New Sigma 70-200/2.8 or 50-150/2.8 - which is better for me?

[dmitry_kiyatkin]

I hate to post such a post, but I am going on a trip and want a telephoto lens with 2.8 aperture. I own a

D300 and will probably have it for a couple of years at least. I do not want to pay extra for the VR or even

AF-S. The old AF-D is an option, but I think the Sigmas are actually lighter and real time manual focusing

is a nice feature for me.

 

If I am sticking with DX for now which lens provides better results? I do not really care about weight, just

picture quality.

 

I imagine they are both similar as their cost, but want to make sure....

 

Thanks, Dmitry

[chrisalmerini]

How much zoom do you think you will need? On the DX D300 it is really 225mm vs 300mm...Or how wide do you need to be? 75mm vs 105mm...I have the 70-200 VR Nikon and the quality of the prints coming out of my D300 with that lens justified the cost. The lens has paid for itself already.

[trunfio]

For a "trip", the 50-150 is quite small and light, since it's DX. It's got decent telephoto range (equiv

to about 70-225mm on the D300) and it has HSM, so fast focus. Honestly, I had this lens, but sold

it for the Nikon 70-200 for sports. While I love the Nikon, it's not super fun to lug around when

traveling, so I actually wish I had kept the 50-150 Sigma. The 50-150 is almost half the weight of

the 70-200 Sigma and Nikon. But the price of the Sigma 50-150 is about the same as the Sigma

70-200. If you don't care about the weight, then go with the 70-200 for the extra reach if you

need it. But are you sure you don't care about the weight? Because I thought that myself until I

started doing a lot of walking around trips.

[harvey_edelstein1]

The 50-150mm is one of Sigma's best lenses and covers 75-225mm EFL. It gets my vote.

[eric_arnold]

this is actually an easy question. it comes down to whether you want to lug around a tripod/monopod or not. if yes, get the 70-200. if no, get the 50-150.

 

IMO, a 70-200 is not really a travel lens for most travelers (due to bulk, size and 'fear factor') -- the 18-200 VR or 70-300 VR are probably more suited for this application, but then there's those pesky slow variable aperture to consider. the 50-150 has HSM for fast AF, a fast 2.8 max aperture, and is handholdable to boot. i can't comment on the 70-200's image quality, but the 50-150 is quite good, with nice bokeh wide open and 'ultimate sharpness' at f/5.6. my experience is that the extra 20mm at the wide end is more useful than the extra 50mm on the long end.<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<<my experience is that the extra 20mm at the wide end is more useful than the extra 50mm on the long end.>>

 

i should add, for general walkaround/all-purpose use; for sports, obviously the extra length would be appealing in many (but not all) situations.

[angkordave]

I've had no experience of the Sigma 50-150 but based on the Sigma Lenses I have, It should be good and is a useful lens for portraiture.

If you are going to photograph nature subjects a longer lens will be needed and VR becomes more necessary .

With the high ISO performance of the D300 VR not so important as fast aperture. I strongly advise trying the lens in the shop before you buy as Sigma quality can vary.