Peter in Canberra

bit off topic, but what is the reason for the lower noise as I thought the two cameras have the same sensor?

thanks Daryl. That is very handy to know.

thanks TImo. I have kind of discounted the OS version as it seems to have the same footprint at the 70-200s (weight and size). But useful to know.

Thanks Michael it is as I suspected - 'danger, danger Will Robinson' I think getting any one of these f2.8 monsters (size wise relative to anything I have) will have to be a long term watch and ...

but as a very portable 'poor man's' access point for birds (plus cropping), I think it is great - certainly snappier than the 55-300 I already had. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61240147

This is a brief followup post from my queries about lenses for indoor sports. Still digesting all of the recommendations from there. The (older no OS) Sigma 50-150 f2.8 was one suggestion. It is a ...

great shots. thanks.

thanks for your post, and I reckon it is a great photo. It is a great little lens. I too am just a recreational shooter, and I have certainly chosen to shoot in jpeg in order to get shots without ...

thanks for your analysis. And thanks for your shots - in your 'backyard' you have an amazing variety of birds and animals. Nice shots. I recently got one of these lenses and I think it is great. I ...

interestingly the older Sigma 50-150 (no OS) looks like it is 780 grams but the new one with OS is ~1200 grams (DPReview database says 1350 grams, Digital Picture Review says 1200g). just read Thom ...

thanks again Parry, a longer term goal and patient watching of the online sales here in Oz. I am also going to try an experiment next time I shoot floorball - I am so amazed at the high ISO ...

sample of what the new 70-300 AF-P can do. from D7200 + 70-300 AF-P DX VR from this afternoon - crested pigeon, probably 5, maybe 10 metres away from me. Hand held, though propped on car boot (aka ...

thanks Alnitak. I just did a DPReview comparison of all the 70-200 f2.8 lenses and the Sigma 50-150. Wow! - price aside, they are all big lenses - all over 1.4kg vs the 85 and 17-50 around 350 - ...

thanks Parry. yes, I saw that reviews mentioned AF speed wrt the 28-75. 17-50 remains in contention as a possible option.

I have had (still have) the analogous situation - trying to shoot son's floorball games, which have poor indoor light (though better than the diabolically lit Canberra ice rink for the season he ...

I can't comment on the long lenses that have been recommended. I can comment on the 55-300 - I have one and I think you might be disappointed with it. for birding It is an OK lens but soft at the ...

I missed out on the 85 AF-D so I shall be content to watch and wait for a while. However in my trawling I noted the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di. thoughts? Seems from online comments it would operate ...

a minuscule observation ... I haven't researched the D500 at all. But I played with the D7500. I got a D7200. I see both the D7500 and D500 have the ISO button on the top behind the shutter release. ...

Thank you everyone for your helpful thoughts and experiences. I am watching a (well) uses 85 AF-D and hopefully will get it for a good price. If not I shall persevere with my 50 G and see how it ...

:-(