I've had a d5000 for a year now, just long enough to get a good feel for the basics.( mostly shoot S and A at this point - started on full auto)
I've been using the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses.
I shoot my kids soccer and football (sideline to sideline) - and a bit of wildlife (live on Great Lakes, so mostly shore shots ).
I have come to realise that I need more "reach" as I progress. There are more and more shots that I am pulling off, but they're just too far away to even crop and zoom....
I started looking around for "more" lens. I'm leaning towards the Sigma 50-500 because I feel it will cover the close sidelines and also have enough distance to get the far sidelines, or offshore interests that I can't get any closer to...
Then I had another thought that I haven't seen..
What about a nikon 18-200 and a 2X tele converter - effectively giving me a 36-400, a faster lens, and a better all round lens w/o the tele..?...
#2. "RE: Newbie lens confusion" In response to Reply # 0 Wed 14-Jul-10 04:27 PM by blw
> I'm leaning towards the Sigma 50-500 because I feel it will cover the close sidelines and also have enough distance to get the far sidelines, or offshore interests that I can't get any closer to...
It's an excellent choice, although I think there are now better ones. The older 50-500 HSM (known as the "Bigma") has been discontinued, and replaced with a 50-500 HSM OS - with optical stabilization. Unfortunately the price went up considerably, from ~$1000 to ~$1600. Sigma also have a 150-500 HSM OS, at around $1000, and that seems like it would be the best choice now. These, along with the Tamron 200-500, are the usual recommendations for those seeking a lot of focal length at less-than-insane prices. They're all f/6.3 lenses at 500mm, but they do work very well. As you can guess, they don't work as well as the big Sigma and Nikkor primes (Sigma 500/f4.5, 800/f5.6 or Nikon 400/f2.8, 500/f4 or 600/f4) but they don't cost $4,500-$11,000, either.
I have one of the older non-OS Bigmas. Most of the birds in my gallery were taken with it. Also, most of the 400-500mm shots in the baseball section of the gallery were shot with the Bigma, too.
> What about a nikon 18-200 and a 2X tele converter - effectively giving me a 36-400, a faster lens
No, it doesn't give you a faster lens. The 18-200VR is f/5.6 at any focal length for which a TC is interesting, and adding a 2x TC makes it into a 36-400mm f/11 lens. That's right: the 2x applies not only to the focal length, but also to the aperture! In addition to the fact that TCs aren't designed to work optimally with wide-range zooms, you just won't get either the focus or image quality out of such a combination. The 18-200VR is already only so-so at 200mm anyway, and adding a 2x TC to magnify everything - including the faults - is not a recipe for success.
A 2x TC pretty much needs an f/2.8 or maybe f/4 lens to work properly, and even then you'll want to check carefully into how well any particular combination works together. The 70-200/f2.8 AFS VR-I doesn't work all that well with the TC-20E, although that same TC works quite well on the 400/f2.8.
> Will this even work on my d5000..?
The 18-200VR + 2x TC won't even work reasonably well on a D3s, and I'd honestly put it in the "hopeless" category.
If you're asking about the 50-500/150-500 etc, yes they do work very nicely on the D5000.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
#4. "RE: Newbie lens confusion" In response to Reply # 3
Welcome to Nikonians!
>Thanks guys, I forgot or was missing the fact of the >apereture to change with the tele. You guys are right, I don't >want that.
Both the Sigma 50-500mm and the 150-500mm are variable aperture zoom lenses. Therefore the largest Aperture (Smallest f/#) will vary between f/4.5 to f/6.3 on the 50-500mm and f/5 to f/6.3 on the 150-500mm. To get a constant Aperture zoom, the only option anywhere close to 500mm is the Nikkor 200-400mm f/4 priced at about $7000.00.
>Ok, looks like the bigma is the way to go. (I really hate to >be crowded on the short side by going with the 150-500..) > >Sooo, how important do you feel the new OS is?
If you plan on shooting hand held, OS is well worth the extra cost. Consider the Rule of Thumb Minimum Shutter Speed to prevent blur to to camera shake for a DX body: Minimum shutter speed = 1/ 1.5 X focal length of the lens. Minimum shutter speed = 1/ 1.5 X 500mm Minimum shutter speed = 1/750th sec. Since you are limited to an Aperture of f/6.3, you will need reasonably bright ambient lighting conditions to be able to shoot at 1/750th sec. or faster. The Optical Stabilization should have no problem with a shutter speed of 1/250th sec. that you will need to freeze the motion of your subject (Soccer, Football, ect...). 4 stops of OS should allow you to shoot as slow as 1/45th sec. or so when shooting static subjects in low light situations.
>I can get a (what seems to be) pretty good condition, used, >non-OS unit for $800 - $900 - or go brandy new for $1700... > >How cool is the OS? > >Dealbreaker, nice to have, must have, cute but not really >needed...?...
See above. I would recommend getting a lens with OS.