Please offer me your honest opinions on this lens. It received decent reviews on FredMiranda.com
SIGMA 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO DG
I also found a Tamron 200-500 for $725.00 on EBAY Is this too much?
Thx so much
FYI, we are moving from California next week for my job, and heading to Springfield, Mo, and will be retiring from the Federal Govt in a year or so... Will be off-line for a week or two. Good knews to some I'm sure, as I know I have asked some real elementary questions...
I have the Sigma 135-400 and have been very happy with it optically - very sharp and contrasty. One potential down side if you plan to use it for wildlife is the relatively slow and noisy AF (at least on my Canon version) but with good technique you can get some great images.
Posted by Kent Staubus on June 18, 2006 at 4:55 PM
I haven't used the Sigma 135-400mm, but I trust the reviews from Fred Miranda. If you are looking to conserve cash (aren't we all?) this lens would make sense on either the Nikon D50 or maybe even the D70s. I would not put one on a D200. Why? For the same amount of money I could buy the Nikon 80-400mm VR and put it on a D50, and that combo would out perform the D200/135-400mm, mainly because of the VR.
The Tamron 200-500mm seemed like a decent lens when I toyed with one last month. It's nothing fancy but it seemed well made. Optics are reported to be sharp. I think I saw the eBay ad, and if you could snag it for $500 it would be a bargain. I might pay the $725, but I don't think it will bring that much. If I was interested in it, I'd put in a bid for $701.55. My guess is it will sell for $650, but you never know.
If I didn't get that one for <$700, I think I'd go for the Sigma 50-500mm. The main advantage the Sigma has is the HSM motor for faster auto focus.
Springfield, MO. Part of my old haunts. I spent most of the previous week in Sedalia, MO, about two hours north on U.S. 65. I now own about a section & half of farm land up there. Now that I know what you are likely going to take photos of and where, I can zero in a little better. I've been taking photos of deer and turkeys there for the past ten years, off and on. There are also coons, possums, red fox, and the very elusive bobcat (I used to see one a year when I lived around there.) There are reports of bears in the Ozarks, all though I've never seen one.
The part of MO you are moving to is heavily forested, with open fields. The light can be dim in the woods, and you don't always need a lot of reach from a lens since visibility is often "tight" anyway. I think the perfect set up for you is the Nikon D50, Nikon 80-400mm VR, and either the 18-55mm kit lens or the 18-70mm S lens. You can actually get away without a tripod with the VR lens. The 400mm on a D50 will yield the equiv. of 600mm, and I do fine with 400mm on a film camera most of the time. There are lots of trees, fence posts, and even rocks to brace the camera against for quick support. The 80-400mm VR is f5.6, which is maybe 50% brighter than the Tamron/Sigma f6.3. That's an advantage in the low light woods. If it were me looking to take wildlife photos in Western Missouri hardwood forest and wanting to spend the minimum, that's what I'd get. Nikon D50 with 80-400mm VR. Or, the D50 with Sigma 135-400mm. You could try bracing it and shooting ISO 400. A D50 plus 50-500mm or 200-500mm would work too, but you will need a tripod with those so that needs to be factored in. The 135-400mm is an f5.6 (faster) lens and might be a tad easier to work with, but you still might end up wanting a tripod under it. Again, don't forget to take into account the lower light levels (and thus slower shutter speeds) in the woods. For absolute lowest $$, the D50 plus 135-400mm off eBay is an option.
As you can tell, I've done what you want to do, know what's available for what price, and thought carefully about how gear, subject, conditions, and photographer interact. My personal choice, money no object, for taking photos if I lived in Springfield? A 4x5 field camera. There are some stunning landscapes/old buildings/ancient small towns down there that hardly anyone is taking photos of! I'll be back in Sedalia the week of July 17.
After you move, consider subscribing to the Missouri Conservationist. It's the state's FishyGame Dept. magazine. There is a staff photographer there named Jim Rathburn you might want to meet. He should be at the MO State Fair in Sedalia, in August. The MO Dept. of FishyGame has a big building there with lots of info and handouts you will find interesting. Yes, I might be there too. No cattle to enter though.
The 135-400 would probably be a good lens for the money. The Tamron can be had at Beach Camera for $789 new so $650 would be a good price as suggested already.
Best of luck on the move!
Posted by Basil Greber on June 19, 2006 at 2:33 AM
Joe, the Canon version of the 135-400 sells for 400 bucks in like-new condition at KEH.com. Just to let you know & to get an idea of what to bid - I often found buying used on eBay to be more expensive than buying used in a store! And in a store, you can try the lens right away, with your own camera etc...
Discussion
5 repliesSIGMA 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO DG
I also found a Tamron 200-500 for $725.00 on EBAY Is this too much?
Thx so much
FYI, we are moving from California next week for my job, and heading to Springfield, Mo, and will be retiring from the Federal Govt in a year or so... Will be off-line for a week or two. Good knews to some I'm sure, as I know I have asked some real elementary questions...
Here's one example: Hawk and Prey
Can't help with the Tamron.
Guy
The Tamron 200-500mm seemed like a decent lens when I toyed with one last month. It's nothing fancy but it seemed well made. Optics are reported to be sharp. I think I saw the eBay ad, and if you could snag it for $500 it would be a bargain. I might pay the $725, but I don't think it will bring that much. If I was interested in it, I'd put in a bid for $701.55. My guess is it will sell for $650, but you never know.
If I didn't get that one for <$700, I think I'd go for the Sigma 50-500mm. The main advantage the Sigma has is the HSM motor for faster auto focus.
Springfield, MO. Part of my old haunts. I spent most of the previous week in Sedalia, MO, about two hours north on U.S. 65. I now own about a section & half of farm land up there. Now that I know what you are likely going to take photos of and where, I can zero in a little better. I've been taking photos of deer and turkeys there for the past ten years, off and on. There are also coons, possums, red fox, and the very elusive bobcat (I used to see one a year when I lived around there.) There are reports of bears in the Ozarks, all though I've never seen one.
The part of MO you are moving to is heavily forested, with open fields. The light can be dim in the woods, and you don't always need a lot of reach from a lens since visibility is often "tight" anyway. I think the perfect set up for you is the Nikon D50, Nikon 80-400mm VR, and either the 18-55mm kit lens or the 18-70mm S lens. You can actually get away without a tripod with the VR lens. The 400mm on a D50 will yield the equiv. of 600mm, and I do fine with 400mm on a film camera most of the time. There are lots of trees, fence posts, and even rocks to brace the camera against for quick support. The 80-400mm VR is f5.6, which is maybe 50% brighter than the Tamron/Sigma f6.3. That's an advantage in the low light woods. If it were me looking to take wildlife photos in Western Missouri hardwood forest and wanting to spend the minimum, that's what I'd get. Nikon D50 with 80-400mm VR. Or, the D50 with Sigma 135-400mm. You could try bracing it and shooting ISO 400. A D50 plus 50-500mm or 200-500mm would work too, but you will need a tripod with those so that needs to be factored in. The 135-400mm is an f5.6 (faster) lens and might be a tad easier to work with, but you still might end up wanting a tripod under it. Again, don't forget to take into account the lower light levels (and thus slower shutter speeds) in the woods. For absolute lowest $$, the D50 plus 135-400mm off eBay is an option.
As you can tell, I've done what you want to do, know what's available for what price, and thought carefully about how gear, subject, conditions, and photographer interact. My personal choice, money no object, for taking photos if I lived in Springfield? A 4x5 field camera. There are some stunning landscapes/old buildings/ancient small towns down there that hardly anyone is taking photos of! I'll be back in Sedalia the week of July 17.
After you move, consider subscribing to the Missouri Conservationist. It's the state's FishyGame Dept. magazine. There is a staff photographer there named Jim Rathburn you might want to meet. He should be at the MO State Fair in Sedalia, in August. The MO Dept. of FishyGame has a big building there with lots of info and handouts you will find interesting. Yes, I might be there too. No cattle to enter though.
Kent in SD
Best of luck on the move!
Basil