-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
500mm lens (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter flible
- Start date
hmm you should be able to get a used canon 400mm f5.6 at the same price.
I got myself the heavy Tokina 300mm f2.8 with kenko 2x dgx for less than the sigma cost.... if it has to be 500mm then your alternatives are very few, there is a more expensive sigma 500mm f4.5. Then the really expensive canon f4.0.
You could also consider a refractor telescope, see digiscoping - astroscoping forum
I got myself the heavy Tokina 300mm f2.8 with kenko 2x dgx for less than the sigma cost.... if it has to be 500mm then your alternatives are very few, there is a more expensive sigma 500mm f4.5. Then the really expensive canon f4.0.
You could also consider a refractor telescope, see digiscoping - astroscoping forum
Firstly, try posting in the relevant photography forum - was very useful for me.
I had written a reply assuming you had a Canon body, but then I looked at EXIF on photos on your flickr and saw you had a Nikon... So, slightly rewritten and considerably less relevant, here goes...
I found from researching the Canon range - and I assume Nikon to be similar - that once you get past 300mm the prices hike really, really fast and by 500mm were well out of reasonable range. I also found that for wildlife you can do perfectly well with less than 500mm.
I recently bought a second hand Canon 400mm f5.6. I had originally intended to buy the Sigma 150-500 (Canon fit) but after asking a few questions and reading a few reviews opted for a Canon 400mm instead. One useful review even compared an image from a 400mm Canon lens (albeit not the exactly the same as I eventually bought) blown up in size to match the same shot taken on a Sigma at 500mm. The Canon image is superior. Other sites seemed to confirm this. So, for similar money, there was a viable 400mm alternative that seemed to produce better images than the 500mm. Now I don't know if Nikon have a similar lens to Canon's 400 f5.6 or 100-400, but it might be worth looking around to see if they do.
And if they don't? Maybe opt for a good 300mm and a teleconverter.
I had written a reply assuming you had a Canon body, but then I looked at EXIF on photos on your flickr and saw you had a Nikon... So, slightly rewritten and considerably less relevant, here goes...
I found from researching the Canon range - and I assume Nikon to be similar - that once you get past 300mm the prices hike really, really fast and by 500mm were well out of reasonable range. I also found that for wildlife you can do perfectly well with less than 500mm.
I recently bought a second hand Canon 400mm f5.6. I had originally intended to buy the Sigma 150-500 (Canon fit) but after asking a few questions and reading a few reviews opted for a Canon 400mm instead. One useful review even compared an image from a 400mm Canon lens (albeit not the exactly the same as I eventually bought) blown up in size to match the same shot taken on a Sigma at 500mm. The Canon image is superior. Other sites seemed to confirm this. So, for similar money, there was a viable 400mm alternative that seemed to produce better images than the 500mm. Now I don't know if Nikon have a similar lens to Canon's 400 f5.6 or 100-400, but it might be worth looking around to see if they do.
And if they don't? Maybe opt for a good 300mm and a teleconverter.
hbreder
Well-known member
Sigma 150-500 lens for nikon
I bought a Sigma 150-500 lens for my Nikon D300 and am extremely happy with it. Great advantage: you don't need a tripod because of the vibration reduction function. It's not too heavy to hand-hold but for prolonged carrying you may also invest in a Black Rapid strap so that you can carry it over your shoulder and leave your 2 hands free.
I bought a Sigma 150-500 lens for my Nikon D300 and am extremely happy with it. Great advantage: you don't need a tripod because of the vibration reduction function. It's not too heavy to hand-hold but for prolonged carrying you may also invest in a Black Rapid strap so that you can carry it over your shoulder and leave your 2 hands free.
Hi.
Not trying to publicise my blog but most of the wildlife shots on there are taken with the Sigma 150-500mm. Theres a variety of differing quality as you'll see but I would recommend the lens if you want a good low cost option. Just click on the link below.
Russ
There was a good looking second hand one for sale in a shop in Luton today for £560. Is that a fair price?
Last edited:
I think I paid around £750 for mine new so if it's in good nick then yes...
Depending on the camera body, i.e. its ability to AF lenses that have no internal AF motors, an 2nd hand Sigma APO 400mm 5.6 could be a starting point.
They come up on ebay once in a while and go for reasonable money.
Even the non-APO version of this lens delivers good IQ, used one for a few years on a Nikon D50 and D80.
Ulli
They come up on ebay once in a while and go for reasonable money.
Even the non-APO version of this lens delivers good IQ, used one for a few years on a Nikon D50 and D80.
Ulli
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
Also worth a look might be the Tamron 200-500m lens - it always garners very good reviews, has good quality across the board, and can often be found for between $450 and 800 US or so (used to new). I've used one for years, and it's been an excellent lens for me.
Wow - the guys here have very different ideas of a 14 yr old budget to anything I was able to afford 
You might try one of the Tamron 500 adaptall mirror lenses (assuming your camera will work with the old manual focus lenses). There are lots of poor mirror lenses around but the Tamron is about the best of the readilly available mirrors and you should be able to get one for £70 or so. Pro's compared to the Sigma 150-500 are that it is much cheaper, lighter, more portable, probably a lot more durable and quite likely will produce better/sharper photos at 500. Con's are that there is no zoom, no autofocus, no in lens stabilisation and the mirror lenses can produce really unpleasant texture where you have out of focus highlights. Even if you later get the Sigma or equivalent the Tamron still has a use as a light walk around lens (for a 500).
You might try one of the Tamron 500 adaptall mirror lenses (assuming your camera will work with the old manual focus lenses). There are lots of poor mirror lenses around but the Tamron is about the best of the readilly available mirrors and you should be able to get one for £70 or so. Pro's compared to the Sigma 150-500 are that it is much cheaper, lighter, more portable, probably a lot more durable and quite likely will produce better/sharper photos at 500. Con's are that there is no zoom, no autofocus, no in lens stabilisation and the mirror lenses can produce really unpleasant texture where you have out of focus highlights. Even if you later get the Sigma or equivalent the Tamron still has a use as a light walk around lens (for a 500).
Wow - the guys here have very different ideas of a 14 yr old budget to anything I was able to afford
Times have changed .....
Zackiedawg
Well-known member
A lot of us are making recommendations based on the general price range that the OP mentioned they were already considering (Sigma 150-500mm).
darth bangkok
Well-known member
As far as 500mm lenses go, you can't really get cheaper than the recommendations in the thread (I'm talking about functional photographic equipment), so it doesn't really matter if its for a 14yr old or a 40yr.
I had budget issues too when I was looking for my lens. I could only buy one so I don't experience with other lenses, but I use the Sigma 150-500 with my Nikon D90 and I absolutely love it. I also use it only handheld and have good results. So although I can't offer any comparisons between the various options, I can say I am extremely pleased with the Sigma. Most of the photos in my site were taken with it, except for Russia, I didn't take the lens with me on that trip.
And oh yeah, a Better Beamer works great with it!! So many of the pics I took in Peru never would have been possible without it!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/better_beamer.shtml
I had budget issues too when I was looking for my lens. I could only buy one so I don't experience with other lenses, but I use the Sigma 150-500 with my Nikon D90 and I absolutely love it. I also use it only handheld and have good results. So although I can't offer any comparisons between the various options, I can say I am extremely pleased with the Sigma. Most of the photos in my site were taken with it, except for Russia, I didn't take the lens with me on that trip.
And oh yeah, a Better Beamer works great with it!! So many of the pics I took in Peru never would have been possible without it!
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/better_beamer.shtml
Similar threads
