2 Lenses whats the difference?

BeatleJuice said:
Slightly off topic,

If one could choose between these two lenses, which would you get?
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG MACRO HSM
Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 APO EX DG HSM
Click to expand...
Depends what you want to take pics of?? You will definitely not use them in the same situations.
 
marine1 said:
Personally I would go for the 70-200 but then again I have the Sigma 150-500 so....
F2.8 is awesome IMO
Click to expand...

The 150-500 is also a superb lens. (decisions, decisions, decisions :confused:)

BigAl-sa said:
Depends what you want to take pics of?? You will definitely not use them in the same situations.
Click to expand...

I wish I could afford both :(

I am looking for a general lens to carry around, but also need one for game parks. The 70-200 would suffice in the KNP, but is nowhere large enough for places like Etosha.

If I got the 70-200, then I would have to consider a 2xconverter as well.
Now I do not know what sort of quality loss I will experience with a converter?

I have also read that the 70-200 is a little soft wide open. (I have found that this is normally the case with fast lenses)
 
BeatleJuice said:
I have also read that the 70-200 is a little soft wide open. (I have found that this is normally the case with fast lenses)
Click to expand...

From what I've read only the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is softer wide open. The f/4 models are the sharpest.
 
Last edited:
What I forgot to mention is that I do have the Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 Di. It came with the kit.
I am not too impressed with its sharpness. I was happy with it until I started shooting with the Pentax 18-55 II . The difference in sharpness is so noticeable, I stopped using it.

Maybe I should give it another try.
 
F4 is the sharpest by far, shot side by side with a 70-200 F2.8IS and 70-200F4 and F4 sharper, though ironically because of it's heavy weight f2.8 is easier to hold still.
 
Too be honest, just maybe having it with a faster f stop. it is not the fastest lens. But maybe I am being too harsh on the lens. The other issues is that I would really prefer the 50-150 range on the 150-500. I only use this lens on very specific occasions. I like all round lenses but then thats my opinion and I know most people like different lenses for different specific purposes. Does that make sense? :confused: :D
 
marine1 said:
Too be honest, just maybe having it with a faster f stop. it is not the fastest lens. But maybe I am being too harsh on the lens. The other issues is that I would really prefer the 50-150 range on the 150-500. I only use this lens on very specific occasions. I like all round lenses but then thats my opinion and I know most people like different lenses for different specific purposes. Does that make sense? :confused: :D
Click to expand...
Then why didnt you get the Bigma instead?

I've already got the >150 range fully covered so it didnt make sense to spend the extra money. My sigma 28-300 is pretty useful and a lot easier to carry. :)
 
bwana said:
Then why didnt you get the Bigma instead?

I've already got the >150 range fully covered so it didnt make sense to spend the extra money. My sigma 28-300 is pretty useful and a lot easier to carry. :)
Click to expand...
When I bought the lens it was for my Minolta camera, standard film camera, didnt know anything about the lenses and saw it on special for R4k so just bought it for some work I was doing at the time.
 
marine1 said:
When I bought the lens it was for my Minolta camera, standard film camera, didnt know anything about the lenses and saw it on special for R4k so just bought it for some work I was doing at the time.
Click to expand...
r4000 for a r13000 lens - awesome special on a lens that's only been available for a year . . . so stop complaining :p

:D
xrapidx said:
@Bwana - what colour temperature did you use on your shot?
Click to expand...
Colour temp on my shot? RAW ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X