Would This Lens Meet my Needs and is it a Good Deal or (Page 2): I have a Sigma 18 to 250mm f3.5 to 6.3 on a Dix camera it's like 27 to 375mm This is a great walk around lens and I...

Joecosentino Loc: Whitesboro, New York

I have a Sigma 18 to 250mm f3.5 to 6.3 on a Dix camera it's like 27 to 375mm

This is a great walk around lens and I used in Hawaii in July

Thev150 to 500 is a really big lens, it's a nice one but hard to hand hold

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

For wildlife you want a long lens and for landscapes you want a short lens. Most people use between 300-500mm for wildlife. The faster the better. For landscapes, you will wand 24-70mm. A 10-24mm is too wide and will be lacking detail. Wide angles have other purposes. I'd say you want to purchase two lenses - not one.

GrahamS Loc: Hertfordshire, U.K

Rexene, the longest focal length that you would be able to hand-hold on the Nikon D7K, with image stabilization (VR) is around 300mm, which is an effective 450mm. Even then, I prefer to use a tripod. If this suits your needs for wildlife I suggest that you look for an AFS Nikkor 70-300 f4.5-5.6G VR either used or new. It will also be useful for landscapes from 70mm to around the 150mm mark. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_70-300mm_VR/

For you landscape requirements, I suggest the AFS Nikkor 16-85 f3.5-5.6 G ED VR.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_DX_16-85mm_VR/
These two lenses combined will give you a complete range of focal lengths from 16mm to 300mm (28mm to 450mm in real terms) with superb image quality, light weight and at affordable cost.

You could go for an AFS 18-300mm f3.5-5.6G VR ED for a more compact, lightweight all-in-one lens, but there would be image quality compromises, never mind ken Rockwell's opinion. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm.htm

I have these two lenses plus a 50mm and a 35mm prime as my D7k "holiday" outfit and I have never needed more.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

You can't have your cake and eat it too with the 150-500. It's a lens for shooting long distance wildlife and so forth---not at all for landscapes. The Sigma is said to be soft when completely extended so your best long distance shots are going to be best between 375mm-450mm. Most long zooms have this same issue so if you're at 400mm on a 400mm zoom more than likely it will be a bit soft---that's just how zooms are. If you want a beautiful landscape lens look at Tamrons 24-70mm 2.8. It tests equivalent to or above any lens in this category by Canon or Nikon.........

Rexene Loc: Michigan

Thanks everyone for your great advice. I currently have kit lenses 18 - 55mm 3.5 - 5.6G DX VR and 55 - 200mm 4 - 5.6G ED DX VR and a prime 50mm 1.8D.

I should have mentioned these lenses in my original post. Perhaps this will change some of your recommendations.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Rexene wrote:

Thanks everyone for your great advice. I currently have kit lenses 18 - 55mm 3.5 - 5.6G DX VR and 55 - 200mm 4 - 5.6G ED DX VR and a prime 50mm 1.8D.

I should have mentioned these lenses in my original post. Perhaps this will change some of your recommendations.

I personally don't see a 50mm 1.8 a bad lens for shooting landscapes. Once I got started on the 2.8s I've never looked back. To me on a good body there is a huge difference of what you can achieve with a 2.8 vs a 3.5 or above. Also the wide end of that 18-55 should also act as a good landscape but you'll have to push your ISO higher causing more noise than if you were shooting a 2.8 and that is also dependent on conditions. Happy hunting and hope you find a lens that suites what you're trying to achieve.......

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

Rexene wrote:

Thanks everyone for your great advice. I currently have kit lenses 18 - 55mm 3.5 - 5.6G DX VR and 55 - 200mm 4 - 5.6G ED DX VR and a prime 50mm 1.8D.

I should have mentioned these lenses in my original post. Perhaps this will change some of your recommendations.

I personally don't see a 50mm 1.8 a bad lens for shooting landscapes. Once I got started on the 2.8s I've never looked back. To me on a good body there is a huge difference of what you can achieve with a 2.8 vs a 3.5 or above. Also the wide end of that 18-55 should also act as a good landscape but you'll have to push your ISO higher causing more noise than if you were shooting a 2.8 and that is also dependent on conditions. Happy hunting and hope you find a lens that suites what you're trying to achieve.......

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Rexene wrote:

Thanks everyone for your great advice. I currently have kit lenses 18 - 55mm 3.5 - 5.6G DX VR and 55 - 200mm 4 - 5.6G ED DX VR and a prime 50mm 1.8D.

I should have mentioned these lenses in my original post. Perhaps this will change some of your recommendations.

If the 18-55mm gives you good results, use that for your landscapes and pick up the 150-500mm for wildlife.

GrahamS Loc: Hertfordshire, U.K

The 18-55 f3.5-5.6 is only sharp across the frame when used at f8 (but then it's very sharp!) This could be too restrictive, especially if used at the 18mm end. The Sigma 150-500 and cannot be hand held at anything over 300mm and is too big and heavy to be a "carry anywhere" lens. Just my 2c worth.

coco1964 Loc: Winsted Mn

GrahamS wrote:

The 18-55 f3.5-5.6 is only sharp across the frame when used at f8 (but then it's very sharp!) This could be too restrictive, especially if used at the 18mm end. The Sigma 150-500 and cannot be hand held at anything over 300mm and is too big and heavy to be a "carry anywhere" lens. Just my 2c worth.

The outfit I use now for shooting football runs about 6 lbs and I carry it around for 4 quarters of football constantly on the move. I'm retired and no muscle man by any means. Last night I was standing with a female television photographer and the unit she had on her shoulder had to go 15-20 lbs, likely more---not a problem for a lady or a retired old goat, hit the gym!!!

GrahamS Loc: Hertfordshire, U.K

There goes your carry-on baggage limit.....

Pentony Loc: Earth Traveller

Rexene wrote:

I am looking for a lens that won't break the bank for landscape and wildlife photography. I ran across a used (purchased May 2012) Sigma 150-500mm F/5.0-6.3 APO HSM DG OS Lens For Nikon for $850.00. Would this lens meet my needs and is this a good deal? If not, what would you suggest? Would I be better off purchasing a new Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM APO Autofocus Lens for $999.00? What would be a good lens for a trip to Hawaii next month? I use a Nikon D7000 camera.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use 500mm for wildlife and 24mm for landscape. Getting both in one lens would be awesome and very heavy. Good luck

brccli1 Loc: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

In Toronto, Canada, a new 150-500 is $1100-1200. I don't think that the price for the used one is cheap enough. If there is that little difference, I would go with a new one and have a full warrantee.