Announcement

**jid** · 2007-02-12, 11:40

A quick search of the DB shows this user uses that lens

http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=4663

JetPhotos.com is the biggest database of aviation photographs with over 5 million screened photos online!

I don't know the chap or if he uses a TC. You could always drop him a line and see if he has some comments on that lens.

Regards,

Jid

**Greg Wilson** · 2007-02-12, 13:58

Jan
I�m sure you may have considered but��
Sigma 50-500 is a F/4.0 - F6.3 lens�..F/6.3 at 500
Your 70-200 F/2.8 with a 2X converter becomes a 140 � 400 F/5.6 lens.
I may be wrong but you just may run into auto focus with a 2X
So if you are trying to replace the sigma for the 300 to 500 range you may not be a great deal better off in low light.
If you have a good copy of the 50 � 500 you have to consider the advantages of the wide range of focal length.
Perhaps instead of replacing the Sigma, the 70 � 200 F/2.8 may be a nice addition to your kit, with maybe a 1.4X.
My preference would be a Nikon converter with a Nikon lens.

**seahawk** · 2007-02-12, 14:24

Very true. Even with the 2x Nikon converter many users feel that sharpness and contrast drops below the level of the Nikon 80-400 VR, while the 1.4 Nikon converter is said to have a neglible effect, with the 1.7x still being good.

However for the cost of the 70-200 VR + Nikon converter, you can also set an eye on the the Sigma 120-300 2.8 HSM or to be more practical the Sigma 100-300 4.0 HSM, which I would suggest as an addition to the Bigma and not as a replacement.

**ollieholmes** · 2007-02-12, 18:05

The nikon 70-200 f2.8 with Nikons 1.4x converter is an awsome lens. If you whant some examples look at any photo from 9th July 2006. They where all taken with that combo in mixed lighting conditions.
The 1.7x tc would still make it a good lens but the 2x would loose alot of quality.

**Jan84** · 2007-02-13, 07:36

Well to be honnest, when i bought the 50-500 i thought i needed that range.
But i'm using the range between 200 and 300 more than i expected.

And of the 70-200 range also quite a lot.

Wouldn't it be better then to buy the 70-200 with an 1.7 extender and an 2x in case it is realy necessery.

But i'll take a look at the 100-300 as well.

**seahawk** · 2007-02-13, 07:51

And take a look at the 80-200 2.8 ED. It is not AF-S and VR, but its optical quality matches the 70-200 and still is quite fast to focus, even with a Kenko 1.4x converter.

**Whopper** · 2007-02-14, 00:58

Originally posted by Jan84

Well to be honnest, when i bought the 50-500 i thought i needed that range.
But i'm using the range between 200 and 300 more than i expected.

And of the 70-200 range also quite a lot.

Wouldn't it be better then to buy the 70-200 with an 1.7 extender and an 2x in case it is realy necessery.

But i'll take a look at the 100-300 as well.

Hi,

Have you considered buying a second body and a AF-S 70-200 or AF 80-200?. Might work better for you?. Just a thought.

Regards,

Rob

**Christobal65** · 2007-02-14, 04:14

Originally posted by Jan84

Well to be honnest, when i bought the 50-500 i thought i needed that range.
But i'm using the range between 200 and 300 more than i expected.

And of the 70-200 range also quite a lot.

Wouldn't it be better then to buy the 70-200 with an 1.7 extender and an 2x in case it is realy necessery.

But i'll take a look at the 100-300 as well.

based on that why not just get the 70-300VR? save yourself about $1500

**Jan84** · 2007-02-15, 18:35

Thanks for al the replys.

I think i'll keep the 50-500mm and add a sigma 70-200 F/2.8 +1.4 TC to my camerabag.

The 70-200 VR as addiction isn't an option at the moment.