Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-883.html)

If you want low light and high ISO performance, go with full frame, either D61 or the newer D750. There is no D7200 as yet.

Unless you want a swivel screen WiFi and GPS, a D3300 is a better buy (and the D5200 is priced less!). Otherwise get a D5300.

1) Yes FF lenses work with DX bodies. But DX lense will not in most cases, and when they do they are in DX mode, so that a 24MP sensor becomes around 12MP (as only 24x16mm is used instead of 36x24mm)

The FX lens should work fine on a DX body. It should actually work better on a DX body in terms of eliminating any distortions at the edges as the DX crop sensor crop them away to glory. All the FX lenses that I have now work flawlessly with my DX body [Nikon D7000]


It makes sense to go in for an FX lens only if you have a plan to upgrade to a FX body in future. If not, there is no need to spend a bomb on FX lenses while you can get a DX variant at a much cheaper price.


I was considering this lens [the AF-S G] with my new D610. It's a good budget all-rounder for FX. But went on to buy the newer 18-35 AF-S G as I needed to go a bit more wider.



Solidly built and the cheapest option to get to 500mm at the moment.I took my chance but ended up getting a copy with severe “back focus” issue on my D7000 and more so on my D610. The Siggie has been sent for lens calibration at Sigma. Hope it comes back calibrated better within the tolerance level of D610. The focus error is more obvious while shooting smaller Dragonflies and not so with bigger animals.
Shot this with Sigma @500mm f/6.3 on D7000 after having fine-tuned at -20 [maximum]. Could have stopped down to f/8 for a much sharper image and better DOF. But I was basically testing the focus issue.




Do try the copy on your Body before purchasing it. Once you get the biggie to auto-focus correctly, there is no other VFM option in the market currently to get to 500mm.



BTW, there are also slightly more expensive options available [3rd partry]

• The new 150-600 Sigma
• 150-600 Tamron

Actually if you want a long lense and no zoom, the Nikon 300mm F4 with TC 1.4 (420mm) and TC 1.7 (510mm) is still the best option as far as sharpness and IQ is concerned.

The sharpness with the prime (even with TC) is way ahead of the zooms, and with today's 24+MP sensors you can always crop and still get a lot of pixels.

I don't think 250mm is long enough for large wildlife. Especially big cats.

I have used the 70-300vr. There have been too many times when I wished I had more reach. Even with DX.

Hey amit, i wanted to invest in the best lens available in the range of the sigma lens. I am an avid lover of both birds and other mammals (especially big cats). Wouldn't it be ok to use sigma 150-500 for both. some reviews suggested it had a problem at a longer focal length. I am not sure though.
Note: i have a canon 70D.

Hey thanks, but is tamron better than sigma ? are you suggesting tamron for the landscape as well? Note: i have a canon 70D.

Hey M35, thanks for the detailed explanation. I have got a canon 70D as of now and it all depends on how well i get my hands on this piece, before i think of any up gradation. It may take at least couple of years. I understand that my lenses will not be useful if i upgrade to a full frame canon camera, but then as of now i dont have an option. The full frame cameras were at the next level in terms of price, and i thought i should learn first on the best available in this segment before i move on to full frame. ok, is the tamron better than sigma? can i use tamron 150-600 for both birds and mammals? Also, can i retain the tamron/sigma if i upgrade to a full frame body later?

hey nilanjan, considering the pictures you have posted, i think you have put the 70-300 to best use:) BTW which lens you suggest and also sigma or tamron ?

Thanks, @M35. The problem is every Nikkor DX lens seems to have some errors / problems, so not sure which one to go for.

The 24-85 is still not too highly priced. Though would like something with better reach, but not able find one that's right/

Tamron 150-600. For both birds and mammals.

Yes, the new Tamron 150-600 is significantly better than the much older Sigma 150-500.

However, Sigma has recently announced two new 150-600mm lenses to replace this. It might take a while for them to avail in the retail though.

Due to their large zoom range, these lenses are suitable for both birds as well as mammals.

Yes, all of these lenses can be used on both DX as well as FX bodies :)

Sigma 150-500 is a FX lens and I don’t see the Tammy any different with respect to the compatibility.

The online reviews place the Tammy above Siggie in terms of overall performance. If you have the budget get the Tamron 150-600.

One is called “ contemporary” and the other “Sports”.Both being more expensive [the “sports” way too expensive] the Siggie 150-500 still the budget option for the 500mm reach.

So your choice is already made , Go for Sigma 150-500 see everything is relative when it comes to lenses someone here with enough moolah may suggest Canon 600mm but then it all depends on what fits in your budget.

I am not sure about price of Tamron 150-600 but if price difference is not much go for it as it is giving extra 100 mm.



Not necessarily for wide angles actually Tamron 10 -24 is lot worse then Sigma 10-20. There are two versions in Sigma 10-20 F4.5 - 5.6 and F3.5.

I have Sigma 10-20 and did not feel need to change / upgrade for simple reason that at 10mm I can lower the shutter speed to as less as 1/8 or 1/10 so F stop does not matter much. And perspective distortions are expected at UWA what is the fun otherwise.

However check Canon 10-18 F4.5 - 5.6 IS STM lens as well if available locally , It is lot cheaper then Canon/Sigma 10-20 and but has IS so you can lower shutter to compensate for 0.5 F stop lens.

Note that for UWA landscape 10mm is mostly what you will use so don't fret to much for 2 mm less on longer end.

However if you are using UWA for street portraits then Tokina 11 - 16 F2.8 is better.

If your interest is wildlife I do not see why you would upgrade to FF ever for using with long telephoto. Suppose if you retain interest in wildlife then more likely upgrade is 7D Mark II.

However you may get a Fullframe if you find yourself going in to landscape and portraits.

Alfa Romeo, there are many people here who shoot wildlife and landscapes so they might be able to give you detailed technical advice. I think the Tamron / Sigma 150-600 will work on full-frame bodies but please double check from reviews on the net.

I have the following few bits to add on the landscape bit:

1. I have found that you actually do not ALWAYS need UWA lenses for landscape photography, because all shots may not always be panaromic. Landscape also means shots with normal or wide-angle focal lengths (or even telephoto) as long as the 'subject' is a landscape.

2. If you ever intend to go full-frame, I would suggest you start investing in the full-frame capable lenses right now! In the Canon world, EF mount lenses, especially if you add 'zoom', 'fast' and 'L' to it, cost a bomb. Even Tamron / Sigma equivalents are not cheap.

3. Remember that a UWA on FF is barely a WA on crop sensor. If you invest in an 8 mm lens on a crop, it might be more than you need on a full-frame, but just a wide angle on crop.

4. One of the nicest (and sharpest) WA / UWA lenses for landscape that I know of is the Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8. It retails for around 35,000 (making it more affordable than others in the category) BUT it has no auto-focus whatsoever (besides being a prime lens). If you are seriously interested in landscape photography, this lens is worth a look, especially at that price.

(All this discussion about technical stuff and gear boggles my mind at times. I have a Tamron 70-300 (which is not a great lens in most operating conditions), a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (which is one of the best walkaround lenses one can buy at 25,000 bucks) and a nifty-fifty. I prefer to do photography than bother about gear. It's okay if the pictures are not razor-sharp or I am unable to count the hair on the animals coat, considering what I have.)

Thanks mate

Thanks, the terms Dx and Fx are used more aptly with nikon right rather than canon. i know i sound quite confused sometimes. I own a canon 70D, but yes i do get your point. thanks again.

Thanks, will check out the tamron 150 - 600 vis-a-vis the 150 - 500.

thanks amit. i wil check out the sigma 150 - 600 as everyone is suggesting the same and also the price of canon 600 mm. Just one question here, i dont get the reasoning behind "I do not see why you would upgrade to FF ever for using with long telephoto" . Also, as i previously mentioned i understand that i cannot use my canon 18-135 if i upgrade to FF camera body but vice versa is possible.

Thanks architect, got a good idea for landscape lenses. Your second point is worth considering keeping in mind future aspects.

Where did you see the discussion getting too technical? :)

I agree with you that gear is just a means to the end. But gear does matter, in certain situations - all other aspects - including skills and luck (e.g.for wildlife, action) - being equal.

Not sure I agree that it is ok if the photos are not razor sharp. Especially animal photos lol.