Reddit reviews Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 APO EX DG Ultra-Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon DSLR Cameras

Photography can be quite expensive.

Thankfully though, the "normal" stuff is still expensive enough that you really need to be sure you need it before buying, so I probably spend less than on fashion.

To get us started take a look at the Sigma 200-500 f2.8

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU#

Particularly this bit: 28.6 x 9.3 x 9.3 inches; 34.6 pounds

Now if you want to go down to f1.4 we could consider a similar lens in two different aperture sizes. Canons 70-200 f4 is 3" diameter and the f2.8 is 3.5" in diameter so you could essentially estimate a 15% increase in diameter for each f-stop. From our Sigma example we're going two full stops larger from f2.8 to f1.4 which gives us a rough diameter of 12.3"

Determining length is not quite as direct. Let's look at the Sigma 50-500 and 150-500 at 11.2" long and 9.9" long, respectively. That's a 12% increase in length to add the 50-150 focal range to effectivly the same lens. So I don't think 20% is too far to far out of the range of possibility for adding 15-200mm: ~35 inches.

The original lens has an average density of .018 lb/cubic inch. So at 12" in diameter and 35" long our imaginary lens would be about 71 lbs.

Keep in mind I'm ignoring all actual optical physics, and most other physics as well. Mostly because it's late and typing this much on my phone is frustrating.

Hope that was fun!

I've always had a soft spot for the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8. \^_^

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8268122124/sigma250500

And it's still in production! (I wonder if they'd answer, if I were to enquire how many are sold each year..)

The Amazon reviews are much as you'd expect. =:)

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/product-reviews/B0013DAPNU/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

1. 200 mm on your crop isn't a "long" zoom. AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm ƒ/5.6E ED VR would be a starting lens for wildlife. Now you will notice that costs 3x what you paid for your entire bundle. 200-300 isn't a huge jump, you can look at http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/#DX and see the diffrence that extra 100mm would give you.
   
   2.&3. These are both due to the same problem, low light. There is just no way around it, with a smaller aperture, you have less light, less light means the auto focus can't work as well. https://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU?th=1 is an example of what you would need for a "fast" zoom. You aren't taking that on any trip...
   
   https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-Vibration-Reduction-Cameras/dp/B010RABJ5C/ is a more reasonable size, but still weighs like 20 lbs. Its just a matter of physics. You just can't get enough light without a flash or more sunlight. If you take your same setup to someplace bright and sunny you will get a lot better results.
   
   4.) Don't buy a superzoom... They are mediocre at everything. All the flaws of each lens you have are multiplied in the superzooms. They are fine for soccer moms who just want a big camera to look special, but its like trying to go camping and only taking a 100 in one swiss army knife, yeah it can do it all, but not that well...

> $9000

Chump change, real photographers use this

I need one of these bad boys for my camera. I think /u/186394 already owns one.

Along the same lines, this lens is on Amazon for 26K USD. Read the Amazon reviews (at the bottom of the page).

Buy now and take 24% off!

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU

This one is always good.

What is your budget range?

You'll need this: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU



Then you can get shots of the moon like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0013DAPNU/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_3?ie=UTF8&index=3

1. Fancy
   
2. Wowza this better be able to take up close photos of the moon to make you feel like you could reach out and touch it. Over priced
   
3. I would love This as it is a needed item our current one is falling apart with three young kids a strudy table is needed, but anyting from the Book or main wishlist would be perfect. Over 10k? Fancy!

To be clear-15x zoom just means the maximum focal length is 15 times the minimum. For example, I have a 70-200mm lens for my DSLR. That's less than 3x optical zoom, yet 200mm is a pretty long telephoto. I could buy this thing and only have 2.5x optical zoom-but it's like shooting through a telescope. What you really want is to decide your desired maximum focal length.

With this, the photographer could have retaliated against such an attack.

[This] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0013DAPNU/ref=s9_acsd_simh_hd_bw_bc3Blz_c_x_w?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-4&pf_rd_r=YAGW1YHRAQPH77VESJ1P&pf_rd_r=YAGW1YHRAQPH77VESJ1P&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=c5f5f3cf-7373-4ac7-8927-9bdd75b91f85&pf_rd_p=c5f5f3cf-7373-4ac7-8927-9bdd75b91f85&pf_rd_i=562261011) is also very reasonably priced. You need to get that extra zoom

Required for all m- your stalking occasions

But... But I neeeed it

1. I would have suggested a version of the 70-200, but when you said wildlife you might need something longer. Try 300mm and up, depending on your needs. If you think you can use the shorter end of the 70-200, just grab that and a TC. Then again, the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 is a good option...
   
   
2. I would also look into a 1D Mark IV.

> Canon have a 200-500 f/5.6?

Canon doesn't, but Sigma has a nice one!

I have the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and love it. By far the sharpest lens I own, and this is counting it against the 24-70 f2.8, 24-105 f4, and 70-200 f2.8 that I have.

But supposedly, the 85 f/1.4 is even more stunning.

And of course the beast of the Sigma lineup is this baby: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Nikon-Cameras/dp/B0013DAPNU

Three? I'd only need one.

Hier ist das Sigma 200 auf Amazon- kostet nur schlappe 18000 Euro und ist nur 73cm lang und 16kg schwer.

Die Canon 1600mm ist übrigens noch extremer, wenn man sich die google-Bildsuche so ansieht.