Fast Nikon Sport lens

Always worries me about the variation between samples. Alot of reviews state this, but its only the bad reviews that people post.
80-400 covers all options, i was worried it wouldnt be that sharp at the longer end. It seems the reviews are positive though.
Second hand they are around the £1100 for the AF-S which isnt too bad.
 
nick16 said:
Always worries me about the variation between samples. Alot of reviews state this, but its only the bad reviews that people post.
80-400 covers all options, i was worried it wouldnt be that sharp at the longer end. It seems the reviews are positive though.
Second hand they are around the £1100 for the AF-S which isnt too bad.
Click to expand...
Less sharp at 400mm is better than needing 400mm and not having it... putting a TC on (especially on a zoom) will generate about the same results, as will cropping (assuming same size output). And generally when working with longer FL's I want to be stopped down for DOF which negates the max aperture value/sharpness considerations.

That said, when lighting isn't as good the aperture restriction can be problematic... that's why I also own the 120-300 (but it gets very little use).
Edit to add: I find that using a body with better high ISO performance is often preferable to opening the aperture unless the requirement is for greater BG separation. And a camera with a better AF system can make as much difference as the lens does...
 
Last edited:
i am not sure 80-400mm is a good lens in this case (p.s. the latest AF-S version is pretty sharp at 400mm).
from what i gather what OP is missing is lens speed and not really reach. The 80-400mm won't give him any more light than his current 55-300mm setup. It drops to f/5.6 by 200mm.
 
Speed is more important yes, Motorsport is pretty tough to shoot when you can get *fairly* close to the cars. I dont really need any more than 300mm to be honest, would rather benefit from f/4 or better as the light is often reduced by the trees round the brands hatch GP for example. Not so much of a problem on the Indy circuit.
Wow, fair play having the 80-400 and 120-300 !! - is that the new version of the sigma?
 
nick16 said:
Wow, fair play having the 80-400 and 120-300 !! - is that the new version of the sigma?
Click to expand...
No, it is the earlier DG version... I've had it quite a while now and it wasn't one of my wiser purchases (*only due to relative lack of use).
I edited my post above to add some camera body considerations which may be relevant... Personally, I would be considering a D7500/D500 before a lens of comparable cost.

Edit: I was not happy with the 39pt Multi-CAM 4800DX AF system when I owned a D7000, even compared to the older 51pt system in the D300...
 
Last edited:
Its okay, i have a cheap D5500, so the body has its limitations too!
 
I am a little confused on the variations of the 100-300 f4 sigma.

I see some listed as sigma 100-300mm f4 EX IF with the HSM in the description.
Other listed as sigma 100-300mm f4 EX DG APO HSM

I assume the latter is the most recent model?
 
Yes DG APO HSM is the latest version. I have only used the first version and it was rather sharp, I believe the later version is considered to be sharper.
 
I don't want to confuse things, there is also tokina 100-300mm f/4 (AT-X/red ring and AT-XII/gold ring). Not sure if these will AF with your body but they used to go rather cheaply in the past. Don't think they were as sharp as the sigma equivalent but they were built like a tank and also cheaper.
 
There is a first version Sigma for sale elseware, i am considering it because i know theres not a great deal different between the two.
I know the newer one is slightly better as you say, but in my hands... who knows!
 
I think the main advantage of getting the later version is updated HSM and better focus tracking, which might be helpful also
 
nick16 said:
There is a first version Sigma for sale elseware, i am considering it because i know theres not a great deal different between the two.
I know the newer one is slightly better as you say, but in my hands... who knows!
Click to expand...

I have an earlier version and for an occasional use lens it's awesome bang for buck. (Are you talking 120-300?)
 
Not sure if you are sorted and a bit late joining this thread but I have the 80-400 and its great....Picked it up second hand for just under 1k....but make sure you get the latest model.....nice and sharpened very happy with the images....
 
I have had and used the 70-300 VR (FX version), 70-200 F4 and 70-200 f2.8 mk2.

All 3 are great lenses and I would be hard pushed to give my favorite. I used the 70-300 for a few years and it produced fantastic images.

Both the 70-200s are better, but would have to pixel peep to see the IQ difference. But they are both faster lenses. The 2.8 was too big and heavy for what I wanted for so I'm currently using the f4. However, I'm keeping a close eye on the new 70-300 VR that is coming soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top