Sigma 50-150 and Sigma TC -- how do they perform on D7000

Hey gang -- this is my FIRST post!!!! I just got my new D7000 after 2 years with my trusty D40 and I'm sooo excited!

My boyfriend bought me a 17-55 --- big, big lens, oh so sharp -- to go with it. I now what to find a telephoto in time for Spring Break and summer. I have been looking at used Sigma 50-150 or a 70-200. Which do you think is a better match for my D7000?

My bf says I should get a TC with the 50-150 but I've seen comments that I'll lose sharpness. What do you all think?

For those who have this combo does the Sigma TC work well with the 50-150 or the 70-200?

TIA

depends what TC you're going to go with, 1.4 1.7 or 2.0 you're going to get a increasing amount of drop off in clarity and exposure the further you go up. from 1 to 2 stops. It doesn't have to be a sigma tc to be on a sigma lens though and if you want to increase your distance it's best to start with a larger lens to begin with. So I'd go with the 70-200...Check out the pics on the Nature and Wildlife forum many of the shots there use TC, most with long telephoto primes, so it's a little different, but you'll see the image isn't degraded that much.

herbymel said:

depends what TC you're going to go with, 1.4 1.7 or 2.0 you're going to get a increasing amount of drop off in clarity and exposure the further you go up. from 1 to 2 stops. It doesn't have to be a sigma tc to be on a sigma lens though

Click to expand...

What other possibilities are there and are they as good as a nikon or sigma tc?

I'm thinking of the 1.4 sigma TC.

herbymel said:

and if you want to increase your distance it's best to start with a larger lens to begin with.

Click to expand...

I thought to do that but the cost of the 50-150 seems less than the 70-200 non os and was hoping to save a bit of cash. I would then have a smaller lens (easier to carry) and the ability to extend it when needed using a tc.

herbymel said:

So I'd go with the 70-200...Check out the pics on the Nature and Wildlife forum many of the shots there use TC, most with long telephoto primes, so it's a little different, but you'll see the image isn't degraded that much.

Click to expand...

The Nikon 70-300VR will probably have better performance and image quality.

big difference in a lens that's a constant 2.8 though as the Sigmas are...although you're dealing with much more expensive lenses, at least with the 70-200, although I'm not that familiar with those lenses. As far as TC go, you're probably fine with the sigma, although at a little cheaper price kenko is comparable. You're not really going to notice much of a drop-off in image quality with either. I'd still go with the 70-200 if you can afford it though. The tc isn't going to make that much difference on the 50-150. Either the Nikon or Tamron 70-300's are great lenses though, and comparable in IQ, the tamron being a little cheaper.
Perhaps go with the 50-150 and get a good tripod.
Tell the boyfriend he's a nice guy for picking up that lens for you.

I had a Sig 50-150 2.8 and used a canon 1.4 tc with it. works, but result is rather poor. 70-300 is much better, really.

John Szeto said:

The Nikon 70-300VR will probably have better performance and image quality.

Click to expand...

John:

I know the 70-300 is cheaper, but won't I lose aperture? I think the 70-300 is 5 or 5.3 around 150-200 and I really want the option of 2.8.

Is the Sigma really that bad on the D7000?

Aimee

herbymel said:

big difference in a lens that's a constant 2.8 though as the Sigmas are...although you're dealing with much more expensive lenses, at least with the 70-200, although I'm not that familiar with those lenses. As far as TC go, you're probably fine with the sigma, although at a little cheaper price kenko is comparable. You're not really going to notice much of a drop-off in image quality with either. I'd still go with the 70-200 if you can afford it though. The tc isn't going to make that much difference on the 50-150. Either the Nikon or Tamron 70-300's are great lenses though, and comparable in IQ, the tamron being a little cheaper.
Perhaps go with the 50-150 and get a good tripod.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking of events like my sisters wedding and school ceremonies so I hoped to be able to get away without a tripod. I also want to be able to do some sports while at school.

herbymel said:

Tell the boyfriend he's a nice guy for picking up that lens for you.

Click to expand...

Oh, he's been thanked ......

I have the 50-150 and D7000 and love the combo. As for TC... well it really depends on what you are shooting. I picked the 50-150 over 70-200 because it was wider (150mm is more than enough length generally for me, and on DX I find that I want wider than 70 for portraits). If you are thinking that you will be at the long end of the zoom most of the time, then get the 70-200 instead.

I do have a Kenko Pro DGX 1.4x TC that I use on the 50-150 when I don't want to bring my 300/4 but still want a bit more reach, and it works well. I tend to stop down one stop (so shoot at f/5.6).

One very nice thing about the 50-150 vs 70-200 is size: the 50-150 is half the weight of the Nikon 70-200 VR II, and a fair bit shorter as well. This makes it much less 'in your face' when shooting candidly at parties or something, or even when doing a paid portrait shoot.

In short, I would recommend 50-150 with a TC on the rare occasion it is needed; however, if you are shooting long most of the time then 70-200 is probably better. Also keep in mind that the 70-300 VR is not much more than a TC: it may be best to get the 50-150 for portraits and low light shooting, and the 70-300 for when you need more reach and the light is decent (remember that adding a TC to the 50-150 will require more light anyway).

Hope this helps.

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

The 1.4 tc will turn the 2.8 into a 4.0. And the 70-300 is about 4.5-5.0...but really, that is my experience. better IQ and less noise/blur too. U can use what u want, but...it's similiar in IQ to a long p&s.

The Big One said:

I have the 50-150 and D7000 and love the combo. As for TC... well it really depends on what you are shooting. I picked the 50-150 over 70-200 because it was wider (150mm is more than enough length generally for me, and on DX I find that I want wider than 70 for portraits). If you are thinking that you will be at the long end of the zoom most of the time, then get the 70-200 instead.

I do have a Kenko Pro DGX 1.4x TC that I use on the 50-150 when I don't want to bring my 300/4 but still want a bit more reach, and it works well. I tend to stop down one stop (so shoot at f/5.6).

One very nice thing about the 50-150 vs 70-200 is size: the 50-150 is half the weight of the Nikon 70-200 VR II, and a fair bit shorter as well. This makes it much less 'in your face' when shooting candidly at parties or something, or even when doing a paid portrait shoot.

In short, I would recommend 50-150 with a TC on the rare occasion it is needed; however, if you are shooting long most of the time then 70-200 is probably better. Also keep in mind that the 70-300 VR is not much more than a TC: it may be best to get the 50-150 for portraits and low light shooting, and the 70-300 for when you need more reach and the light is decent (remember that adding a TC to the 50-150 will require more light anyway).

Click to expand...

All I can say Aimeegirl is he's been a good source of information for me, and very helpful. Nice to have someone with experience with the equipment who can give you a good appraisal.

The 50-150 should be an overall better focal length to use on your (DX) camera than the 70-200. (On DX format, 50-150 is equivalent to 70-200 on FX.)

You will undoubtedly lose sharpness putting a TC on ANY lens, particularly most zooms. You'll have to try it to see if you find it acceptable or not, but be aware that you'll need to a) stop down at least a stop to get sharpest results and b) adding a TC already causes the lens to be 'slower'. Therefore you may find your F2.8 lens becoming an effect F5.6 lens, or even F8 for decent sharpness. ...There is no free lunch. If you find yourself needing more focal length, have your boyfriend get you a nice 300F4...

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net

jonrobertp said:

The 1.4 tc will turn the 2.8 into a 4.0. And the 70-300 is about 4.5-5.0...but really, that is my experience. better IQ and less noise/blur too. U can use what u want, but...it's similiar in IQ to a long p&s.
--

Click to expand...

thanks for the info. A couple of questions --- do you mean the 70-300 is 4.5-5 at about 200 mm? Will it be under 5 for 280 (I might still get the 70-200 and a TC). Also, did you mean that the sigma with a sigma tc will be like a p&s otr that the 70-300 would be?

The Big One said:

I have the 50-150 and D7000 and love the combo. As for TC... well it really depends on what you are shooting. I picked the 50-150 over 70-200 because it was wider (150mm is more than enough length generally for me, and on DX I find that I want wider than 70 for portraits). If you are thinking that you will be at the long end of the zoom most of the time, then get the 70-200 instead.

Click to expand...

Good point -- I think someone else mentioned this too.

The Big One said:

I do have a Kenko Pro DGX 1.4x TC that I use on the 50-150 when I don't want to bring my 300/4 but still want a bit more reach, and it works well. I tend to stop down one stop (so shoot at f/5.6).

Click to expand...

Which tc do you think is better? sigma or kenko?

The Big One said:

One very nice thing about the 50-150 vs 70-200 is size: the 50-150 is half the weight of the Nikon 70-200 VR II, and a fair bit shorter as well. This makes it much less 'in your face' when shooting candidly at parties or something, or even when doing a paid portrait shoot.

Click to expand...

I was worried about the size and weight of the bigger lenses. I like to travel light and a 17-55 and 70-200 might be more than I am willing to carry. I think I have to think more about what will work best. I thought the 50-150 and 1.4 tc would be perfect for the small upcoming events.

The Big One said:

In short, I would recommend 50-150 with a TC on the rare occasion it is needed; however, if you are shooting long most of the time then 70-200 is probably better. Also keep in mind that the 70-300 VR is not much more than a TC: it may be best to get the 50-150 for portraits and low light shooting, and the 70-300 for when you need more reach and the light is decent (remember that adding a TC to the 50-150 will require more light anyway).

Click to expand...

$590 for a 70-300 plus about $700 for a used 50-150 puts me at $1290 which is a lot more than the 70-200 and less than the 70-200 OS. $700 for a used 50-150 plus about $250 for a tc is only a little more than a 70-200. But am I willing to carry a 70-200 everywhere? Decisions, decisions,.......

The Big One said:

Hope this helps.

Click to expand...

It does. Thanks sooo much. I have to think more about this.

Aimee

the tamron 70-300 is about $409 and is a f4-5.6, unfortunately you just missed the $50 rebate. The Kenko TC is about $25 less, and is on par, or some say a little better than the sigma. As far as the 70-200, you're probably better off going with the OS model, but another good option would be picking up a used older nikon 80-200 2.8...it's a great lens, and can be had for about $800, sometimes less.

Aimeegirl said:

The Big One said:

I do have a Kenko Pro DGX 1.4x TC that I use on the 50-150 when I don't want to bring my 300/4 but still want a bit more reach, and it works well. I tend to stop down one stop (so shoot at f/5.6).

Click to expand...

Which tc do you think is better? sigma or kenko?

Click to expand...

I have not tried the Sigma, but the Kenko Pro (not the lower end model, but the 300 Pro DGX) is very good, and at times is compared to Nikon's 1.4x TC (I have not used that one either, so I can't say for myself, just repeating 'Internet Wisdom' here, so take it with a grain of salt).

Aimeegirl said:

Aimeegirl said:

In short, I would recommend 50-150 with a TC on the rare occasion it is needed; however, if you are shooting long most of the time then 70-200 is probably better. Also keep in mind that the 70-300 VR is not much more than a TC: it may be best to get the 50-150 for portraits and low light shooting, and the 70-300 for when you need more reach and the light is decent (remember that adding a TC to the 50-150 will require more light anyway).

Click to expand...

$590 for a 70-300 plus about $700 for a used 50-150 puts me at $1290 which is a lot more than the 70-200 and less than the 70-200 OS. $700 for a used 50-150 plus about $250 for a tc is only a little more than a 70-200. But am I willing to carry a 70-200 everywhere? Decisions, decisions,.......

Click to expand...

Is the 70-300 going for $590 now? Wow... last I looked it was more in the $490 range (new), and would be found used mint condition for $400 or so... As for the 50-150, you can probably get one for quite a bit less than $700: I got mine from Adorama for $500 including shipping to Canada, and I don't think that was just a one-time super deal, as I have seen others locally for about the same price. If someone is asking $700, they are probably asking too much IMHO. My suggestion on getting both was on the assumption that you could get the 70-300 used for maybe $150 - $200 more than the TC: I agree that if you are looking at $300+ more, then it is not as good an idea!

Feel free to email me (email on my web site below) if you want some sample shots and such of the 50-150, or if you have more specific questions (I am not great at always following up on my threads here, but I respond to all emails).

Cheers
--
--Wyatt
http://photos.digitalcave.ca
All images (c) unless otherwise specified, please ask me before editing.

My thoughts on 70-200 on DX...

I bought an 80-200F2.8 back in the 1990's. Still have the lens, and it's really a good lens! It is a 'people' lens. That is, it's perfect for being outdoors and shooting people. It's too short for wildlife. That is on film, or an FX camera like a D700.

When I bought a digital SLR (D70s), I used the lens occasionally on it, but it was usually too long. (Not wide enough - frustrating). It was still too short for wildlife, but for working with people, it just wasn't quite right. Good for certain sports, but more limited for me. I eventually got an 80-400 and put that in the backpack instead of the 80-200, for more range.

Once I got a D700, the 80-200's magic is back. I love taking it to events like the Renaissance Festival, where the focal range just seems right again.

There is a reason certain focal lengths have been popular, and others are generally not seen. (How many 70mm primes have you seen?) 70/80-200 F2.8 works very well on FX. The equivalent for DX would be a 50-150F2.8, and it's a real shame Nikon doesn't offer one.

The 17-55/50-150 F2.8 combo would be killer for general work with people. Two lenses that cover a very good range, and fast at F2.8. The equivalent for FX is 24-70/70-200, and it works well. (I carry 24-70 and my 80-200 with my D700 when I 'go light').

The 70-200 F2.8 VR II is a great lens, and I'll get flak for saying this, but it's just not ideal on DX. Maybe it's because I spent years on film with the 80-200 getting used to it there.

--
Craig
http://www.cjcphoto.net