Sigma 18 -250 or Sigma 18 - 300 for in yard bird and flowers + Moon

[JBW]

M'Lady has convinced me that a new lens makes more sense. It seems to me that the Sigma lenses are good but which is best.

[Shadowman]

The extra reach isn't much but you'll always wonder "what if", when I got my first telezoom (55-200mm) I still felt I needed a bit more so quickly moved up to the 70-300mm; still wanted a bit more reach but never beyond that focal length except for a 500mm mirror lens and a 2X teleconverter to see what I could fill the frame with the extra glass.

Still have my eye on either the Nikon 200-500 or Sigma 150-600, had a chance to play with both; really like the Sigma and had some issues (only had about two minutes) with the Nikon and may go for one of them to finally quench my GAS. I'd do a good comparison on each lens and see if there might be another you can add to the mix, the 150-600 would get you to the moon and beyond especially with the teleconverter.

[JBW]

The extra reach isn't much but you'll always wonder "what if", when I got my first telezoom (55-200mm) I still felt I needed a bit more so quickly moved up to the 70-300mm; still wanted a bit more reach but never beyond that focal length except for a 500mm mirror lens and a 2X teleconverter to see what I could fill the frame with the extra glass.

Still have my eye on either the Nikon 200-500 or Sigma 150-600, had a chance to play with both; really like the Sigma and had some issues (only had about two minutes) with the Nikon and may go for one of them to finally quench my GAS. I'd do a good comparison on each lens and see if there might be another you can add to the mix, the 150-600 would get you to the moon and beyond especially with the teleconverter.

never having had the chance to play with that much lens" How hard are they to focus and say keep the moon in the frame?

[gregj1763]

Hi Brian,
Sigma are my lens of choice, I have four from the 150-500mm down to the 35mm art series.
I am very happy with all of them, build quality is as good if not better than others on the market and the quality of the images they produce is superb.
The 18-300mm looks to be a couple of hundred dollars dearer here in Oz but if that’s not an issue it would be the one I would buy.
Happy shopping

[xpatUSA]

M'Lady has convinced me that a new lens makes more sense. It seems to me that the Sigma lenses are good but which is best.

Like John I have the Sigma 70-300mm (OS version, not APO) bought on a whim, true GAS.

My first try with it with was not a huge success, mostly my fault:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4188544

On that day I found little difference in detail quality between straight 300mm and 600mm (2X TC).

A few days later, I did a bit better with some stacking involved:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59940308

Another gent did pretty well with the APO version:

http://www.pbase.com/barryb/image/57521494

I did have an 18-200mm for a short while (bought for IR photography based on low distortion glass) but sold it pretty quick (no OS + shaky hands).

[Geoff F]

This requires some detailed slow consideration, Brian.

I would say that 300 mm was the minimum size. 18-300 is a very wide range to expect best quality results.

What other lenses do you currently have? What alternatives are available and would any of them work with a 1.4x converter? In which case, how about a prime lens? Maybe 300 mm prime?

I'm rather out of touch with the newer lenses, although I do have a Sigma and a Tamron lens which are both high quality. But, several years ago I had a cheap plastic Sigma in the 18-300 range which came with a second hand camera. After many disappointments I tried using it as a door stop instead - but it definitely wasn't strong enough for that job.

[Shadowman]

never having had the chance to play with that much lens" How hard are they to focus and say keep the moon in the frame?

The Sigma 150-600 is easy to handhold, however would recommend at least a monopod.

[JBW]

This requires some detailed slow consideration, Brian.

I would say that 300 mm was the minimum size. 18-300 is a very wide range to expect best quality results.

What other lenses do you currently have? What alternatives are available and would any of them work with a 1.4x converter? In which case, how about a prime lens? Maybe 300 mm prime?

I'm rather out of touch with the newer lenses, although I do have a Sigma and a Tamron lens which are both high quality. But, several years ago I had a cheap plastic Sigma in the 18-300 range which came with a second hand camera. After many disappointments I tried using it as a door stop instead - but it definitely wasn't strong enough for that job.

18-55 and my Tamron 90. Even with a convertor they wouldn't reach far enough.

All of doors swing both ways , no door stops needed here.

I will take a look at primes.

Too a look. B&H sells 3. A Samyang reflex which is not so good for yard work. Two Sony. One for 7500 and the other for 13000.

Maybe I stick with zoom?

[Geoff F]

A general purpose 70-300 lens would certainly fit in with your existing lenses, Brian.

Sigma have produced several versions over the years and the latest model gets acceptable reviews.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/32...report--review

However I see that there is now a higher rated Tamron 70-300

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...70300f456eosff

I haven't checked current prices but it is probably good value. However, that depends on how much you expect to pay.

At one time I considered Tamron to be a budget lens producer but they certainly seem to be also producing some good quality glass recently. I haven't checked the availability of fittings for various cameras so I don't know if they are potentially useful to you.

[JBW]

A general purpose 70-300 lens would certainly fit in with your existing lenses, Brian.

Sigma have produced several versions over the years and the latest model gets acceptable reviews.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/32...report--review

However I see that there is now a higher rated Tamron 70-300

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...70300f456eosff

I haven't checked current prices but it is probably good value. However, that depends on how much you expect to pay.

At one time I considered Tamron to be a budget lens producer but they certainly seem to be also producing some good quality glass recently. I haven't checked the availability of fittings for various cameras so I don't know if they are potentially useful to you.

Tamron still produces low end lenses but they also produce some excellent ones. The 70-300 fits my a58 and at a price I can afford

[Cogito]

Brian, this is your third or fourth post regarding buying a long throw lens. You say you have an 18-55mm lens. So far I've not seen too much use of that lens on this forum. If you need something between 55mm and 90mm then maybe you should consider a zoom lens that covers that range. Then, as far as extending your range from 90mm, there are any number of lenses that range from 90mm to 400mm ( add a crop factor 135mm - 600mm) available in a Minolta A-mount. Most of which will better the performance of any Sigma 18 - 250/300mm lens. May I suggest that you buy a second-hand item?

[JBW]

Brian, this is your third or fourth post regarding buying a long throw lens. You say you have an 18-55mm lens. So far I've not seen too much use of that lens on this forum. If you need something between 55mm and 90mm then maybe you should consider a zoom lens that covers that range. Then, as far as extending your range from 90mm, there are any number of lenses that range from 90mm to 400mm ( add a crop factor 135mm - 600mm) available in a Minolta A-mount. Most of which will better the performance of any Sigma 18 - 250/300mm lens. May I suggest that you buy a second-hand item?

Yes it is. This is how I work things through. I ask, think, re-ask, think, re-ask. If there was a local club I'd be asking them too.

I see CiC as my club so I come here time and again with variations on the same question. I'm sorry if I have frustrated you. Then again you are now the first to suggest a Minolta A mount.

[Stagecoach]

Brian,

Lets's look at things from another angle, actually taking account of your location, surroundings and personal health circumstances

1. Zooms

Ideal for a situation where ease of mobility may have to be taken into consideration.

2. Second Hand

There are risks always with this that can involve payment options, ease of return e.t.c that vary with location.

3. Lens type/make wrt Image quality

Less important if you are just producing monitor sized images that printing large ones.

Grahame

[JBW]

Brian,

Lets's look at things from another angle, actually taking account of your location, surroundings and personal health circumstances

1. Zooms

Ideal for a situation where ease of mobility may have to be taken into consideration.

2. Second Hand

There are risks always with this that can involve payment options, ease of return e.t.c that vary with location.

3. Lens type/make wrt Image quality

Less important if you are just producing monitor sized images that printing large ones.

Grahame

Yup stay in one place and let the shot come to me.

Always leery about second hand.

Gotta fit on my Sony A-mount. No printing. I don't have a printer and there is no shop near me that does good quality printing.

[xpatUSA]

Yup stay in one place and let the shot come to me.

Always leery about second hand.

Gotta fit on my Sony A-mount. No printing. I don't have a printer and there is no shop near me that does good quality printing.

Always good to meet a fellow non-printer, Brian.

So, on your monitor, do you habitually zoom in to 100% or more, in order to view "detail"?

Not a trick question - I do, for example - when editing or when reviewing initial image quality.

See, there's a correlation between lens quality (or sensor resolution for that matter) and the viewing means.

That is to say, if you take a 6000x4000px shot - that might well show up some lens aberrations when viewed at 100% on your screen, tsk . . . but, when zoomed out to fit for example a 1920x1080px monitor screen, many of those aberrations will mysteriously vanish, eh?

Point being that, if you just view an image fit, or down-sized to fit, your screen - the need for more resolution or for an Otus 55mm can fade away pretty quick.

For those reasons, Ive just sold a really good 17-70mm f/2.8-4 zoom and kept a less-good 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom.

[JBW]

Always good to meet a fellow non-printer, Brian.

So, on your monitor, do you habitually zoom in to 100% or more, in order to view "detail"?

Not a trick question - I do, for example - when editing or when reviewing initial image quality.

See, there's a correlation between lens quality (or sensor resolution for that matter) and the viewing means.

That is to say, if you take a 6000x4000px shot - that might well show up some lens aberrations when viewed at 100% on your screen, tsk . . . but, when zoomed out to fit for example a 1920x1080px monitor screen, many of those aberrations will mysteriously vanish, eh?

Point being that, if you just view an image fit, or down-sized to fit, your screen - the need for more resolution or for an Otus 55mm can fade away pretty quick.

For those reasons, Ive just sold a really good 17-70mm f/2.8-4 zoom and kept a less-good 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom.

What can I say I try to go green.

Yes I do.

Indeed the right lens for the right job. The Tamron 90 does great work for my monitor.

[Tringa]

A 300mm might be OK for birds in the garden. It depends on the size of your garden (and size of the birds). 300mm for the Moon is a bit short.

This was taken with the zoom set at 300mm on a camera with a crop factor of 1.5 and then pretty heavily cropped in the editing.

Dave