[Dry Ice]

taureanbull and ricci, thanks for the responses and the info.

i am not too keen on the video thing, don't think will use it much.
so i guess, d5000 seems a good bet as of now. i know technology changes faster these days than you can switch channels. don't see myself upgrading/changing the gear for sometime after this. maybe another lens but that would be it.

hyd bhpian, any good places you can recommend to get the cam?

[shajufx]

Gurus and disciples here: I am tossed between Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 new OS version. I know both are of different league altogether, but: as I have Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 the 50-500 will do a complete cover up of the range for almost everything including serious birding. The 70-200 f/2.8 can reach 400mm by using a converter too. So, what would be a wise decision ?

[gd1418]

Shaju, you answered your query yourself...

The 70~200 f/2.8 APO is a very fast lens and gives you Macro capability. The drawback - no OS.

Originally Posted by shajufx

Gurus and disciples here: I am tossed between Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 new OS version. I know both are of different league altogether, but: as I have Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 the 50-500 will do a complete cover up of the range for almost everything including serious birding. The 70-200 f/2.8 can reach 400mm by using a converter too. So, what would be a wise decision ?

[kpzen]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Gurus and disciples here: I am tossed between Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 new OS version. I know both are of different league altogether, but: as I have Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 the 50-500 will do a complete cover up of the range for almost everything including serious birding. The 70-200 f/2.8 can reach 400mm by using a converter too. So, what would be a wise decision ?

Shaju
Please share the price of these lenses

[navin]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Gurus and disciples here: I am tossed between Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 new OS version. I know both are of different league altogether, but: as I have Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 the 50-500 will do a complete cover up of the range for almost everything including serious birding. The 70-200 f/2.8 can reach 400mm by using a converter too. So, what would be a wise decision ?

1. The 2 lenses you are looking at at $2500 lenses (the new 70-200 from Sigma has OS). This is more than twice the cost of your 17-50/2.8. Is your 50mm+ shooting that much more than your 17-50mm use?

2. The 50-500 is useable only when stopped down a bit (1/2-1 stop) so at the tele end think of it as a f/8. I would recommend the 100-300/4 over this lens unless 500mm is something that you really need.

Remember that using a 2x teleconverter on a 70-200/2.8 will make it a 140-400/5.6.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Gurus and disciples here: I am tossed between Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Sigma 50-500 f/4.5-6.3 new OS version. I know both are of different league altogether, but: as I have Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 the 50-500 will do a complete cover up of the range for almost everything including serious birding. The 70-200 f/2.8 can reach 400mm by using a converter too. So, what would be a wise decision ?

For serious birding the 500 will be invaluable no doubt. I am not sure how good the new 50-500 is but I would recommend the 150-500 over it which is definitely better than the older 50-500 'Bigma'. The 2x converter will degrade quality even on a quality zoom like a 70-200 2.8 and its best used with fast primes. For Birding reach is king of course ideally it should be reach and a fast aperture. If possible get the 70-200 too as it will perfectly complement your 18-50 2.8. But it surely is not a birding lens.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by gd1418

The 70~200 f/2.8 APO is a very fast lens and gives you Macro capability. The drawback - no OS.

Yes its very good review about this lens, OS version is already launched but not yet available in India as I understand from the major dealers.

Originally Posted by kpzen

Please share the price of these lenses

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 non-OS 39+ chennai and 43+ bangalore, Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII 1.02 chennai and 1.08 bangalore. So I am finding Chennai as the best place to pick it up from (Sathya).

Originally Posted by navin

....This is more than twice the cost of your 17-50/2.8. Is your 50mm+ shooting that much more than your 17-50mm use?
.....Remember that using a 2x teleconverter on a 70-200/2.8 will make it a 140-400/5.6.

Thanks for the tip. Somehow 50-500 is out of the list, now its between Sigma and Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and a 2X Teleconverter which should give a reach upto 400mm when in need. Btw, my replaced kit lens is a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 which is mainly used only for the indoor stuff. I rarely carry it with me when I step outside unless landscape is in mind. So far Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is on the camera body almost 90% of the outdoors.

I sold my Nikon 70-300 VR to replace it with the 70-200 f/2.8 like a walk-around lens and a wildlife/birding target with the 2X converter. So a 400mm reach with f/5.6 is perfect, isn't it ? Or will it be technically more ? I am quoting the lowest figure on different combinations below:

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII & Nikon TC 20E III (2X) = 1.34
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 non-OS & Nikon TC 20E III = 71

Nowadays we rarely find 70-200 f/2.8 for sale, so is it worth going for the best as it will remain in the bag as long as photography runs in the blood ?

Originally Posted by SPARKled

If possible get the 70-200 too as it will perfectly complement your 18-50 2.8. But it surely is not a birding lens.

Thanks, I am sure serious birders will go for 500 or 600 primes. Now my only doubt is about the combination of 70-200 with a 2X tele. How often someone shoots birds or animals anything less than f/8 usually ? So will the max f/5.6 matter much ? Please correct if the question sounds dumb !!. The whole purpose is a multi-tasking lens that makes sense within a budget than thinking about un-affordable primes that are in the 500 or 600 range.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Thanks, I am sure serious birders will go for 500 or 600 primes. Now my only doubt is about the combination of 70-200 with a 2X tele. How often someone shoots birds or animals anything less than f/8 usually ? So will the max f/5.6 matter much ? Please correct if the question sounds dumb !!. The whole purpose is a multi-tasking lens that makes sense within a budget than thinking about un-affordable primes that are in the 500 or 600 range.

The 500 and 600 primes are brilliant at F4 and absolutely at their best at 5.6. These are optimized to be at their best at larger apertures. There is a reason why professionals need these fast lenses. If they were going to shoot at F8 and thereabouts they wouldn't be spending their mega bucks on such exotic lenses. if you start doing some serious birding and wildlife shooting in canopies and low light you will realize that 5.6 and above is almost pretty much useless. That's when you will realize the importance of fast lenses. I use a 300 with a 1.4 TC as my primary bird lens but I am almost always gasping for light and faster shutter speeds.
the 70-200 2.8 in all flavors is a brilliant lens. But plonking a 2X TC in front of it will be pretty much defeat its purpose of existence. I would never use a TC with a zoom. The 1.4 is the max I would go for with a zoom and that too only if I have a 70-200 2.8 or a 200-400 4.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

....the 70-200 2.8 in all flavors is a brilliant lens. But plonking a 2X TC in front of it will be pretty much defeat its purpose of existence....

That was a very useful comment, I googled a bit and found many suggestions in the same tune. Although there are few photographers who used a 70-200 f/2.8 with a TC20E like Amoghavarsha Photography

Quality of the pic is heavily compromised with the above combination as reported by many international forums. So what do I do now ? I will be spending a bomb for the 70-200 and left with hardly any wildlife and absolutely no birding. My first tele lens was a 55-200 before I upgraded to 70-300 (both are history now). I found 300 was not enough when it comes to reasonable birding. Now the 70-200 with a TC20E will give a very poor 400mm at f/5.6.

Any other options guys ? Please share some idea before I do the 'vanishing money' act ! How I wish if Nikon gave a 200-400 free with the 70-200 !!!

[SPARKled]

First of all you need to know what is your exact requirement. There is no lens that is perfect for all purposes. Just dwell on you shooting style and the kind of pictures you like to take and then see what focal length is the best for you and then make a call. If birding can take a back seat for now go ahead and get that super 70-200 that you so badly want. If birding and wildlife is what you need, go for a longer focal length and then buy your coveted 70-200 later. There is a good Nikon 80-400 VR which should be able to all these things that you need but then its a slow lens. If you absolutely need a fast lens then you will have to spend a lot more. You can also look out for a 80-200 2.8 which is optically pretty close to the 70-200 but is almost half the price and then go for a Sigma 150-500 for your birding needs in a budget. I guess these 2 lenses will be just about equal to a 70-200 + TC.

[kuttapan]

Originally Posted by shajufx

That was a very useful comment, I googled a bit and found many suggestions in the same tune. Although there are few photographers who used a 70-200 f/2.8 with a TC20E like Amoghavarsha Photography

Quality of the pic is heavily compromised with the above combination as reported by many international forums. So what do I do now ? I will be spending a bomb for the 70-200 and left with hardly any wildlife and absolutely no birding. My first tele lens was a 55-200 before I upgraded to 70-300 (both are history now). I found 300 was not enough when it comes to reasonable birding. Now the 70-200 with a TC20E will give a very poor 400mm at f/5.6.

Any other options guys ? Please share some idea before I do the 'vanishing money' act ! How I wish if Nikon gave a 200-400 free with the 70-200 !!!

Have you considered the Nikon 80-400? Costs much less, but said to have very slow auto-focus. There is also the Nikon 80-200 2.8, but no VR, I think.

[vinod_namakkal]

Hello Guys! I am new to this photos and cameras. I am planning a trip to leh and shimla and thought of updgrading my camera from Sony Cyber shot to something else.

can someone suggest me a good camera within a budget of 10K?

I am sure if I can get an DSLR for that price

Or I even ok with used one. please suggest where I can find a used one in coimbatore / chennai.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

First of all you need to know what is your exact requirement. There is no lens that is perfect for all purposes.....

Thanks again. Exact requirement is a tough thing to pin point, because I love to have an all-time 'walk-around' lens that can meet many things together (low light, portraits, street, wild-life, birding) but thats anyway too much to ask in one lens.

Therefore, I am sticking to Sigma/Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 without any change. Now If I am choosing Sigma, I better wait for 2 weeks so that the new OS version will be available (which claims to give a 2 stops advantage). Its expected to be around 70k according to Shetala guys. So it will be less than 55k at other retailers . Non-OS is just 39+ where Shetala is selling it for 62+, see the difference in the B&W game.

Originally Posted by kuttapan

Have you considered the Nikon 80-400? Costs much less, but said to have very slow auto-focus. There is also the Nikon 80-200 2.8, but no VR, I think.

I had checked the options, but those are atleast 5 years old lenses right ? Newer Sigma would be a better bet than those old Nikons as suggested by few friends.

Frankly I cant find any difference between the shots of 70-200 f/2.8 sigma and nikon. Gone through atleast 300+ pics posted through different sites and forums. The price difference is atleast 62k !! Could anyone justify the extra we pay for a Nikon ? Latest line up of Sigma lenses are expected to be of very good quality that can stand the competition. And I believe Sigma is made in US and Nikon in China. Any pointers on the premium one pays ? I think that answer will make the decision easy and final, hopefully ending this boring session for others.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Thanks again. Exact requirement is a tough thing to pin point, because I love to have an all-time 'walk-around' lens that can meet many things together (low light, portraits, street, wild-life, birding) but thats anyway too much to ask in one lens.

Therefore, I am sticking to Sigma/Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 without any change. Now If I am choosing Sigma, I better wait for 2 weeks so that the new OS version will be available (which claims to give a 2 stops advantage). Its expected to be around 70k according to Shetala guys. So it will be less than 55k at other retailers . Non-OS is just 39+ where Shetala is selling it for 62+, see the difference in the B&W game.


I had checked the options, but those are atleast 5 years old lenses right ? Newer Sigma would be a better bet than those old Nikons as suggested by few friends.

Frankly I cant find any difference between the shots of 70-200 f/2.8 sigma and nikon. Gone through atleast 300+ pics posted through different sites and forums. The price difference is atleast 62k !! Could anyone justify the extra we pay for a Nikon ? Latest line up of Sigma lenses are expected to be of very good quality that can stand the competition. And I believe Sigma is made in US and Nikon in China. Any pointers on the premium one pays ? I think that answer will make the decision easy and final, hopefully ending this boring session for others.

Traditionally the Nikon AF-S has always had faster focusing and better locking
abilities especially in low light. Sigmas are always been tricky with their quality control and I would recommend not to go for their newer releases till all the flaws are ironed out. Their new releases have more often than not have had problems in the initial production runs. You usually have to be mighty lucky to get a cherry sample in the first go with Sigma. Nikkors usually have better quality control and work perfectly right from the first go. Nikkor colors and contrast also seems to be s little better but surely they are not twice as better than their corresponding Sigma counterparts as the prices suggest. Also dont worry about the older Nikkors not being as good as the newer lenses. They are pretty fine lenses as good or better than their Sigma counterparts. Also I dont think Sigmas are made in USA. Their EX line made in Japan. While most of the expensive and professional nikkors too are made in Japan.

[jacs]

Dear All,

Little OT, I need to buy a tripod in Bangalore. I dont have a DSLR now, but my upgrade would definitely be to an entry level DSLR. My Fuji Finepix S5600 is almost 4 years old but I love this cam being my first possession and decent performance in outdoor.

I am not looking for a professional series but an affordable one which will not require an upgrade even for a DSLR. Please help.