Jeremy Wright wrote:Thanks guys! Awesome photos and gear explanations.
Anton, if you now could go back on your sb 500 purchase, would you rather get something like an r1 macro kit or something like a 2nd sb800? I shoot mostly with an r1 / sb700 combo but for some situations, especially with bigger snakes or herps, I can see how a brighter second flash would be more useful.
Bill, could you give me some info on why you chose the 200-500 and not a 150-600 from Tamron or Sigma? My dad and I have been thinking of getting a telephoto like that to share.
-Jeremy
Jeremy,
I looked closely at reviews of all four lenses before deciding on the Nikon. For me it boiled down something like this-
The Tamron was agreed upon as being not quite as good as the Nikon or the 2 Sigmas in image quality. Apparently its not bad, just not quite as good as the other three. Its cheaper, but I could afford the better, more expensive alternatives, so the Tamron was out.
There was less consensus on optical quality of the Nikon vs the Sigma S vs the Sigma C. Some reviewers gave the nod to the Nikon, others to one or the other SIgmas. I had to conclude that optics were a tie on all three. I've since learned that a number of people have reported receiving bad copies of the Nikon, which had to be returned, sometimes a couple of times, before they received a sharp copy. I guess I got lucky. After AF fine tuning mine is nice and sharp.
The Sigma sport has the advantage over the Nikon of faster AF, (again, just based on what I've read, since I haven't used the Sigma). Its also supposed to be better built and have better weather sealing. Both Sigmas have the advantage over the Nikon of going to 600 instead of just 500 and of having the ability to use the USB dock to fine tune the lenses at different focal lengths and distances. That last point almost sold me on the SIgmas, but I reasoned that a Nikon lens on a Nikon camera would likely need less adjustment than a Sigma lens on a Nikon camera would, and so perhaps the additional AF fine tune options would not be necessary. I don't know if I was right or just lucky, but my 200-500 requires almost identical af fine tune values at every focal length and distance I've tested it at.
The Nikon has the advantages of being lighter than the Sigma S, (I don't remember how its mass compared to the Sigma C), and better VR. I can definitely attest to how good the VR is. I never really believe the number of stops the manufactures quote. Those always seem overly optimistic for consistently good results, but I can handhold the 200-500 @ 500mm and 1/60 sec. and get consistently tack sharp pictures. That's better than I can do with my 70-300 VR @ 300 and its a much more comfortable lens to handle than the 200-500.
All in all the final decision for me came down to the Nikon vs the SIgma S. Each had advantages and disadvantages, but I think the final deciding factor was that the Nikon lens was a Nikon lens. All else being equal, I will always take the camera maker's lens over an independent. Sigma has been making some great lenses recently, but you never know when Nikon might throw in some new technology that they knew was coming down the pike, but the independents didn't and which might render independent lenses partially unusable on some new camera body. Plus all my Nikon lenses work the same way, focus and zoom rings are similar, switches for vr are the same and in the same location, etc. Little things like that make a difference when you're working fast and by feel. Really though I don't think you can go wrong with any of them.
Northern Black-tailed Rattlesnake by Jeremy Wright Photography, on Flickr
Banded Rock Rattlesnake by Jeremy Wright Photography, on Flickr
