Any views or comments before i commit?

[Jed]

Here we go again...

No specific fingers pointed in any specific direction, but why are we recommending again based on no information provided from the prospective advisee? This goes for both suggesting that a 80-200/2.8 is a good option, and also that it isn't.

I for one cannot figure out what Nitrotech's shooting style is merely from the three lenses that he has listed, so unless someone else has managed to figure it out, in which case please enlighten me, then let's ask questions first before jumping in with recommendations.

This rant does NOT refer to those who commented on the 50-500 after all the original poster did ask for comments RE that lens. And the other three.

 

[beachbum]

Nitrotech,

u should really consider your shooting style. E.g. how often do you use extreme telephoto? ie 400-500mm?? is the lens tooooo heavy for you to handhold comfortably or are you prepared to always use it on a tripod/monopod if you can handhold it?? r you prepared to carry this lens around the whole day?

if you are still considering a 80-200 type of lens, chances are you may not use the 400/500mm focal length very often and you end up carrying the heavy bloke around for your 50 - 200mm needs.... which there are plenty of very good substitues....

i am not desuading u from buying the 50-500, just wanna share some of my concerns that's all. Optically speaking, i have little qualms about sigma lenses. cheers!

 

[NitroTech]

Originally posted by beachbum
Nitrotech,

u should really consider your shooting style. E.g. how often do you use extreme telephoto? ie 400-500mm?? is the lens tooooo heavy for you to handhold comfortably or are you prepared to always use it on a tripod/monopod if you can handhold it?? r you prepared to carry this lens around the whole day?

if you are still considering a 80-200 type of lens, chances are you may not use the 400/500mm focal length very often and you end up carrying the heavy bloke around for your 50 - 200mm needs.... which there are plenty of very good substitues....

i am not desuading u from buying the 50-500, just wanna share some of my concerns that's all. Optically speaking, i have little qualms about sigma lenses. cheers!

Thanks for yur concerns there, appreciate it. Right now I am making serious decisions on whether to get the lens or not. Think I'd use that lens only when i go to the Zoo or the BP, which is not very often. But I am getting the other 2 for sure and decide later on the 50-500.

 

[ziploc]

Originally posted by Jed
Here we go again...

No specific fingers pointed in any specific direction, but why are we recommending again based on no information provided from the prospective advisee? This goes for both suggesting that a 80-200/2.8 is a good option, and also that it isn't.

NitroTech did mention he was considering the AFS 80-200 but it was out of his budget.

 

[ninelives]

50-500mm is very heavy, very tiring, i always ask bluestrike to carry things for me. optic is good tho. but if you want to compare this with $10,000 telephoto lens is another story, as far as i am concern, this is a good lens, u need good tripod to support this.


i bought it at 1.6 k btw, i think extreme also bought one.

 

[NitroTech]

Finally got the 3 Sigma lenses and at quite good prices I reckon.....

The 50-500mm:- $1520
17-35mm :- $780
105mm Macro:- $570

All the prices are nett. Tempted by the 15-30mm but a bit pricey. There was this guy advertising to sell a 2 month old 15-30mm at $750 on Singnet Classified but I was too late. Missed him by an hour!! Anyway, happy with the buy. And also thanks for all who contributed their comments and suggestions. Cheers Guys!!!

 

[shmott]

Hi ppl,
I am considering getting a macro lense.The sigma 105mm is one of my considerations besides the more expensive nikon model and tamron sp 90mm.So how's the sigma 105mm?Im more into potraits than insect macro shots .I need some help here.Thanks.