My next lens
 

Im needing to get something bigger than my 70-300 lens for my aircraft photography. I realy need something that will take me to 500mm.
I have 2 thoughts, the sigma 170-500.
Or the Nikon 100-400 with a 1.5x tele but i have herd that this lens will not take a tele convertor. If that is true can anyone recomend another lens that will go on my D50 of the same size.
Also i cant decide between the 170-500 or the 50-500 sigma lens.
What are peoples thoughts and experainces on these lenses, or do people have an altrenate suggestion.

I think the Sigma 170-500 has even slower AF than the Nikon 80-400, and thats saying something.

The Nikon 80-400 will work with a kenko teleconverter but AF will be unreliable, though VR still works.

I'd be more inclined towards leaving off a teleconverter... better to have good sharp shots and crop a little than something iffy but larger.

Sigma 50-500 is good (better than 170-500) but heavy, the Tamron 200-500mm may be best choice, as this is getting very good reviews for sharpness and it's easier to handhold.

Hopefully a real aviation photographer will chip in with some advice.

cheers,
Andy

You dont have to be a aviation photographer to give good advice. Any usefull advice is welcome. We all photograph different subjects and have different styles to out photography. I like that, it makes this forum what it is.

Looking online now the Tamron sounds a good idea for me. I whant to sometime add second body for static shots so im not having to change lenses all the time.

I used Nikon 80-400VR for a couple of years on a Fuji S2. Autofocus is slow but I managed to get lots of great pics when I did not appreciate autofocus speed. 80-400VR is a great lens especially between f8 and f11. The lens has a focus limit to reduce the amount of hunting that it did on S2 but when I switched body to a Nikon D2X hunting was a thing of the past. The only fault with the lens then was lack of resolution but on a D50 this will not be realised.

The next lens choice depends if you want quality or reach, reach is provided at an affordable price in the 50-500 especially if you seek a used copy, I did not find it heavy when I lifted with a Canon body attached. Quality is provided by changing the right lens in the right situation. Avoid zooms over 5X (50-500 sigma is 10X) as a prime will give best outright quality a short range zoom should be close. I use four lenses to cover that focal range :-

17-35 f2.8 - static/museum use
28-70 f2.8 static/museum use
70-200VR f2.8 - lumbering airliners and with 1.7TC, crowded airshows
200-400VR f4 - Nice airshows not too crowded
200-400VR f4 with TC on a clear day, special purpose such as moon!

I do not recommend anything over 400mm as keeping the thing steady and tracking even with monopod is difficult. As an experiment I kept 200-400VR at 300mm and more shots were sharp, as Andy suggests its better to crop than have something large but blurry.

I would save up for a 80-400VR as VR really helps achieve prop blur, would be a nice tool at OW.

I reckon the best lens for the flying component of airshows is 300 f2.8VR

Thank you for your advice there. the 80-400vr is a bit out of my budget new, but e-bay may help me there.

There's one just come in at Ffordes HERE

Thank you for the heads up.

Vibration Reduction (VR) is a useful aid to aviation photography. The ability to allow decent prop blur though slow shutter speed in confidence is important. I cannot imagine using a non VR lens now I have been spoilt by its advantages.

I had a sigma 170-500 for a couple of days before sending it back - it's not ultra heavy - AF is slow as might be expected - but it extends such a long way it's really uncomfortable to hold. A bit like trying to shoot handheld through a telescope! Not the best option I would think!!

How low will you drop your shutter speeds with VR? I dont go below 1/60th as i know i cant hold the camera steady. I also whant to work on my panning this year.