80-400 VR or Sigma 150-500 OS?

mex

mex

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,974
Name
Nigel
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm debating whether to go for the Nikon or the Sigma for birds/wildlife,the way I see it is:
i) the Sigma would offer me that bit more reach.
ii)the Sigma is a few hundred bucks cheaper.
iii)the Nikon build quality is (apparently) better.


appreciate your views.
 
I use the Nikon 80~400 as my main lens for nature photos & am pleased with the image quality. Shame it hasn't ultrasonic focus rather than the basic EF which I find a tad slow, particularly for flight shots.
 
I cannot offer advice on the Nikon as I have a Canon but I use the 150-500 OS frequently and I love it, almost silent focus, good stabilization, extremely sharp up to 400mm, very sharp up to 500mm if you stop at f8 or higher
 
If you can, try them both out.

We had the Sigma for a while but just couldn't get on with for some reason.

Much prefer the Nikon.
 
I had the Nikon for quite some time.Fairly compact lens, good zoom range and good |IQ. I liked it and used it a lot.HOWEVER, the autofocus is not very quick. In fact it is quite slow, unless you can prefocus on something so that the lens does not have to work too hard to find the subject should it arrive.

Maybe hire one from Stewart and see how you like it.
 
Another vote for the Sigma 150-500, nothing to touch it at the price, I think it's a cracking lens with a superb OS system
 
mex said:
I'm debating whether to go for the Nikon or the Sigma for birds/wildlife,the way I see it is:
i) the Sigma would offer me that bit more reach.
ii)the Sigma is a few hundred bucks cheaper.
iii)the Nikon build quality is (apparently) better.


appreciate your views.
Click to expand...

I have owned the Nikkor 80-400, sold it when I got the 300f4 and 1.4TC, quicker to focus, and sharp wide open, and also works well with the 1.7TC.

So my choice would be the 300mm f4 + 1.4TC, and +1.7TC (420mm f5.6 & 510mm f6.7), couple that with a 5ft close focus distance (even with a TC) gives you a great butterfly and dragonfly lens as well.
 
Don't discount the Sigma (Bigma) 50-500mm. Although I'm in the process of selling mine (off-site) as I've replaced it with Nikkor glass, I still highly recommend it :thumbs:
 
as you can probably guess from the title,I was/am looking for a lens with VR/OS having previously owned a 100-400 before turning to the dark side.
The 300 f/4 is something I had considered but as it does not have VR It was something I had dismissed, I already own a 1.4 tc ,maybe hiring or borrowing one will give me a better idea also it might make the decision easier,so that could be an option I suppose. The image quality would,I guess be that much better being a prime??
 
What about the Sigma 120-400mm OS? It's a great lens, and gives slightly better IQ than the 150-500mm
 
mex said:
The image quality would,I guess be that much better being a prime??
Click to expand...

Image quality is superb, however no VR, but I use a tripod so lack of VR is not an issue. I can hand hold the lens and get sharp stuff at 1/400, sometimes as low as 1/250, there is always a monopod.

If you are shooting from permanent hides it is fine resting on the window ledge.

Click for larger image

300f4 + 1.7TC ISO3200, resting on a hide ledge



Same as above



300f4 + 1.4TC

 
scottthehat said:
where did you see this.
Click to expand...

From various reviews I read while deciding between the two lenses (150-500mm and 120-400mm). I have the 120-400mm and am more than happy with it. It has its limitations but for the cash it's an excellent piece of glass.
 
NIKON NIKKOR AFS 300MM f/2.8G VR IF-ED...............................................................................if only my numbers come up in the lottery! a mere £4k,but does look the mutts nuts.Dream on son.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top