Trying to decide betweent these two lenses. Both will work out to be around the same price. I do alot of motorsort photography and this year will be trying sports such as hockey and soccor. Obiously the extra reach on the bigma is helpful, but i have heard that in lowlight they are very average. Where as the 50-150 is a much faster lense and when coupled with the converter gives a good zoom range.



Anyone got either of these lenses? or suggest anything similar in the $1000 price range. Will be going on a d200 body.



cheers

I haven't used the 50-150 before, but have used the 50-500, and its a good lens. The good thing about it is, and given what you yourself are using it for is the distance. I guess if you dont have say one particular outcome in mind and just shoot on the go, so at one instant you may need wider angle and the next 500mm. And the focusing distance at close range isn't to bad either. But it is a lens to be used on say sunnier days.

I currently use a Sigma 18-200mm and does the job fine.

when you put the 50-150 2.8 with a converter it drops it to f4 i think, i would go 50-500 much better overall

anyone used the nikkor 70-300 VR, how much does the VR help out? How low shutter speed can you hand hold with it?

I used to own the 70-300 VR i never used the VR when panning just did'nt seem to work well but for just a hand held normal shot i once did 1/20th it's a solid lense so the weight helps as well.

what was it like in low light conditions? like really overcast days?

not bad it definately is a bit slower but still performs well overall a very good lense especially for the price.

personally i think most the sigma lenses are shit .

only one i like is the 10 20 or what ever it is 10 22 forget what ones canon and what one is sigma but hard to spot the difference in the two IMHO