Printable View
I would like to get a 500mm lens, but I just can't see investing the almost $8000 for a Nikkor 500.
Is it even worth bothering with one of the aftermarket (Sigma, Tokina) lenses with this focal length? or do you think I will simply be frustrated?
Keep in mind that this is a hobby for me at this point.
I fare pretty well with my 70-300VR, but I would like a longer lens to mount on a gimbal head / tripod to shoot with.
Any advice?
Thanks!
Amy D.
If you want a used one they go for less. I sold my Nikon 400 afs1 for about $4k last spring. You have to look around, and be patient, but they are around.
When it comes to quality, the Nikon 4/500 VR is the best solution. Best image quality, VR and very fast AF.
But as you wrote, that's an expensive beast.
The Sigma is not bad and much cheaper, but only f4.5, no VR and although sharp, does probably not reach the quality of the Nikon. And AF is faster with the Nikon.
Have you thought about getting the Nikon 2.8/300 VR with extenders? It's still expensive, but not as much as the 4/500 VR.
I too do photography only as a hobby (at least for now) and I struggled long before I bought my Canon 4/500L IS last year, but since then, I haven't regrettet buying it even for a minute. It's qualitiy is awesome and I get a lot more keepers than with my older 100-400.
Markus
Amy, I waited and finally found a Nikon 500 f4 AFSII second hand. It was through a friend who was moving to the VR version. I got it for $5000.00. I know that sounds and is a lot of money and I too thought about the sigma, but in the end finally bit the bullet and got it. I have not looked back and love that lens. I use the 70-300VR also, handholding and such, but my 500 is my pride and joy. If you think about it, bodies come and go, but that lens can be with you for life.
Hi,
Another possibility to consider would be a Sigma 50- or 150-500 , or Tamron 200-500 zoom. They may not be quite as perfect as a 500mm. lens costing 8 times as much, but I have seen excellent results from these lenses on the web. I have the Tamron, and have found it very useable, and sharp enough. I have had lots of critiques of images taken with this lens, but I don't recall any that have said it isn't sharp enough. It's light and well-balanced enough to hand-hold, provided the lighting and ISO of the image are enough to get a fast shutter speed. The tripod collar seems OK. Converters don't work well with it, though. There are some good reviews on Fred miranda's site (hope I'm allowed to mention that here).
Richard
Hello Amy,
I shoot a Pentax K10D with the Sigma 500mm, its a good lens.
It's not as fast at focusing as the Nikkor and it needs more light, but the sharpness is pretty good.
If you can shoot at 800 iso with low noise the lens will do you just fine.
My pentax is only good to 400 iso so I generate alot of blurry pics, but the ones that are sharp I am happy with. One day I will buy a D300 or 700 but I would still shoot the sigma 500 mm.
My wife would feed me to the bears if I spent $8000.00 on a lens. :eek:
Check out my website www.algonquinparkphototours.com most wildlife shoots are done with the Sigma 500mm.
Cheers,
Michael
Amy take a look at a post in Eager to learn by Harold He was trying to do some flight images and was unable. The AF in the others are not up to par at all. For stationary subjects you can make some good images.
To cut the cost you could try obtaining the non VR but having it is a big deal. Another alternative is going for the 200-400 VR I use it and love it. Have consider using it as my only long lens but have kept the 600 VR
I'll throw in a vote for the Sigma 500/4.5. I've only been using it for a short time, but it is far better than the Sigma 300/2.8 with an equivalent TC (2.0x) and is a bit faster. It does give up a a third of a stop to the faster 500/4, but it's a fraction of the price. There is one for sale on one of the Nikon forums at a reasonable price.
I have very little BiF with it so I won't comment on that, but in general, I find HSM is very quick and decisive. I have used the 500 with a modified Sigma 1.4x TC...if there is sufficient light, it can be a dream to use. No VR..yes, a big drawback.
Having purchased mine in "gently loved" condition, the depreciation is built in already and I venture to say, confidently, that if I sold it tomorrow it would be at a profit.
Jump ship to Canon, the big glass is priced much less, where it should be....when compared to Nikon.
Thanks for the feedback, everyone.
Christian, I can't make the jump because I already have too much invested not only in other Nikon lenses, but an underwater housing for my D70.... (though, all of it added up still doesn't reach the price of the Nikon 500VR).
Maybe I need to rent one to appreciate the difference.... I do have a 2x that I can put my 100-300 on, but then it's VERY slow.
MichaelM, I got your PM, thanks. I will check it out.
Amy D.
Both systems have advantages and disadvantages.Quote:
Originally Posted by c.w. moynihan
Leaving Nikon IMO will make you take a big step down in AF performance and features but you will have money on some lenses.
FYI I have been shooting Canon DSLRs since the D30 and have owned all Pro bodies (except the MKIII) so I have a more experience than most out there.
I would rent a big lens to make sure it meets your needs vs price vs performance.
Robert
Amy, if you don't need the autofocus the 500P is a sharp alternative and can usually be found for 2K or less. It pretty much works like the autofocus lenses since it includes the chip for the camera to read. Of course you need to focus the lens and if you are trying flying birds it won't do.
RP
Thanks again, everyone.
Robert, you're right - I need to try renting one to see if it's really that much of a difference, and then whether that's the niche I want invest in. Considering the competitiveness of the market these days, specializing in, and investing in Underwater Photography might be best for me. I've been diving for 23 years, and UW photography is definitely a specialized niche - it's very difficult. It takes excellent diving skills on top of photography skills....
rpontius, thanks for the suggestion - you are right. I am still a little fuzzy on the options for lenses that I have with my DSLR and Nikon. For that matter, I could probably pick up a 500 for my Nikkormat!!! :eek: It still works if you don't need a meter or flash! What a tank.
I have noticed recently that I have been turning off the AF features of my lenses, and manually focusing - and it has actually returned me to a comfort zone from my pre-auto-everything days. Interesting.
I appreciate everyone's input. I'll keep you all "posted". (get it? posted?) :)
Amy
