ideas for wildlife photog lens/sotware~

[Devananda]

ok looking for a longer lens that not something like 6K....
i have a nikon 80-200 2.8 great lens but does not have the reach I would like.
has any one shoot whit the Sigma 170-500mm?
all so was looking in to TC but did not get much positive feedback on them.
is there any software out the for this??
just thinking all ways gota have a WISH LIST ..lOL
thanks every one!
Deva

 

[GreenSlime89]

http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/news/200_500_28.htm
You'll want to put that at the top of your If I win the lottery and become insanely strong list!

What aperture is it you're after - F2.8 throughout? or would you settle with smaller apertures round about F5.6?

 

[Devananda]

in an ideal world every one could afford a F2.8 all the way up to 800mm....
and now back to reality..
looks like I will have to settle for something around 5.6-
have been looking at the Sigma 50-500MM as well as the 170-500mm

 

[GreenSlime89]

Personally, I'd go for a focal range that you don't have, you already have up to 200mm so I'd try to find something above that if it were cheaper. I'll have a quick check but I'm no expert. If the price difference was minimal between a 50-500mm lens that you mentioned:http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.asp?photo/lenses/tamron.html#200500
then I'd be tempted to go for the 50-500mm as it's more versatile. I'd be wary of buying a lens covering such a wide range of focal lengths for a couple of reasons.
1: The image quality suffers at the extremes
2: If something goes wrong with the lens; theft, damage, ect... You've put all your eggs in one basket and you might lose all that money and a damn good lens. That could mean a long time without a lens. I would hate to be without a lens I used frequently for many subjects.
Don't let me put you off though.

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.asp?photo/lenses/tamron.html#200500
There's a tamron lens for £100 less, a smaller maximum aperture, though.

 

[Devananda]

I was thinking the same however...the sigma 50-500mm gets better reviews than the 170-500mm. of course it's more $$$ to.
humm I will have to look in the that Tamron 200-500
maybe some one that has or had any of these lenses and chime in!

 

[portersangel]

I have that lens. Overall peformace is acceptable. I have had some trouble with shooting on cloudy days though. The price is right for the focal range. I have gotten alot of great shots with it. http://www.porters.com

 

[Devananda]

hey potersangel what lens are you talking about? the sigma 50-500 or the Tamron ?
BTW do you have a poters angle fish?? I know way off topic...

 

[Devananda]

now that I think about it maybe I should just go with a 2X TC on the 80-200.
I now I will lose 2F stops....
so much to think about. so were are all you wildlife photogss at..?
has anyone shoot a 80-200 2.8 wit a 2X TC?

 

[jwkwd]

One thing to consider with a lens ( zoom ) that goes from 50 - 500mm is, there is no way that it will be sharp throughout the focal length. It might have a sweet spot around 300-400 or 55 - 135 or whatever. IMHO I would look at a 300 2.8, and if that was not long enough use a 2X, and you will not lose that much speed. You mention that you will have to "settle" on a 5.6,try not to do that, even if you have to wait some extra time to save. If you settle on something, you will never be happy knowing that you could have waited a little longer to get what you wanted. Or perhaps look into the used market at B&H.

 

[portersangel]

I have the Tamron 200-500mm. No, I don't have that fish yet. I'm having a hard time keeping my son's goldfish alive, (hehe). I actually work for Porter's Camera Store. http://www.porters.com

 

[Mike_E]

Hi, I have a 80-200/2.8 that I use with a 2X. The lens is only as good as the doubler so get a good one. On my D200 it works out to 240-600/5.6.

A nice sharp 600mm @ f5.6 for the price of a doubler works for me Plus I only have to carry around the one long zoom and a little bitty doubler.

My question is, "Does anybody have any experience with a 3X?" 900mm@f8, hmmmm.

mike