What's new

teleconverter with my nikon lens ??

I ended up getting a good deal on the sigma 150-500 I feel its nice and sharp at f/8 and 1/500 or faster shutter speed. I often find my camera needs to be at 4000 plus ISO but luckily my camera seems to be very well even at 6400 ISO I have not shot above 6400 yet but I have not needed to.

I have gave up on the idea of a teleconference, unless some day I end up with a 300mm f/2.8 or something like that but Ill probably just stick with this sigma lens for a long time, I would have rather had the tamron but well my wallet decided buying this sigma off someone was the best way to go. as long as the subject is not super far away I can get some nice images like this with it. overall I am pretty happy.

DSC_1688.webp
DSC_1958.webp
DSC_2802.webp
DSC_2862.webp
 
I looked for your thread on lenses, but couldn't find it so I'll comment here. If you've got a line on a good deal for a Sigma 150-500, BUY IT.
Yeah, you'll see very mixed results online with images from that lens, but MUCH of that is because a lot of people seem to think they'll just get the lens and BOOM, instant great photos. It takes some getting used to to get the best results from a long lens like that, and you may have to do some fine-tuning of the AF (if you can do that on the D5300).

Kris (coastalconn) has the BEST examples of what that lens can do, but then Kris could get sharp images using a cola bottle for a lens.

I use the Sigma 150-500 almost exclusively for my bird shots, and also used it at the Thunderbird Air Show (see my recent threads for those photos, haven't gotten them on flickr yet).

You're welcome to look at my flickr page (in my sig); as I said, virtually all the bird photos are taken with that lens, and probably 90% of them are at 500mm.
 
Kris (coastalconn) has the BEST examples of what that lens can do, but then Kris could get sharp images using a cola bottle for a lens.

QUOTE]

Hahaha can I see that?!
 
the first few days with the sigma It did take some getting used to. seems like most photos are coming out really well now.

your bird pics look good sm4him
 
I personally like the Tamron 150-600 quite a bit. For the price it will be hard to beat. It's too early to tell how the Sigma variants will perform, but the Sport is 2K. I had the 150-500 Sigma in the past and it is not bad for the price, but at 500mm it was the sharpest, even stopped down. Side by side at 420 I found the Tamron to be very close to the Nikon 300F4+1.4x TC. I know I'm a mutant that likes dead fish, but here is a 100% crop of the "dead" fish.. lol... It is sharp enough for me, but YMMV
Osprey 9_21 100% crop of 1 by krisinct- Thanks for 3 Million + views!, on Flickr
I'm dancing around with the idea of a long lens for wildlife. I could definitely be happy with results like this.
 
i have watched allot of reviews on youtube and what not, and the sigma 150-500 people keep saying after 400mm it looses sharpness and the pictures they took showed to prove that.

the tamron 150-600 looks much better but it still was not as sharp as the canon lenses i saw people put it up against but it was descent. but it still has me wondering if i would be happy with the lens.

i saw a review on the nikon 80-400 and i was pretty impressed, than i saw the price tag on that.


i dont plan to use the zoom in low light, i picked up a 35mm f/1.8 for shooting in low light. . for long exposure night shooting ill probably stick with my 18-200, a 400mm+ would be for daylight wildlife shooting, some kind of VR would be nice because i don't prefer to use a tripod except for long exposure night shooting. i think a 300mm F/4 with T/C would work out well but even the brands like sigma seem like there a bit expensive for prime lenses. at this point the tamron 150-600 seems like a good option but i am worried i may not be 100% happy with it.

A couple of days ago, I did a low-level sharpness test on my old Nikon 300 AiS f4.5 lens with a TC14B and was very pleasantly surprised at how sharp it was, even at f4.5. It is not AF but I find that not to be a big handicap for me. Here is a shot taken today with it on a D200 Nikon.
titmouse.webp
 
2x teleconverters suck, period. I have one and will play with it for things like the moon or a funky sunrise shot but that is it. I have seen people get decent results from a 1.4 but you are better off avoiding them altogether for wildlife. I have the tamron 150-600 and love it. I had the Nikon 200-400 f4, which is considered a "pro" lens and sold it after getting the tamron. Image quality was very close and having the extra f stops weren't worth lugging around a beast of a lens.

When it comes to wildlife, lens sharpness will become secondary if you follow some basic principles. Always shoot in good lighting conditions. The light seems to be flat in the shots above, that will kill your sharpness. Also, get closer. Eliminating the amount of air between you and the subject will increase the chances of getting tack sharp eyeballs.

Here is a test shot with the Tamron. Taken in some really nice early morning light. I moved in close to fill the frame at 600mm. The pelican was taken a little later in the morning, again at 600mm.

osprey.webp


DSC_1829 sm.webp
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom