Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sigma 150-500 Nikon Fit - Worth It?  
User currently offlineAlasdair1982 From UK - Scotland, joined Mar 2008, 468 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 9923 times:

I have the D90 + the 18-105 and 70-300mm VR lenses. I was thinking of the Nikon AF-S 300mm f4 + x1.4 teleconverter for 'super telephoto'

But I wonder how the Sigma 150-500 at 420mm compares with the 300mm + teleconverter? and in the 150-300mm range, is it superior to the Nikon 70-300 model?


[Edited 2009-08-19 10:29:24]

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineRuudb From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 9895 times:

I cannot really tell you anything about the Sigma, but the Nikon 300 is a great lens and it works well with a tc, the 70-300mm lens isn't too bad either at least in the range from 70-200 and a bit plus mm's. The only thing you got to think about is do you need a zoom or would a prime be ok for you, it isn't possible normally to take side on shots. So if that is your goal, don't buy a prime.

User currently offlineAlberto Riva From United States of America, joined May 2002, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9830 times:

I've said it before and am saying it again -- the 300/4 is a phenomenally good lens for its price.

Ruud is right about the TC. I've even put a TC-20 on it to achieve a 900mm equivalent and to my amazement it autofocused (using the center AF sensor, wide area, on a D200.) Of course the autofocus is sloooow with a 2x and you need a decent tripod. If you don't need to zoom, and if you ask me most people don't, get the 300.

I don't know the Bigma at all, but I've had Sigmas and either loved them or found evident quality flaws. With a Nikkor prime you won't have to wonder if you got a good copy or not.


User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9797 times:

I've no expirience with the 150-500 but from what I've read it's ok upto about 400mm and getting a bit soft at the long end, stopping down will improve the result though.

Quoting Alberto Riva (Reply 2):
If you don't need to zoom, and if you ask me most people don't, get the 300.

Or get one of the best zooms ever created  Wink
In terms of Resolution, Vignetting and Aberrations the Sigma 100-300/4 easily matches the Nikkor 300/4 prime.

Sigma 100-300/4

Nikkor 300/4

and even the price is about the same.

The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sigma 150-500-experience Anyone? posted Wed Aug 27 2008 12:21:41 by IwantaBBJ
Sigma 50-500mm (Nikon AF-S Fit) posted Mon Jan 5 2009 12:23:37 by Alasdair1982
After A Long Break! Worth It? posted Sat Mar 8 2008 03:48:02 by WILCO737
SEA/PAE/BFI/RNT/PDX.... Worth It? posted Mon Sep 10 2007 00:50:49 by 727LOVER
Some SXM Shots, Any Of Them Worth It? posted Thu Jun 14 2007 04:47:38 by Longhornmaniac
Is This Really Worth It? posted Sat May 26 2007 21:40:55 by Omoo
Sometimes I Wonder If It's Even Worth It Anymore posted Tue Apr 24 2007 20:14:25 by Graphic
Does It Worth It? posted Sat Mar 3 2007 10:05:58 by Tycho34
Sigma 50-500 Questions posted Fri Dec 8 2006 12:11:31 by AirbusA346
Any Of These Worth It, Or Should I Keep Trying posted Tue Sep 12 2006 05:39:28 by AAFLT1871