Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sigma 50-500 vs Nikon 80-400

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sigma 50-500 vs Nikon 80-400

    Hello everyone,

    Need a bit of advice. I'm gonna get myself some serious lens, as my 18-200 is a bit lacking at higher zooms.

    I'm considering Sigma's 50-500 and Nikon's 80-400. The Nikon has Vibration Reduction which I like very much, but it is also much more expensive.

    I'm currently using a D70, but should be upgrading to a D200 if all goes well.

    Any views would be appreciated.

    Cheers

    Mark


  • #2
    Well, I'd like to be able to say one or the other, but it's down to your personal choice.

    Mark,

    I use the 80-400 and on the whole, like it very much. I prefer Nikon lenses over Sigma as all my experiences with Sigma have been mediocre at best. I also use the 80-400 on a D70 and while it is sometimes soft at the 400 end, I find it satisfys my needs perfectly. I use it in conjunction with a 24-120VR and the two will transfer across to the D200/D80 when I can afford to buy one or the other!

    Good luck and a Happy New Year

    Andy

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm an 80-400 user to, along with a D50. I love the lens and believe its worth the extra money. I've also seen great results come out of this lens on a D70...and should be even better coupled with a D200. I'd say go for the Nikon.



      "Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz the tower!"


      Comment


      • #4
        "You get what you pay for" is the truth. If you can afford the Nikon go for it, I own the "Bigma" because I couldn't afford the Nikon lens and I'm very happy with it on my D70!

        Comment


        • #5
          I would also go with the 80-400. It is a very nice lens and the VR will give you just that little more in bad light situations. You might also consider the cheaper Nikkor 300mm F4. It's not a zoom but it is a great lens.

          Another advantage: All nikkors do very well on the second hand market. They are easy to sell if you want to get rid of them.

          Comment


          • #6
            I would always go with the Body makers lenses over sigma. The 80-400 is a lovely lens, if you realy whant the extra reach use a tc. The VR is always helpfull, even more so in low light.

            Comment


            • #7
              I use the Sigma 80-400 OS lens with a D70 and a D1X, it's cheaper than the Nikon version and in my opinion it's just as good.

              Comment


              • #8
                I would save up some extra money and pick up the 70-200 f/2.8 with the 1.7x or 2x. I have read some reviews of the 80-400 and it is a VERY, VERY slow focusing lens. I was seriously considering 80-400 but the slow speed focus really turned me off, and i am currently saving up for the exact combo i mentioned above.

                All of my spotting is currently done with an old style Nikkor 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6

                Comment


                • #9
                  Its not that slow, if you're used to AF-S lenses then you might find it a tad slow, but other than that its perfectly fine.



                  "Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz the tower!"


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Christobal65
                    I would save up some extra money and pick up the 70-200 f/2.8 with the 1.7x or 2x. I have read some reviews of the 80-400 and it is a VERY, VERY slow focusing lens. I was seriously considering 80-400 but the slow speed focus really turned me off, and i am currently saving up for the exact combo i mentioned above.

                    All of my spotting is currently done with an old style Nikkor 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6
                    The 70-200 f2.8 is a superb lens. Check my set of photos for photos taken on the 9th July 2006. They where all taken with the 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4x convertor.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by sluger020889
                      Its not that slow, if you're used to AF-S lenses then you might find it a tad slow, but other than that its perfectly fine.
                      I'm not trying to bash the lens or those that use it, i have seen some awesome pics taken with the 80-400. However, from what i have read it uses the slowest gears for foucusing Nikon has ever used.
                      Originally posted by ollieholmes
                      The 70-200 f2.8 is a superb lens. Check my set of photos for photos taken on the 9th July 2006. They where all taken with the 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4x convertor.
                      Awesome pics man you are making me want it even more, though i will be getting one of the longer teleconverters.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Christobal65
                        However, from what i have read it uses the slowest gears for foucusing Nikon has ever used.
                        I agree with you there, I read somewhere that Nikon geared it to be "slow" on purpose, though I can't remember exactly there reasonings. I hardly ever miss a shot due to the AF though, and if I do its more than likely cause I wasn't paying attention.



                        "Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz the tower!"


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Just one question, do you need 400 mm ?

                          If 300mm is enough the new AF-S 70-300 VR is a real bargain. Image quality is very good and the VR outperforms the VR in the 80-400 by a long way. And the lens cost less then 50% of the 80-400.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seahawk
                            Just one question, do you need 400 mm ?
                            Well that's a question a photographer has to ask himself when it comes down to making a choice. It all depends on what you (as a photographer) like to shoot. That extra 100mm could really add to your creative side, or really save you at airports further away from the action, say JFK's Howard Beach or SFO. In the end you have to sit down and ask yourself what you want from your next lens and go with what fits that most.



                            "Sorry Goose, but it's time to buzz the tower!"


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Christobal65
                              Awesome pics man you are making me want it even more, though i will be getting one of the longer teleconverters.
                              It is a lovely lens. The focus is very fast. I would not go any more than a 1.4x convertor personaly.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X