New Lense Options

Hey everbody,

I am looking to increase my camera kit with a new lense. The situation I am in is I currently have a nikon 70-300 VR lense which after thousands of photo staken with it, from the results, the sharpest images I get end after 200mm. These include my accepted airliners.net images. I am looking for a lense with range longer than 300mm but I have a budget of $1200. The lense I have spemt hours researching is the sigma 150-500 (their newest version). Will I get the same sharp images I am used to with my current lense, witn the understanding the level of sharpness does fall with longer focal lengths? Or does anyone have a better lense suggestion. Also I have read other topics here on this the older versions of this lense but am looking for any fresh thoughts/ideas.

Thanks
Matt

So after doing a bit more research, would it be worth it to spend the extra dollars and go to a Nikon 300mm prime instead, knowing the IQ is going to be better overall?

Hey Matt,

I was in the same boat as you with the 70-300mm lens till I started saving and investing in some serious glass. I can't offer much help with the Sigma 150-500mm, but I am sure someone else on the forum can chime in and provide some input.

Here are some comments on some of the lens I have and use:

- 70-200mm f/2.8 (with a 1.4X teleconverter) - much sharper and faster than the 70-300mm lens, but doesn't give you additional reach

- 80-400mm f/3.5-f/5.6 - this lens has a screw mechanism for focusing, which makes it much slower (your 70-300mm is probably faster) to acquire. Also when lighting conditions are low, focusing may be difficult at times

- 300mm f/4 - this is a nice lens, focus speed is good, and sharp (the poor man's verision of the 300mm f/2.8). With a 1.4X teleconverter you get a lens equvialent to a 420mm f/5.6 lens. With the teleconverter it's still relatively fast and sharp. Just remember you are limited to one focal length. If your camera body has a crop-sensor then you can get even more reach when you consider the camera's crop factor of 1.5 for Nikon.

As a suggestion, search for aviation photo's taken with the Sigma and see what they look like, that may help.

For the focal range that the Sigma has (150-500mm), it sure seems like a desireable choice.

Below is an image taken with the Nikon 300mm f/4 with a 1.4 teleconverter on a Nikon D7000 body:
http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Av...2011_25R-L.jpg

This image was taken with a Nikon 80-400mm lens on a Nikon D300 camera body (not a bad lens, but slow and needs good light)
http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Av...6Feb2011-L.jpg

This image was taken with a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens with a 1.4X teleconverter on a Nikon D7000 camera body
http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Av...2012_22L-L.jpg

I shoot a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 4.0....either one accepts my 1.4TC very nicely as Mark mentioned...but then again, it's Canon =P

Thanks everyone for your advice, something to consider.

Matt, whatever you do, RENT before you buy :-)

That's some good sound advice from Manny!

I was very much considering that. Thanks Manny.

On that budget get the prime. I did and it rocks. I have a 70-300VR for walking around and it does get good aviation stuff in good lightbut has it's limits. I sold my old version of the 80-200 2.8 and going to pick up the VR version. Still the best bet as long as you can get close enough.

Things also to consider is "how close" are you going to be to the subject. A good percentage of my shots have been taken with the 70-200mm f/2.8 with the 1.4X teleconverter since I am relatively close to the subjects. Otherwise, my perference is the 300mm with or without the 1.4X converter.

I own both the 70-300mmVR and the Sigma 150-500mmOS. After a lot of obsession about getting a 70-200mmVR with TC's for 'better quality', I decided that my 2-lens system was perfect for my needs. Here's why:

-the Nikkor, stopped down to f/8, offers excellent IQ when sharpness is tweaked in post. Don't make the mistake I did for a while and use it with a UV filter, it doesn't need the extra layer of glass(or resin) to shoot through. IQ is great in the middle, acceptable towards the ends of the zoom range. I don't play the anet/jp games, I don't have time for them.


-the Sigma, stopped down to f/9, also offers excellent performance throughout the zoom range. Anecdotally I've read that the extreme ends have mediocre sharpness. This is to be expected, given a lens of this zoom range. Only problem I've encountered is that it occasionally doesn't 'play nice' with the camera, and refuses to autofocus. This happens only very occasionally.

The two lenses complement themselves nicely. I keep the Sigma on the camera most of the time, keeping myself aware of what location I'm shooting from. Panera needs the Sigma, only the A340-600's run against the 150mm end. So if I saw the South African "year of the dragon" approaching I would switch to the Nikkor. At Philly, I change lenses a lot because you're much closer to the action, so you have to keep an eye on the approaches with binoculars. For the Space Shuttle flyby @ IAD, I needed to make sure my lens wasn't going to lock up on me, and I figured the 70-300 would cover such a large subject with ease, so that's what I used for a shot that could never be repeated.

If your aim is to get really good images, these lenses used in tandem offer incredible flexibility, and without the use of teleconverters. The sweet range of the Sigma takes over where the Nikkor's begins to decline(around 200), and you really only start going downhill with the Sigma around 400-450(again, that is all based on what I have read, I don't shoot test charts with my lenses). I actually just bought a Domke lens case I can hang on my belt to carry the Nikkor for when I have to leave my car. To me, this is the ideal situation. If that Boeing photographer somehow leaves the company and they need a replacement(and I land it), I have B&H on speed dial to order the "Holy Trinity" 14-24/24-70/70-200.

Hope that helps. I can't offer charts and graphs, but I do have the practical experience concerning your situation. With your budget, I would go with the Sigma, as its $1100 tag works for you(and it's really the only game in town- I think Tamron makes a similar lens, a 200-500, but I've heard bad things about it). Hopefully, Nikon will finally update the 80-400 AF-D with an AF-S VRII version this year that's sharp as hell. But, that will cost around 2 big ones.

I can't reccommend primes, because I find them to be completely impractical for aviation shooting unless you know that where you're standing will work for the kinds of shots you want to get. I do however use primes when shooting movie stills because framing with your feet is much more feasible when working with people.

Thanks everyone for your many thoughts. I am going to put off this purchase for a bit after some thought saving for even a bigger purchase, a house. Manny I did take your advice to see if I could rent a lense here in YYC and unfornately both camera shops that rent lenses dont carry either of the ones I was looking at, go figure. Anyways hope everyone on here had a great christmas and wish everyone the best in the new year.