Wildlife: Sigma 50-500mm vs 120-300mm 2.8 (w/ converter)

Started 3 weeks ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Maarten Droogne Junior Member • Posts: 39
Wildlife: Sigma 50-500mm vs 120-300mm 2.8 (w/ converter)

Hey

Was recently thinking about the fact that, as long as I dont need the wider angle reach from the 50-500mm lens, I'll probably be better of with a 120-300mm with converter (1.4 or even 2.0) as that would result in a higher range and wider aperture (168-420mm 4.0 and 180-600mm 5.6 respectively vs the 50-500mm 4.5-6.3). Autofocus would still work even though there is a converter on it. And if I dont use a converter because I dont need the reach, I'll have superior aperture settings.

Reason why I was thinking this, was because I recently got access to an APS-C camera (because it was generaly better for wildlife), so I actually already have 1.6 times the reach I had before, which might be plenty (especially considering I also already have a converter).

Anything I got wrong? Or just thoughts in general?

ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow