Author Topic: Lens Choice (Read 8022 times)

Pixart · « **on:** February 07, 2009, 20:32 »

I'm lusting after a new long lens. Does anyone have an opinion on either of these two lenses:

Nikon 80-400 VR 4.5-5.6 http://www.nikon.ca/en/Product.aspx?m=14470

or

Sigma 50-500 (no VR) 4-6 http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3307&navigator=3

My first instinct is to stick with Nikon, but the range of the Sigma is sure appealing.

I have a nice 70-200 VR 2.8 so it is very fast, and good enough for sports but not close enough for nature. I'm guessing that the two lenses I'm considering would be slow enough to drive me a little mad, but I really want the length.

I haven't found many reviews on the Sigma.
Sigma Pros: From 50-500 is quite an incredible range, won't have to bring other lenses
10 year warranty if I buy from Sigma Canada
Sigma Cons: Slow - creeping problems - different filter size

Nikon Pros: VR - decent range - same size filter as my other Nikon lenses
Nikon Cons: will need new tele-converter, 400 is on the short end for nature photography, may need to bring wider lens.

Does anyone have either of these lenses or know of a good site that might have a review of the Sigma?

Calamity_John · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2009, 23:18 »

Have you thought about maybe dropping around $120 and renting the both of them for a week ? May or may not be worth it.
lensrentals.com
has both and just glancing over their right now .. some pretty strong opinions on them as well ...
I often find myself at fredmiranda.com for an overwhelming number of reviews of various levels of "informed" ..

on the sigma 50-500 Philippine bird photographer Romy Ocon has some interesting tests in his pbase gallery
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/root
specifically here comparing it to the Canon 100-400 and 400 f/5.6
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/lens_shootout

I use the "affordable" Canon 400 prime for my nature stuff .. and it is often not quite long enough .. but I console myself with the concept that "not quite long enough" is a never ending game .. just something more to save up for (maybe in some far off epoch if my shots with my 400 earn me 5 or 6 thousand maybe I will get a 500 : )

.. I was driven to the prime over the zooms with comparison to how the zooms were performing at the far end of their ranges .. and the concept I would probably have it cranked out to the far end most of the time ..

I had the same thought as you on teleconverters and can tell you that over time I have come to despise my two teleconverters .. (they are canon and go with my lens) .. but the stop(s) of light .. the reduction of auto focus speed (auto focus at all unless I tape off some pins) and image quality are enough to make me just rather crop .. I have no idea of how Nikon's are with these issues but I would get some opinions ...

good luck and have fun .. We had a Pileated Woodpecker in our yard last night .. I never did get a shot without bracken in the way .. hope he comes back.

Pixart · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2009, 10:25 »

Thanks Calamaty, this makes me think the Sigma is a better choice than the Nikon.

I just started looking into this lens this week, and it is on sale $200 off at Henry's - but the sale is over today! Oh, the pressure!

C_J, Do you use a flash extender (better beamer or whatever they are called)?

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2009, 11:30 »

These long lenses entice me until I look at their size and weight.

But I confess I was jealous of two guys in my trip to Africa, as they could photograph the fly on the tail of the elephant with their big lenses.

Regards,
Adelaide

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2009, 13:33 »

A couple of things I've deducted from shopping ... with a lens that long do you really need VR (vibration control)? Wouldn't you need a tripod ... or some type of support.

Do you really need autofocus? You are working at a much slower pace than in sports or action, I would guess? If you do not need autofocus, a teleconverter could be more useful. You would not have to worry about losing autofocus beyond f5.6.

Adalaide made a good point. Weight. You probably will not be using this lens a lot. It gets very heavy for "walkaround" purposes. Go with something as long as you can afford and consider manual focus and non-vr to reduce the cost.

Just my pesos.

Warren

PS: my luck with Sigma has not been good.

Calamity_John · « **Reply #5 on:** February 08, 2009, 13:54 »

C_J, Do you use a flash extender (better beamer or whatever they are called)? ...

not yet .. but I am thinking of getting one for the migration of all the wee little birds up here in a couple months ..

do you really need autofocus? .. it is a big deal for me at least ... for birds ... in flight .. and also especially little ones that don't sit still ..

and speaking of size and weight .. I am not sure of the weight of the sigma .. the nice thing about my 400 f/5.6 L is that the 5.6 is horrible but at least it really cuts down on the weight .. it is under 3lb ..

but something else I would look at is your tripod with the weight .. and have you seen these ...
http://bushhawk.com/

and just because you can never spend enough ; )
I really like the large holster from Kinesis
http://kgear.com/c/C640.html

again have fun.

John

Pixart · « **Reply #6 on:** February 08, 2009, 22:28 »

I ordered the Sigma lens today to take advantage of the sale price. If it had been in the store I would have it in my hands but I have to wait till the end of the week. I got to try one out last week in another store, and I compared the 120-500 to the Nikon in the store today.

Now a few hours later I decide that I will cancel my order and buy a 2x converter for my 70-200 2.8 (which is a superb lens). Then I read Ken Rockwell and he claims that the 2x sucks on this lens, but the 1.4 (which I have) and the 1.7 rock. Well, those don't really bring me into the range I am looking for.

I just have this feeling that Nikon will soon announce something better than this 9 year old 80-400 and I will regret buying the Sigma. Supposedly the FullFrame Nikon users are demanding some new pro lenses... and I'm thinking that since the 80-400 VR is so old that they HAVE to replace it sometime soon.

I find it very strange that I shopped for and bought a car in one afternoon, yet the purchase of a mid quality lens is so agonizing.

Fred · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2009, 01:45 »

Bjorn Rorslett gives the Nikkor 80-400 a 4 out of 5 and likes the VR. Here's a link to his review.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AF80-400VR

c h e e r s
fred

e-person · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2009, 18:07 »

Isn't that Sigma supposed to be nicknamed Bigma?

I think it is very good for the price. Yet, quite a big piece of equipment.

I don't think VR is of any use on a tripod. I never use anti shake even if my camera has it. When I find it on after having taken a few photos, I usually start swearing in my mind like a porter.

I think you will be happy with it. Sigma lenses are not bad at all, especially if you do not get their cheapest.

Fred · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2009, 00:40 »

Standard recommendation I have seen is that VR should be turned off if a tripod is used. This is in the instructions with the Nikkor VR lens - 200 - 400mm may be an exception - but no reason given. Thoughts are that it introduces a slight blur and/or shifts image slightly trying to compensate.

fred

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Lens Choice (Read 8022 times)

Pixart

Calamity_John

Pixart

madelaide

WarrenPrice

Calamity_John

Pixart

Fred

e-person

Fred

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors