after the DA 55-300... which lens is "better" ?

Started Jan 24, 2014 | Questions thread
OP jf_tea Contributing Member • Posts: 977
Re: after the DA 55-300... which lens is "better" ?

xmeda wrote:

I have DA55-300 since 2008. Then in cca 2010 I bought Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM II, which is a bit sharper (F3.5+) and has better bokeh, DOF control and FAST focusing, etc.. + can be used with my 1.7x AF TC, which turns it to cca 120-340/5 when longer reach is needed.

Also I have two Bigmas.. older 50-500 EX APO RF and a bit less old 50-500 EX DG APO which I acquired recently.

DA55-300 has one huge advantage - it is compact and light, so best for hiking. Image quality from 55 to cca 220mm is nice, I've also used it several times with film MZ-10 camera and results are pleasing. Slow focusing is painful if camera misses the point and lens goes vrrrvrrr through whole focusing range.

Sig70-200 with or without TC goes with me if I take bigger bag. Shallow DOF is usefull + it has pleasing bokeh and focusing speed is different level. Running guy is no problem with AF-C. It is also usable in weak light.

Sig50-500 has better image quality than 55-300 especially in 200mm+ range. It is very usable lens, but also it is HUGE, HEAVY and focusing is fast enough, but not very reliable. It works well in combination with 18-135WR or Sig17-70. And like 55-300 it needs light to shine.

Another interesting lens is Sigma 100-300/4 which is also still perfectly usable with teleconverter and delivers very nice image quality. I'm going to buy one also if I come across one for good price.

btw. if it rains, there is usually no need for WR lens longer than 100-150mm either, as the long-range images are poor in this weather.. So DA*60-250/4 with some TC might also work well..

Thanks Xmeda, you bring several good observations.

I agree that once rain start falling, a long lens will be quite useless.

With a 150mm, it's feasible to get good birds pictures, but, they need to come close. Without being too skittish. It's not so easy to get such opportunities.

A few people have mentionned the Sigma 50-500. For myself, I cannot imagine carrying it to walk around or hike. And, I agree that having a lens on a tripod is quite limiting when moving around, seeking some wildlife opportunities. Even if waiting in a cache (?right word), the tripod might not be so convenient. ...Actually, I would need to try doing that

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow