OwlsEyes Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
Two23 wrote:
...Also considered Nikon 300mm f2.8 AFS VR + 2x, but those are more than I want to spend (~$2,000.) Then I remembered the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS HSM! (used, ebay.) That plus either a 1.4x or a 2x would be a very sharp heavy duty lens for wildlife specifically and trains etc. generally. So, two lenses for two different jobs. I also considered the Nikon 200-500mm, but honestly the Sigma f2.8 is more enticing at the moment!
So, any users of Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 HSM OS + TC out there want to share their thoughts?
Kent in SD
Kent,
The "Sport" version of this lens has been on my list of potential lenses for a while, however,... neither the prior or current lens is stellar with a converter. If you want to use this lens and want the best quality you can get, plan on shooting it without a tele-converter.
I currently use a 200-400mm VR1. I have owned two of these,... the second of which was better than my first. Within 60M, the lens is cracking sharp at all focal lengths by f/4.5. When shooting landscapes, I have discovered that I need to use the lens with live view. When I move to live view focus, the lens is sharp at a distance... not as sharp as when shot within 60 m, but sharp enough to make the most of my D500 and D810. Since weight is no longer an issue, you may want to look for one of these.... Just recently, I saw a Craigslist Ad for a VR1 in the Minneapolis area (where I live) for $2100. National Camera Exchange (in town) has a VR2 for about $2700....
The Nikon 200-400VR got a bad rep because of a Thom Hogan Review and the introduction of the 200-500VR. I own the 200-500, 200-400, and 300mm PF. When shot correctly and carefully, my 200-400 is better than the other lenses.
regards,
bruce
|