Sigma -> Quantaray lenses. Any good?

[midget patrol]

I'm looking into a couple of lenses. I, however, being a 16 year-old highschool student have a fairly limited budget. Sigma, who i'm sure you've heard of, made/makes a series of lenses and filters for www.ritzcamera.com called Quantaray. I currently use a 28-80 nikon and a 70-300 nikon. I'd like to pick up a 28-300 and a super telephoto lens for sports and nature photography.

This is the super telephoto i'm looking at; a 600-1000mm from quantaray:
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/251664843.htm


For the 28-300, i was looking at this sigma over the nikon with the same range:
http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3305&navigator=2

Any suggestions, opinions, experiences with sigma and quantaray? Good investments? Thanks in advance.

 

[SantosD50]

I use a 28-90 Quantaray and love it. I really like Nikkor lens, but I would buy another Quantaray lens.

 

[thebeginning]

IMO you should stick with your current lenses. there really is no need to buy a 28-300, partly because you already have that range covered, and partly because you'd lose a good bit of quality from using a lens with such a huge zoom range. Typically, the larger the zoom range, the harder it is to retain good image quality. Assuming you use a d50, d70, or some other nikon dSLR, the long end of your 70-300 equals roughly a 450mm 'equivalent' focal length because of the 1.5x crop of nikon digital sensors. That focal length should be plenty for most high school sports (for basketball most photogs use something around the 85mm range, actually), and adequate for nature photography. That 'ultra telephoto' that you posted has a maximum aperture of f/9.9, which is INCREDIBLY small for a maximum aperture. The only way you'd be able to use that lens would be in really bright outdoor situations or with high ISO (ISO 400 and above) settings...and that's at the lowest focal length. Note also that it's manual focus, which could be both tough and obnoxious for nature photography. That lens would be far too long for sports in my opininon. It is almost better to start with a small range (say a 50mm prime) and then decide from there EXACTLY what you need from there. if you know you can't get what you're looking for from what you have, say rangewise, consider buying a teleconverter or a nice longer prime and teleconverter as a combo. What exactly do you shoot as far as sports and wildlife go? Is that your main area of photography?

 

[midget patrol]

IMO you should stick with your current lenses. there really is no need to buy a 28-300, partly because you already have that range covered, and partly because you'd lose a good bit of quality from using a lens with such a huge zoom range. Typically, the larger the zoom range, the harder it is to retain good image quality. Assuming you use a d50, d70, or some other nikon dSLR, the long end of your 70-300 equals roughly a 450mm 'equivalent' focal length because of the 1.5x crop of nikon digital sensors. That focal length should be plenty for most high school sports (for basketball most photogs use something around the 85mm range, actually), and adequate for nature photography. That 'ultra telephoto' that you posted has a maximum aperture of f/9.9, which is INCREDIBLY small for a maximum aperture. The only way you'd be able to use that lens would be in really bright outdoor situations or with high ISO (ISO 400 and above) settings...and that's at the lowest focal length. Note also that it's manual focus, which could be both tough and obnoxious for nature photography. That lens would be far too long for sports in my opininon. It is almost better to start with a small range (say a 50mm prime) and then decide from there EXACTLY what you need from there.

Thank you very much. The main reason I wanted to get one lens to cover the 28-300 range is that I find myself needing to switch between the 28-80 and the 70-300 quickly and often. Having one lens covreing that whole range would be useful. In terms of sports, I photograph mostly crew and paintball, neither of which get you very close to the action. I find that more zoom would be useful. 1000 is a little excessive though, i guess. Would a 400mm or a 200-400mm give me a more effective range?

 

[thebeginning]

yes, technically it would be better for the increased range. the problem with long range photography is that you really get what you pay for. one thing you may want to consider is something like an 18-200mm - I know nikon has an offering in that range. that would be a better alternative to the quantaray. would you mind posting some shots that you're getting with your 70-300 at 300mm, just to show how 'not close' you're getting? It is always better to get closer than to get longer glass, as I'm sure you know. If what you're missing isn't that big of a gap, I wouldn't recommend buying new glass for it.