Lens help

[kevin63]

I have at the moment got a Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 OS lens for my Nikon D50, would I notice any difference in quality if I changed it for a Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6 ED VR
The price difference is quite a bit but with the wider range zoom and being a Nikon it might suit me better when taking photo on the race track, but not sure how good these new vibration reduction lenses are.
Would it be ok on a Nikon D50 too.

[andy-xr]

I've generally found that racetracks, unless you're stood in the corners need a reasonable amount of zoom. I've used a monopod before as well, but motorsport isnt a preferred type of photo I'd take, just was there with a camera

Maybe if you're looking for something midrange then the Sigma 50-150 2.8, but then again you already have the majority of the zoom range covered, and for the most part f2.8 isnt going to be massively needed.

Another option would be a 28-300, I always used to berate superzooms, but I tried this one and it rocks, I've hardly ever taken it off my camera in a year and a bit of owning it

[Gad-Westy]

That lens is getting some really good reviews but it does come at a seriously hefty price. If you fancy a direct replacement, take a look at a Nikon 70-300 VR. I used to have and thought it was superb, wish I'd never sold it. £300 buys a really good used one.

[kevin63]

I was thinking about the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens but the question is would I notice much difference, it may just not be worth the money to change.

[Simpo Two]

Well, this is a bit of a non-answer but it probably depends on how fussy you are and how good the rest of your photography is. All I can say is that I have the Nikon one, and am very pleased with it.

ETA: Found this FWIW: www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/621-sigma70300f456osfx?s...

[Gad-Westy]

kevin63 said:

I was thinking about the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens but the question is would I notice much difference, it may just not be worth the money to change.

I've not used one of your sigma lenses but going off all the comparison test that I've read you'll definitely notice a big difference.

[kevin63]

I'm getting photo like the ones I took bellow

[Gad-Westy]

kevin63 said:

I'm getting photo like the ones I took bellow

No idea on your technique/settings etc but if you're happy that you have that side of things nailed, then it does look like your lens is on the soft side. So, it would be worth looking at the Nikon 70-300 VR. It consistently spanks most of the it's rivals in group tests. The only competition it now seems to have is the Tamron 70-300 VC.

[kevin63]

Gad-Westy said:

kevin63 said:

I'm getting photo like the ones I took bellow

No idea on your technique/settings etc but if you're happy that you have that side of things nailed, then it does look like your lens is on the soft side. So, it would be worth looking at the Nikon 70-300 VR. It consistently spanks most of the it's rivals in group tests. The only competition it now seems to have is the Tamron 70-300 VC.

I thought they were a bit soft too but never thought to mention it. I'll be poping down to the shop to see what they can offer me today. Thanks.

[kevin63]

I have now got the AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300MM F/4.5-5.6G ED VR and first impressions are good, I ended up paying £225 for it, which I didn't think was too bad looking at some of the eBay prices.