging regardless of the lens and you're in limbo evaluating a suspect used copy.

The main contenders for < ~$1K that are 'proven' are...

Nikkor 300 f/4 AFS + 1.4X TC
Bigma
Tamron 200-500

The newer Sigma 150-500 OS is seeing some good reports with varying opinions of how its 400-500 range compares to the Bigma.

You might want to continue your analysis paralysis by reading the alternative long lens' reviews at--
http://www.dslrgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2726#post2726

petermo · Dec 25, 2008

I bought a Sigma 50-500mm 2nd hand from KEH and apart from the weight it is a better lens than I'm a photographer. i use this with my also 2nd hand D70.

Some pictures (some OK the rest merely records) can be seen at the following gallery - the majority are unsupported or leaning on a car window. The Yellow Billed Kite pics were all hand held.

www.picasaweb.google.com/peter.oosthuizen

rdspalm · Dec 27, 2008

I was in the market for a Nikon 500mm recently and through Birdforum users was convinced that a Nikon 300mm 2.8VR plus teleconverter was the way to go. One month in I am really glad with the excellent advice. See my thread "Nikon 500mm lenses".

The results I am achieving are excellent and you know what, I don't think another kg of weight would make the lens anything other than a tripod mounted heavyweight. My present setup is a D200 and two teleconverters, a KENKO 1.4 and a Nikon 1.7. It works well. Cost: £2800 for the lens and £279 for the 1.7tc.

The quality of the Nikon lens is really excellent and well worth the expense.

Richard Smith

Helios · Dec 27, 2008

I used to own the Tamron 200-500 zoom. It's a bit of an awkward lens, which extends quite a bit when at full zoom, and has a massive lens hood. Also not very sharp at the 500 end, so needs to be stopped down. Is certainly capable though in the right hands - have a look at Doc's gallery for example.

I sold the Tamron zoom soon after I got hold of a Nikon 300/4 afs lens, which I use in combination with a 1.4 teleconverter. Autofocus is about the same as the Tamron, but the lens is much sharper with better contrast. Sharp wide open at f5.6 with the teleconverter on. Although the focal length is only 420mm with the converter on, it seems to have more reach than the Tamron as you can use larger crops (due to the sharpness). Also has excellent close focus, so you can use it to take shots of dragonflies. Obviously the fixed focal length means it's less versatile than a zoom though.

The dream lens would be one of the new 500/4 or 600/4VR's, if you have a small fortune to spend. I also use an old manual focus 500/4, which can give professional results, but is more difficult to use than one with autofocus. A used one costs between £1000-1500, but you'll also need a sturdy tripod, and at least a D200 or a D300 for the camera to meter.

hbreder · Dec 28, 2008

I just sold my Sigma 50-500mm lens and instead bought the Sigma 150-500mm lens with OS (optical stabilizer) I just got it and haven't really had a chance to try it out. It's getting good reviews though and it's a little cheaper than the 50-500 lens.

Duke Leto · Dec 28, 2008

surprised no one has mentioned a 500/4.5 Sigma, a def good buy if you can find one on second hand

DOC · Dec 28, 2008

All 500 m"m zoom lenses under 1000$ have their pro's & con's -
Especially focus speed and small aperture .
The Sigma 50-500 , 150-500 , 170-500, Tamron 200-500 - are all very much alike , some have HSM which is even better .
A Prime lens ( 300 F4, 400 2.8 , 500 F4 etc... ) are way better in all parameters , and they cost accordingly .

I am a big fan of the Tamron ( because i own one |;| ), and given the right conditions ( light, distance etc ) - will deliver top notch photos .
I disagree with Helios - the lens is SUper - Sharp at 500 m"m, no softness at all, and no need to stop it down . ( thanks for the compliment of my gallery Helios :t: ) .

I agree that the 300 F4 combo is faster , sharper and easier to handle than any other option.

Guidenet · Jan 3, 2009

Tamron 200-500

I also own the Tamron 200-500 and mine is sharp out to 500mm. It needs light and a stable platform, but it does the job better than my brother's Sigma 50-500.

jamesrtaylor · Jan 3, 2009

I have the new Sigma 150-500 SO HSM lens. It is a wee bit heavy but an excellent lens. The SO - antivibration - works well as does the HSM fast motor.
I sold my Nikkor 80-400mm because it was sooo slow. It also was a good lens however.

I use a Nikon D300 and D200
Nikkor 70-300mm lens VR
Sigma 150-500mm lens SO HSM
Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens
Nikkor 15-28m VR lens
The 70-300 is my most used lens for bird photography when I am closer to my subject

Fozzybear · Jan 3, 2009

Guidenet said:
I also own the Tamron 200-500 and mine is sharp out to 500mm. It needs light and a stable platform, but it does the job better than my brother's Sigma 50-500.

View attachment 175028

Yowser! That's a big gun! :eek!:

I mostly use my 70-300 VR zoom and crop in, but I do use a 300mm f/4 with a Kenko 1.4x where I can use a tripod, mostly garden birds. Cropping in on the 70-300 loses quality but how bad it looks depends on your expectations really - this was cropped a fair bit:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/221431/ppuser/69297

and this was a VERY heavy crop on my old D80:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/214447/ppuser/69297

The benefit I find with the 70-300 is it's size, it's a very portable lens and when I'm walking miles with it that is a big advantage - nothing worse than hiking for a few hours and then trying to support a huge heavy lump of glass. The VR is a superb addition too - I wouldn't want to be without it now! It allowed me to take this shot handheld at 300mm at only 1/40th of a second:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/213240/ppuser/69297

and that is a crop too. :t:

oncebittern · Jan 22, 2009

Well, I've done the deed, and now have my 500mm lens.

I opted for the older, slower, cheaper Sigma 170-500 in the end, on the basis that that at £220 2nd hand, it was a good enough lens to start with, and get some practice, hopefully establishing good technique. Then, if all goes well, maybe I will upgrade to one of the pricier versions a bit later, as and when finances permit. On the other hand, if it all goes pear shaped, I should be able to sell it on easily enough for about the same money, and have a re-think.

Today is the first day the sun has shone since I bought it, so I have finally managed to get out to play with it:

Atter Hughes · Jan 22, 2009

Hi there,
I have read a number of reviews on the Sigma 150-500 - particularily in the US photo magazines. It really does come up as being an excellent lens. I have seen a range of examples of this work and have been impressed with it. Following discussions with oweners of the lens, it sounds as if it is worth further consideration. You may nee a "course" thread 86mm filter pitch 1mm - as opposed to the more usual 0.75 mm pitch. These can be a bit expensive and hard to locate.
Buy Sigma's own filter = Bristol Cameras are best value £45+£5 postage.
hope all goes well for you.

Dave Williams · Jan 22, 2009

oncebittern said:
Well, I've done the deed, and now have my 500mm lens.

I opted for the older, slower, cheaper Sigma 170-500 in the end, on the basis that that at £220 2nd hand, it was a good enough lens to start with, and get some practice, hopefully establishing good technique. Then, if all goes well, maybe I will upgrade to one of the pricier versions a bit later, as and when finances permit. On the other hand, if it all goes pear shaped, I should be able to sell it on easily enough for about the same money, and have a re-think.

Today is the first day the sun has shone since I bought it, so I have finally managed to get out to play with it:

Congratulations on taking the plunge ! I think there was a lot of sound logic behind your decision and it won't cost you a lot to change later.
Have fun ! Dave

Neil · Jan 22, 2009

oncebittern said:
Well, I've done the deed, and now have my 500mm lens.

I opted for the older, slower, cheaper Sigma 170-500 in the end, on the basis that that at £220 2nd hand, it was a good enough lens to start with, and get some practice, hopefully establishing good technique. Then, if all goes well, maybe I will upgrade to one of the pricier versions a bit later, as and when finances permit. On the other hand, if it all goes pear shaped, I should be able to sell it on easily enough for about the same money, and have a re-think.

Today is the first day the sun has shone since I bought it, so I have finally managed to get out to play with it:

You can good results with this lens if you're not too ambitious about subjects too far away (haze) and moving too fast (ducks flying ). Best results up to 15 metres, f8 and 400 mm on a tripod.
Good luck, Neil.

500mm lens for Nikon D80...but which one? (1 Viewer)

Steve Sheehan

Well-known member

Well-known member

Steve Sheehan

Well-known member

Steve Sheehan

Telecorder

New member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Without habitat, there is no wildlife. It's that s

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Ich bin ein Vogelbeobachter

Steve Sheehan

Alastair Hughes

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread