Advice on some lenses if you please guys :)

[DoubleT]

ok, ive been looking at lenses again.

now i know what all teh numbers mean im able to select a little better.

i went to BTCC at rockingham yesterday, and felt a little embarrased with my 70-300mm kit lens taken from my F65, some people were there with monstrosities of lenses! anyway i know i cant afford things like that.

which led me to google when i got home

sigma make a 50-500mm f4 lens.

--clicky here--

i know normally something with such a huge focal range would'nt deliver perfectly shap pics, but from the reviews ive read this doesnt seem to be the case with the one, anyone had experiance with this lens, or know anything about them?

also am after a Macro lens.

i want a prime lens for this.

and am undecided between the

nikon 105mm VR
--clicky--

or the sigma 150mm macro

--clicky--

now i know most of you would opt for the nikon lens here, i know the VR would be greatly recieved and i think it produces better quality pictures, and i think i would too,
but? is it worth £200 more ontop of the sigma?

im also in thought of replacing my 18-135 for a 18-200 vr ( as my normal every day lens)

any thoughts or recomendations on these or anyother would be great,

thanks

 

[Alan.F]

Hi m8
I can't comment on the other lenses you were looking at but i have the Sigma 50-500 and can highly recommend it the pics in this thread were taken with it all taken hand held and in varing lighting conditions

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=21318

Cheers
Alan

 

[DoubleT]

Wow, they look great, really sharp and full of detail.

thanks for you reply

 

[PaulBoy]

DoubleT - Lens envy is terrible thing :embarrassed: but if you don't mind lugging a big lens around then the Sigma 50-500 has a great reputation - I had a Sigma 100-300 f4 & despite all its qualities I found that it was too heavy for me to carry around for any great time - The Nikon 80-400mm VR might be worth a look (I know Ven has one & rates it highly) and its not that huge (similar size to a 80-200mm F2.8)
Macro lenses are generally designed to be used in manual on a tripod so I'm not sure if the 105mm VR is worth the extra cash (again Ven has one & will give you his considered opinion if you ask) - I had one & a 50mm f1.4 which I just didn't use so I chopped both & bought a Sigma 70mm f2.8 which I felt would hold its own in place of both (suprise suprise I haven't used it! but build quality wise its excellent!)
My couple of p's worth & good luck ... Paul

 

[photostar_1]

Hi DoubleT...I was at Rockingham yesterday too....sooooo many huge lenses around I started taking pics of them!! Not processed them yet (RAW) so will try to get a few posted tonight if I can. Don't get caught in the trap of "he's got one, so I want one".... unless you really, really need it.....it's the the road to pennylessness(said she with a new 70-200mm)

 

[russdaz]

I have the Sigma 50-500mm been brill, and the only lens used in my gallery linked in my sig.

I have just upgraded to a 70-200mm depending on how good that is with a 2x TC it may well be up for grabs soon.

 

[DoubleT]

oh nice, keep me posted on that then

ah just noticed you use canon

 

[Joe T]

Sigma 105 is a very good option if you dont want to spend lots of £££s.

 

[DoubleT]

yeah i looked at that joe, but i quite like the idea of a tripod mount , which comes with the 150, also the 150 is an APO lens too, which im assuming should produce better results, no?

 

[Joe T]

TT, the 150 only has a tripod mount becasue it needs one due to its weight.

I dont think anyone has any compliants over the IQ of the 105. The Nikkor and Canon equivalents are a wee bit sharper, but there isnt much in it.

 

[Druid]

105 vr is a really versatile lens. The vr isn't much use for macro, but it does make it a fine short stabilised tele. It does the job of a few grand's worth of specialised classic Nikkors very nearly as well, for around 500 quid. OK, it doesn't have DC, or go down to f1.4, but if you have a 105 vr, you'll find it very hard to justify getting a DC lens, any of the other micros or either of the 85's unless you are specialised enough to value particular requirements over versatility (i.e. you do mostly portraits or still-life and actually need the DC feature, you do mostly bugs and need the 200/4's added reach, you do mostly flowers and need the 70-180's composition abilities, you do street and need a tiny tele like the 85/1.8 or lowlight action and need the 85/1.4's extra stop.)

 

[Druid]

Just thought I should add. When I say VR isn't much use for macro, what I mean is that it isn't much use around the 105's maximum 1:1 repro ratio. If you're doing largish flowers at around 1:3 or 4 or chasing butterflies with it (as I was a few moments ago) or something, then VR works reasonably well.

Any smaller than about 1:3 and you need a tripod, if only to maintain a constant focussing distance from the subject without weaving in and out.

One potential disadvantage for macro purists is that the 105 VR is a G lens (no aperture ring) which means you can't use the Nikon tubes to go beyond 1:1. I've seen some nice stuff done with a teleconverter though.