Decision on new lens

[nsk64]

I shoot with a Nikon d7100, I will be going to yellowstone this september and I am looking to purchase a new lens for the trip. I am looking the sigma 150-500 5/6.3 or the sigma 70-200 2.8 with a 2x teleconverter. My thoughts are that the 70-200 with 2x would put me at 140-400 at about f4 but I could use the lens without the convertor for low light and fast photos.The 2.8 and converter would cost about $500 more than the 150-500. I would like the groups comments or experience with this purchase.

[Manfred M]

The obvious question is what are you looking at shooting and what is your budget? Based on the focal lengths, I assume you are primarily looking at wildlife shooting?

We do own the Sigma 150-500mm lens and it is the first and last Sigma we will ever touch. It's went back to Sigma twice within 6 months of our owning it. The first time was for replacement of the focus motor and focus electronics and the second time for the focus electronics (and of course it failed on a trip to Africa).

I do own the Nikon f/2.8 70-200mm and I do use it a lot, but on a full-frame camera. I understand that the Sigma 70-200mm is fairly soft, especially at the edges until you get to around f/8.

[dubaiphil]

There's quite a price differential here, plus one a D7100 it would help a great deal if you had a grip on the camera to give you a little more balance and usability.

The 70-200 Nikkor should win on the IQ front vs the 150-500, even with the 2x TC (though that may narrow the difference slightly)

I'd much rather have the 70-200 Nikkor, and crop if required - you have plenty of MP to play with

[nsk64]

There's quite a price differential here, plus one a D7100 it would help a great deal if you had a grip on the camera to give you a little more balance and usability.

The 70-200 Nikkor should win on the IQ front vs the 150-500, even with the 2x TC (though that may narrow the difference slightly)

I'd much rather have the 70-200 Nikkor, and crop if required - you have plenty of MP to play with

Phil I was considering the sigma 70-200 2.8 it is about $250 more than the 150-500 then the price of the t/c.

[dubaiphil]

Sorry - half asleep!

That makes the decision cheaper yet more difficult.

I'd still say to look for a Nikkor over either - the 70-200 VR (previous version) or 80-200 (two generations before the current VRII) - both could be better options.

Or the 80-400

Bang for the buck - my 70-300mm VR Nikkor is hard to beat at f8 and 300mm

[jprzybyla]

I have been very satisfied with Nikon refurbished lenses, in my opinion they are just as good as a new lens and cheaper by a few hundred dollars. You might consider that. I would also recommend staying with Nikon glass for your camera.

[PhotomanJohn]

I suggest that you also consider the Nikkor 70-200mm f/4. It is as sharp or sharper than any of the other lenses you are considering and much easier to carry because of its reduced size and weight. It also works well with Nikon's teleconverters. Giving up one stop is not a big deal for me and I am very happy with my choice.

John

[dubaiphil]

I'm just waiting for a techie/anorak to chime in with the answer to this:

24MP Sensor, 500mm focal length, how many MP in a 400mm image to crop to 500mm equivalent, or how many MP in a 300mm image to crop to 500mm

And then the icing on the cake/answer, max print size at 300dpi without interpolation for each of the above.

Then think about how often you're likely to print to this size - that may define any focal range and TC range options that you may go for.

[benm]

A 2X converter on the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you f/5.6, not "about f/4". And as soon as you stop down you may well lose autofocus. That may influence your decision.

[PhotomanJohn]

A quick comment on Ben's post. The D7100 is rated to focus with a f/8 equivalent lens and should autofocus fine with a f/5.6 lens in most any light.

For comparison, the D7000 is only rated to autofocus with a f/5.6 lens and my experience with the Nikon 2X converter and the 70-200mm f/4 lens is that it autofocuses flawlessly even down to low room light using the center focus point. I expect that the side focus points would be more of a problem with the D7000.

John

[nsk64]

A quick comment on Ben's post. The D7100 is rated to focus with a f/8 equivalent lens and should autofocus fine with a f/5.6 lens in most any light.

For comparison, the D7000 is only rated to autofocus with a f/5.6 lens and my experience with the Nikon 2X converter and the 70-200mm f/4 lens is that it autofocuses flawlessly even down to low room light using the center focus point. I expect that the side focus points would be more of a problem with the D7000.

John

John. Can you explain to me the auto focus f/8 vs f5.6 I Am new with this camera and it seems to focus at all times except very low light/low contrast situation. Thank you for the input I only want to purchase one $1500 lens so I want to make the best decision. I saw your post on the 70-200 f4 how would that compare with my nikon 18-200, I don't know if i would gain that much one stop on the high end.

[PhotomanJohn]

Nick - I am not an expert on the subject but can give you the basics. There are two issues that affect the autofocusing ability of your camera. One is the amount of light coming through the lens and hitting the sensor. Meaning if it is very dark the camera will not be able to autofocus. I think your camera is rated to autofocus down to -2EV so this won't really be an issue for you unless it is pitch black.

There is a separate issue that limits the ability to autofocus when using the phase detection sensor (i.e., not in live view). The image of the subject is split with a separator lens forming two images on the focus sensor. The camera adjusts the lens focus until the two images are separated by a specific amount that corresponds to an in-focus image on the main sensor. This system requires a minimum effective aperture (image circle) in order to function. If the image circle is too small not all of the separator lens will be illuminated (because it is behind the plane of focus) for the system to work properly. Your camera is rated to autofocus with an f/8 lens which would be the case with a f/4 lens with a 2X teleconverter.

Regarding your 18-200 lens, it really depends on what you want to do with the photos. For most of the pictures I take, a slightly faster lens isn't that important to me. I wanted a sharper lens with less distortion and more contrast than the kit lens. In your case, the D7100 has a finer pixel pitch than the resolution of the image that the kit lens can produce. If you want to take full advantage of the camera's sensor, you need the best lenses out there. Depending on the end result of your photos you may not need to take full advantage of your camera's capability. There are a number of factors to consider when you buy a new lens and max aperture and focal length are only two of them.

I hope this helped and not made things worse for you.

John

[Adrian]

We have some experience with the current Sigma 150-500 as we had chance to use it on a recent Asian trip. We were mostly photographing birds, flying squirrels and such like from a boat. It was used on a Canon 40D (so not Nikon and a crop). It was lent to us by a friend who was using a 500mm Canon prime (much more expensive).

From our perspective it was very difficult to get crisp shots on the Sigma. Even tripod mounted onshore and using it to take pictures of parrots nesting in a mud cliff on the opposite side of the river bank, the images lacked crispness and clarity: somewhat inferior to either the Canon 500mm (unsurprising) or our own 300mm DO zoom.

The owner of the Sigma had also experienced unreliability (autofocus failure) and so this was his second version of the lens. It was offered to us as a used purchase quite cheaply, but we declined. It would not be my first choice of lens for wildlife, but it may be much better in a Nikon version for all I know. We experienced no autofocus issues as far as I recall, though light levels were mostly good.

Adrian

[nsk64]

Nick - I am not an expert on the subject but can give you the basics. There are two issues that affect the autofocusing ability of your camera. One is the amount of light coming through the lens and hitting the sensor. Meaning if it is very dark the camera will not be able to autofocus. I think your camera is rated to autofocus down to -2EV so this won't really be an issue for you unless it is pitch black.

There is a separate issue that limits the ability to autofocus when using the phase detection sensor (i.e., not in live view). The image of the subject is split with a separator lens forming two images on the focus sensor. The camera adjusts the lens focus until the two images are separated by a specific amount that corresponds to an in-focus image on the main sensor. This system requires a minimum effective aperture (image circle) in order to function. If the image circle is too small not all of the separator lens will be illuminated (because it is behind the plane of focus) for the system to work properly. Your camera is rated to autofocus with an f/8 lens which would be the case with a f/4 lens with a 2X teleconverter.

Regarding your 18-200 lens, it really depends on what you want to do with the photos. For most of the pictures I take, a slightly faster lens isn't that important to me. I wanted a sharper lens with less distortion and more contrast than the kit lens. In your case, the D7100 has a finer pixel pitch than the resolution of the image that the kit lens can produce. If you want to take full advantage of the camera's sensor, you need the best lenses out there. Depending on the end result of your photos you may not need to take full advantage of your camera's capability. There are a number of factors to consider when you buy a new lens and max aperture and focal length are only two of them.

I hope this helped and not made things worse for you.

John

John;
Thank you for the information, This is some good food for thought and a little more research, I am leaning toward the 70-200 2.8 with a convertor. My thought being I can use it for wildlife with the convertor and use it for action fast photos without, I am a little concerned about the weight though. I may go rent the 2.8 and the 4.0 lens, and see which I prefer. The 18-200 I use is not actually a kit lens, It replaces the two lens that came with my d-60. Thank you for the info
Nick

[chauncey]

Just another point of view, unless you have a specific want/need for a specific lens in your
normal shooting situation and want this particular lens only for this trip...why not rent one?

[Polar01]

Nick: I have been reading the thread with interest, what I do not know is what you are interested in shooting, ie: birds, wildlife, macro, landscapes, etc.. So I am going to add my 3 cents worth in, Having been to Yellowstone a couple of times spending some time each visit I would say that you will use your 18-200mm most of the time as you want to get a grand view of the park. Deer, elk, and buffalo you will see walking down the middle of the road, maybe bear in the interior if hiking, and wolves very rare chance of coming across them.
Now for lens, the 70-200mm F/2.8 is a great, great lens most photographers I know love the lens, however it stays at home in a bag as it is too heavy to lug around. The 70-200mm f/4 is another good lens and would make an excellent choice depending on what you like to shoot. If you want to shoot wildlife I would say the old 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 it is slow focusing but you will be on a tripod and shooting from a distance and he wildlife is not moving very fast. I have it, using it only when I need that added reach, not often as I shoot mainly landscapes. The lens that I feel gives the biggest bang from the buck is the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR it has a good reach, 450mm equivalent on the D7100, light, good construction, and very fast focusing still one of the fastest all from around $550.00.
You say above that you are leaning towards the 70-200mm f/2.8 + convertor I would forget it and with that kind of money get the new 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 VR which is very fast focusing and razor sharp. Both are about the same weight yet you get the extra reach with out the additional weight of the converter and the stops you lose with it. The 70-200mm+converter around $3000.00 without tax, the 80-400mm around $2800.00 without tax. Now you have to buy the collar for the 40-800mm as it does not come with it, however it is not that good, instead get one from Really Right Stuff so now either way it comes out about equal to the 70-200mm+converter option.
Now the last thing, If you were thinking of renting, I would suggest renting two lens the 70-200mm f/2.8+converter and the little 70-300mm f.4.5-5.6 VR and compare them against each other.

Cheers:

Allan

[jcuknz]

I have been to Yellowstone twice now and after the last time I suggest checking out the smoke-haze situation before you buy a long lens ... it was very disapointing from a photographic point of view. First time I was in a hurry and didn't stop to take many photos and looked forward to correcting this on my second visit
The way things seem to be going forest fires are a serious photographic problem.

[pnodrog]

Allan, I am glad someone raised a 70-300 lens option. For years I carried one (Sigma APO) and a 1.4x converter. The loss of speed with a 2x converter was to great and generally (in the old film days) a 1.4x gave better optical performance. Very useful and relatively light and economic combination.

[PhotomanJohn]

It is worth noting that the Nikkor 70-300mm lens is not compatible with Nikkor teleconverters.

[nsk64]

Nick: I have been reading the thread with interest, what I do not know is what you are interested in shooting, ie: birds, wildlife, macro, landscapes, etc.. So I am going to add my 3 cents worth in, Having been to Yellowstone a couple of times spending some time each visit I would say that you will use your 18-200mm most of the time as you want to get a grand view of the park. Deer, elk, and buffalo you will see walking down the middle of the road, maybe bear in the interior if hiking, and wolves very rare chance of coming across them.
Now for lens, the 70-200mm F/2.8 is a great, great lens most photographers I know love the lens, however it stays at home in a bag as it is too heavy to lug around. The 70-200mm f/4 is another good lens and would make an excellent choice depending on what you like to shoot. If you want to shoot wildlife I would say the old 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 it is slow focusing but you will be on a tripod and shooting from a distance and he wildlife is not moving very fast. I have it, using it only when I need that added reach, not often as I shoot mainly landscapes. The lens that I feel gives the biggest bang from the buck is the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR it has a good reach, 450mm equivalent on the D7100, light, good construction, and very fast focusing still one of the fastest all from around $550.00.
You say above that you are leaning towards the 70-200mm f/2.8 + convertor I would forget it and with that kind of money get the new 80-400mm 4.5-5.6 VR which is very fast focusing and razor sharp. Both are about the same weight yet you get the extra reach with out the additional weight of the converter and the stops you lose with it. The 70-200mm+converter around $3000.00 without tax, the 80-400mm around $2800.00 without tax. Now you have to buy the collar for the 40-800mm as it does not come with it, however it is not that good, instead get one from Really Right Stuff so now either way it comes out about equal to the 70-200mm+converter option.
Now the last thing, If you were thinking of renting, I would suggest renting two lens the 70-200mm f/2.8+converter and the little 70-300mm f.4.5-5.6 VR and compare them against each other.

Cheers:

Allan