Lens comparison Nikon/Sigma

[redvintage]

Love to get some comparison info about the Nikon AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR versus Sigma 50-500 lens especially for birding. I have a Nikon D300
Thanks for any input
Luch

[arthurking83]

I reckon you may find conflicting reports depending on who has it, who's shooting and what they're shooting.

Nikon lens is generally more expensive by a few hundred, so if saving your money is a high priority, then the Sigma wins hands down.

Of all the images/tests and reports I've seen and read, the Nikon will usually just pip the 50-500 in terms of contrast and clarity, it's a very good lens in terms of IQ, but again, if you get a copy that is slightly less than ideal, you'll find it's worse than a Sigma which may be built better and more accurately.

I reckon get a Sigma from a reputable source, where if there are any issues with it, you would discover them immediately and get it sorted just as immediately too!
CRKennedy have this policy that they will pricematch any grey market price(with proof), so you may as well try that first, and have a proper warranty to work with if there are issues.

I'm curious as to why you didn't also have either the 120-400 or 150-500 Sigma's in there as alternate options too?
I'd seriously look at the 150-500 as a usable alternative.

[ving]

i dont own the nikon lens but i have the siggy 150-500. if kyou want to see what its like just look at my bird photos either here or my website. or look for photos by the user feral1

[redvintage]

Thanks for that Arthurking83, I been reading about it a lot and as you say, a lot of plus and minuses on both lens, still I would go for the better for a few 100$ it is worth it I think. I been looking in to the 150-500, thought the 50-500 has much more to offer for the range you get with it. :o

[ricktas]

I moved your thread, you put it in the New To Photography Photo Critique forum. It is now in the Nikon gear forum where it might get more replies. Please watch where you put threads, as putting them in the wrong place, means often, members who have the knowledge to reply do not see your thread.

[Wayne]

Be aware that the IQ from the Nikon 80-400 is very good, however the focus speed (it is an older AF design with no built in focus motor) can be somewhat slow, and in fading light, very slow. This is the one remaining Nikon lens that is in desperate need of an AF-S (built in motor) update, and some suspect it may come but that has been a rumor for a long time. I would never buy a Sigma lens in the huge zoom range (probably never buy any Sigma lens), I don't like the bokeh, it has a distinct rough look.

[Bennymiata]

The Sigma 150-500 is a superior lens to the 50-500.
ANy lens witha 10X zoom ratio has flaws as you can't expect perfection from a lens with such a wide zoom ratio.
Check the test results, and you'll see there is a difference.

Generaly speaking, the wider the zoom ratio, the poorer the lens performs as there has to be sacrifices in lens design to get the lens to work through such a big range.
You must have other lenses that will cover the 50-150mm range and the 50-500 is big, heavy lens too.

[redvintage]

Thank you all for your input, Sorry Ricktas for my mistake

[rellik666]

I too have the 150-500 and so far it is great, I have only used in a few times so far. And from my limited usage, the extra mm are well worth it. I have been using my 200mm with a 1.7t/c and find I need all of the 500 and then some!

I got the Siggy locally for a great price too. So +1 for the 150-500 from me! :th3:

[knumbnutz]

Sorry I cant say anything about the nikon 80-400 but I have had the sigma 50-500 and 105macro.
This seems to be the only forum which gives the 50-500 a bad rap, because it is held with high regard else where.
Realistically though, you wont buy any of the long sigma lenses because they go to 50 or 150 for that matter, it is how well they do at 500 that counts the most and thats where they shine.
Any of the 500's will do well. Fast focus and extremely good bokeh !
I think this is the first time i have heard someone say they are harsh too :)

Here are a couple of shots from my sigmas in different applications, some showing bokeh.

at 360mm
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3287/3126306438_2e2360f00c_z.jpg

at 500mm but cropped
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3049/2941420042_0fb23c1995_z.jpg

the harsh bokeh ?
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3214/3126302922_3c7fd83d1d_z.jpg

[K10D]

WRT the Bigma (50-500), people should clarify which version they refer to. The original 50-500 is the cream of the crop just as the original 70-200 EX Mk 1 is the sharpest of the bunch. I have both and they are keepers.

I have used the 80-400 on an F100 and it is a good lens even if somewhat slow focus.

A second hand 50-500 Mk 1 is worth the search.

Best regards

[RRRoger]

[QUOTE=K10D;972316]WRT the Bigma (50-500), people should clarify which version they refer to. The original 50-500 is the cream of the crop just as the original 70-200 EX Mk 1 is the sharpest of the bunch. I have both and they are keepers.

I have used the 80-400 on an F100 and it is a good lens even if somewhat slow focus.

A second hand 50-500 Mk 1 is worth the search.

Best regards QUOTE<<

It really matters whether you have a good copy of the Sigmas.
I had the early 50-500 and it was very good, but too heavy.
The newest version is supposed to be better, but not the copy I tried at the Camera Shop.
I came home that day with an excellent 150-500. It was sold with a camera.
Later I bought a second 150-500 and returned it because of poor performance.

I've had two Nikkor 80-400 lens, they were both excellent.
They really came to life on my D3 bodies.
I think the 80-400 was the first Nikkor with VR and probably the most overdue for AF-S refresh.

[I @ M]

It really matters whether you have a good copy of the Sigmas.
I had the early 50-500 and it was very good, but too heavy.
The newest version is supposed to be better, but not the copy I tried at the Camera Shop.
I came home that day with an excellent 150-500. It was sold with a camera.
Later I bought a second 150-500 and returned it because of poor performance.

I've had two Nikkor 80-400 lens, they were both excellent.
They really came to life on my D3 bodies.
I think the 80-400 was the first Nikkor with VR and probably the most overdue for AF-S refresh.

So Roger, seeing as you have tried em all, you would be the perfect person to show some high quality comparison images from the lenses in this thread to help people decide.

We await your attachments.:)

[Kym]

I have the 50-500 and its sharper at the long end. I did some tests when I first got it, 460mm was sharpest.

[Danielepaolo]

Have you considered the Tamron 200-500mm?

[RRRoger]

84912>QUOTE We await your attachments.:) QUOTE<<
The picture you see is at 400mm, Also check these:
D3 with Nikkor 80-400
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/11525/medium/di_032909r38511.JPG
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/11508/medium/di_111508r1776.JPG
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/19645/medium/031710r0260n.JPG

[arthurking83]

..... show some high quality comparison images from the lenses in this thread to help people decide.

....




>QUOTE We await your attachments.:) QUOTE<<

D3 with Nikkor 80-400.....

:confused:


I'm sure Andrew meant comparison images between each lens to highlight the pros and cons of each!

.... and not just images per sé.

And his use of the term high quality generally means images of much more than 400x300 pixel sizing


.. but I think we get the point now!

[RRRoger]

8491384914taken with Sigma 150-500 @ 500mm

[RRRoger]

You can compare the two that are up on the screen.
They are equally degraded by the downsizing, small image size, and uploading.

Or you can download and compare the original JPEGs

Sigma 150-500 at 500mm http://assuredphotos.com/Lens/150-500/061210r0067.JPG
Nikkor 80-400 at 400mm http://assuredphotos.com/Lens/80-400/032010r0014.JPG

[vharperv]

just bought the sigma 150-500 cant wait to try it on small birds and large surfers. a great thread here
Vera