Q's about Nikon 70-300VR & Sigma XX-500 OS versions

Blind Pugh

Blind Pugh

Suspended / Banned
Messages
178
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
This is a query to those who have/had/used the Nikkor AF-S 70-300VR and also have/had/used the newer Sigma 50-500 OS version and the 150-500 OS (which I have briefly tried, but not on Nikon).

I have the AF-S 70-300VR and find it to be a very fine lens, in fact with my own testing (and that of SLR gear), I find it's the equal of the Nikon 80-400 up to 300mm, I found the other aspects of the 80-400 dissapointing, notably the slow AF.

I'm really trying to find a tele-zoom with VR/OS and a longer reach than 300mm, i.e. 500mm, that equals or betters the IQ of the 70-300 VR. I know that some will say the AF-S 200-400 VRII will do, but it's way out of my financial grasp! The Bigma 50-500 OS has my main attention.

My usage is for general birding and wildlife (not serious swamp or safari usage! I walk around bird sancturies or local woods and forests), airshows etc., mostly handheld, but tripod where needed.

I am keen to retain contrast and render fine feather detail, these are examples of what I mean, taken with my 70-300 VR.

93EAA4032F014621A0F5968FE04C7B43.jpg


AFF69BA89D074FCC9C6270325A1B2B70.jpg


FDD3888C013A4A3BBC29871BCBA2DD9D.jpg


Please don't suggest the AF-S 300mm f4.0 prime plus TC's! I know it's a fantastic lens, but with no zoom and no VR, it doesn't fit my requirements. I also know a 70-200 VRII and a 2x TCIII is a possibility, but that's also beyond my pocket and even then doesn't really tick all the boxes.

I currently also have a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 plus TC's, but it's size/weight and lack of VR and swapping to and from TC's has proved to be frustrating to me and I'm not "loving" it as much as I feel I ought to! :eek: I find I generally prefer to use my 70-300 VR! - I would need to sell this setup to fund whatever I decide to go for.

I'd really appreciate anyone's comments on the differences they've found between the 70-300VR and either of the Sigmas with regard to IQ, colour fidelity, contrast, AF speed and AF tracking, or anything else they feel is appropriate!

Thanks in advance! :thumbs:
 
Hi Scott

:lol: I thought you may respond! I know you love the lens ;)

Have you ever had a 70-300VR to compare with either the 50-500 or the 150-500? I'm finding that even the Sigma 120-300 has a job to match it's IQ! At 200mm and below, the 70-300 VR (IMO) beats it. :gag:

How do you find the AF speed and tracking of the 50-500 compared to the 150-500?

I guess I'll have to go and call my fav dealers to see if they have the lenses in stock and go along and do some testing.
 
Last edited:
i find the af faster on the 50-500mm os and tracking is awsome,
i dont have a 70-300mm a friend does and in all honesty ist very close and nothing in it for me just the siggy has more reach, af speed is about the same as the 70-300mm, i did a quick test of the siggy up to 200mm against my nikon 70-200mm vr and the nikon is sharper but at 200mm about f8 there the same, but af speed the nikon is quicker, but i really rate the 50-500mm os.
SB1_0162.jpg


DSC_9473.jpg


IMGP2516.jpg


DSC_9501.jpg


DSC_8905.jpg


DSC_9594.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have and use both the Nikon 70-300VR and the Sigma 150-500OS. I don't use the Sigma as often as I should, mainly because it's a heavy b****r to carry round on the off-chance I'll use it! The Nikon though, lives in the camera bag full time so gets plenty of use. I reckon both offer between 3 and 4 stops with their stabilization turned on and both also keep a track on focus if you can keep the subject in the point.
FWIW, they get used on a D700 and a D70, with the D700's high ISO performance almost negating the slowness of the Sigma.
IMO, the Sigma isn't ideal for wildlife unless it keeps still for you - OS is all very well but can't combat subject movement.
If I could only keep one, it would be the Nikon, purely because it's far more portable.
 
Thanks for all the samples Scott, much appreciated. :thumbs:

I will see if Clifton Cameras have one in stock for me to try out tomorrow as the weather may just hold out enough during the day!
 
Nod said:
I have and use both the Nikon 70-300VR and the Sigma 150-500OS. I don't use the Sigma as often as I should, mainly because it's a heavy b****r to carry round on the off-chance I'll use it! The Nikon though, lives in the camera bag full time so gets plenty of use. I reckon both offer between 3 and 4 stops with their stabilization turned on and both also keep a track on focus if you can keep the subject in the point.
FWIW, they get used on a D700 and a D70, with the D700's high ISO performance almost negating the slowness of the Sigma.
IMO, the Sigma isn't ideal for wildlife unless it keeps still for you - OS is all very well but can't combat subject movement.
If I could only keep one, it would be the Nikon, purely because it's far more portable.
Click to expand...

Thanks Nod

I'm finding exactly the same with the 70-300VR and my Sigma 120-300 f2.8 plus TC's, they really are huge and heavy, even compared to the 50 or 150-500's, but I do want that extra reach.

I agree that OS doesn't help with "twitchy" wildlife and rapidly moving stuff, but it really helps with many of my shots. I usually switch the VR off when shooting moving stuff as it saves the "spooling up" delay which can cause more blur than without VR if you're too fast with the shutter release!
 
scottthehat said:
no problem richard, its worth it i think you will be supprised.
Click to expand...

Off up there in the next half hour. It's pretty foggy here in the town down in the valley, but the shop is up in the Cotswolds (Dursley) so I think it may be sunny up there, they have both the 50-500 and 150-500 ready for me to try, so here's hoping! ;) :D
 
Well, I managed to get up there this afternoon and try the 50-500 and the 150-500. Below is a brief summary of my findings.

Finish on the bodies of the Sigmas has improved, no longer that fuzzy black finish, looks like Nikon now, much better IMO. :thumbs:

AF – Both lenses seem to focus pretty fast and lock very positively and quickly on moving subjects, very quiet and seem faster than the 70-300 VR, surprising really as they are f6.3 at 500mm.

Max aperture v. F/L - The 50-500 shuts down to f6.3 much faster than the 150-500, it starts at 200mm, the 150-500 happens at 350mm!

Handling – Not a great difference, the 50-500 is shorter but a bit heavier, both feel very much easier to handle than my 120-300/2.8 EX DG.

OS – Works really well, quite easy to handhold 1/100 sec at 500mm with virtually no perceivable blur. It appears to be faster to spin up than the 70-300 VR and is quieter. Contrary to reports about the Sigma OS noise, I found it very quiet.

Focussing accuracy – Very difficult to assess as they seemed to be somewhat inconsistent in achieving accurate focus every time, whereas the Nikon is spot on each time. It may have been my technique, but I did use mirror lock up and a tripod with my test chart shots. I didn’t attempt lens focus adjustments on the camera as it didn’t seem relevant as I couldn't achieve the same focus point each time, nor did I have the time.

IQ – I took my test chart to the store as well as taking general pictures. My conclusion is that my 70-300 VR at 300mm and wide open beats them both, even when the Sigmas appear to hit accurate focus. There didn’t appear to be any evidence of any centring defects on either lens. I will post relevant images from my test results later.

Contrast – Contrast seemed pretty good, very much like the Nikon, maybe just a bit less.

Colour – Colour seems a bit cooler than the Nikon.

Conclusions – Despite the claims that the 50-500 is much better than the 150-500, I found slightly the opposite, it seemed to be a bit sharper than the 50-500 (actually Sigmas own MTF charts do suggest this is the case), but the focusing issues may have clouded the result. (EDIT - Actually it's reversed, I confused myself which was which! :$ But I still find them pretty close.) I actually think they are pretty similar, nothing that you could shake a stick at. Personally I don’t think the extra £440 for the 50-500 is worth it unless you don’t have coverage between your other lenses or you desperately need that 100mm at the lower end as a all day single lens solution. I find the Sigma 120-300 with 1.4x TC (168-420mm) very workable as a zoom lens at Slimbridge, so for me the 150-500 would be my choice if it was just between the two Sigmas, but the Nikon 70-300 VR has them both beat for IQ, colour, contrast and focussing accuracy! :eek: For the money (currently around £390) it just cannot be beaten. :thumbs:

What am I going to do? :shrug:

I really did/do want a longer zoom with VR and fast AF with equal or better IQ than the 70-300 VR (the 80-400 VRI is not an option as the AF is far too slow). So it seems it’s a pipe dream within my budget. :'(

The next stage could be the AF-S 70-200/2.8 VRII with the 2x TCIII (£2k) and maybe a 1.4x as well (even more £’s). :gag: But the reach is probably a bit shy of 400mm, especially at close distances as it has heavy focus breathing.

If I forgo zoom and VR, the obvious choice is the AF-S 300/4 with a 1.4x TC. The results are spectacular, but I really didn't want to be that constrained, it’s superb for small birds and animals at reasonable working distances, but not for larger birds at closer quarters in locations like Slimbridge (I have no intentions of intense swampland or safari trekking!), or at airshows where a zoom is really handy, I've used a 300mm prime at airshows before and it was restricting. :(

I may try more samples of the Sigmas in the hope of striking lucky, they do AF faster and track faster than the 70-300 VR, but am I tilting at windmills? :bang: Probably! :shrug:

So it does look like a combination of the 70-300 VR and an AF-S 300 f4 with a 1.4x TC and just forget a zoom and VR. Maybe I should give up? :lol: :$
 
Last edited:
Here are the best samples from my test shots. A chart was used for conformity. I used a sturdy tripod and head (Giottos CF and birding head), ISO 100, mirror lock up and a cable release. All shot Raw, converted in Silkypix Pro. Exposures balanced, Sharpening setting identical and CA correction applied.

This is the full test chart

5373187601_fbec1ea84a_o.jpg


Cropped shots at 100% (click on bars to see at 100%)

Sigma 150-500 - 500mm @ f6.3
5373182241_1674916724_o.jpg


Sigma 50-500 - 500mm @ f6.3
5373186171_c6ba41fd2b_o.jpg


Sigma 150-500 - 290mm @ f6.3 (300mm on lens barrel)
5373183133_07ddddc938_o.jpg


Sigma 50-500 - 340mm @ f7.1 (300mm on lens barrel - f6.3 was out of focus)
5373784642_4c60694f46_o.jpg


Nikkor 70-300 VR - 300mm @ f5.6
5373786764_00137f0faf_o.jpg


Cheers
 
Hi Richard

Try stopping the Sigmas down a couple of clicks. My 150-500 doesn't really sharpen up until F9.
 
weired, the 50-500mm looks sharper at 500mm to me, but at 300mm the nikon defo wins. i have found my 50-500mm defo sharper at 500mm wide open than both the 150-500mms i have had, like you said af is quiet (quieter than my nikon 70-200mm) and also the os is the best of all my lenses.
might be worth as you said keep looking around to see if there is better copies.
also richard what do you mean that sigma have changed the coating.
 
scottthehat said:
weired, the 50-500mm looks sharper at 500mm to me, but at 300mm the nikon defo wins. i have found my 50-500mm defo sharper at 500mm wide open than both the 150-500mms i have had, like you said af is quiet (quieter than my nikon 70-200mm) and also the os is the best of all my lenses.
might be worth as you said keep looking around to see if there is better copies.
also richard what do you mean that sigma have changed the coating.
Click to expand...

Actually you are right! My mistake, I was confused with which lens was which when chimping! :$

I will take a look at some more examples, just to be certain.

The 70-300 VR is a much better lens than it deserves to be at the price! That shot is at it's worst setting, at 220mm or below it really rocks! :thumbs:

The Sigmas lens barrel finish is now a smooth satin black, just like Nikon. That matt (I call it dusty) black finish that marks so easily was not used on either the 150-500, or the 50-500 that I tried. A big improvement.

I'm really tempted by the AF-S 300 f4.0, I keep seeing examples from that lens and they are quite superb. Another factor is that I've been offered one at a very tempting price! Argh! Decisions, Decisions! :gag:
 
Oggy said:
Hi Richard

Try stopping the Sigmas down a couple of clicks. My 150-500 doesn't really sharpen up until F9.
Click to expand...

I have shots at f8 and f11 at 500mm and they are pretty much all the same. As I said in my post, the focus could have been slightly out. I may well need to redo my tests with less haste. Difficult when you are in a shop!

However, of all the shots I took today, none equalled the Nikon 70-300, and I used it with the same set-up in the shop at the same time.
 
One fairly major point, what's the Nikon 70-300 like at 400 or 500? I'll agree that it's sharper than the Sigma throughout its range, the Sigma wins at over 300mm every time.

FWIW, the Nikon doesn't accept Nikon telecons either - its rear element meets the element in the converter. A Teleplus converter can fit but doesn';t do image quality much good...
 
Nod said:
One fairly major point, what's the Nikon 70-300 like at 400 or 500? I'll agree that it's sharper than the Sigma throughout its range, the Sigma wins at over 300mm every time.

FWIW, the Nikon doesn't accept Nikon telecons either - its rear element meets the element in the converter. A Teleplus converter can fit but doesn';t do image quality much good...
Click to expand...

:lol: The Nikon sucks at over 300mm, I just cant get the zoom to move out that far!! :bang: :nuts:

I have used the Sigma 1.4x on the 70-300 and it's not all bad, but you really need to stop down a stop to an effective f11 to get half decent IQ. Haven't tried a Kenko or similar as I've always reckoned that it pushes the envelope to far to use a TC with a f5.6 lens, especially a zoom. I do want proper AF and that's what the Siggy's promise.

I haven't given up on my quest, I shall try the Siggy's again and some other options next month when I can get to another dealer with more stock and who is very happy to let me play all day if needed.
 
Richard - according to Chris at SRS, the price of Sigmas is about to go up significantly.
 
Last edited:
Oggy said:
Richard - according to Chris at SRS, the price of Sigmas is about to go up significantly.
Click to expand...

I spoke with him yesterday, he didn't tell me that! I will ask him when.

My dilema is that I've just been offered a mint AF-S 300 f4.0 at a very attractive price, we all know how fantastic the IQ of that lens is. :thumbs: :love:

Unfortunately I cannot afford both! :'(

Decisions, decisions! :gag: :bang:
 
Blind Pugh said:
I spoke with him yesterday, he didn't tell me that! I will ask him when.

My dilema is that I've just been offered a mint AF-S 300 f4.0 at a very attractive price, we all know how fantastic the IQ of that lens is. :thumbs: :love:

Unfortunately I cannot afford both! :'(

Decisions, decisions! :gag: :bang:
Click to expand...

well the 300mm is cracking, but doesnt have vr and is not as flexible as the sigmas, so depends what you want.
as said it will beat the sigmas for image quality at 300mm everyday long but any other focal lenght the sigma beats it easy.
 
Last edited:
scottthehat said:
well the 300mm is cracking, but doesnt have vr and is not as flexible as the sigmas, so depends what you want.
as said it will beat the sigmas for image quality at 300mm everyday long but any other focal lenght the sigma beats it easy.
Click to expand...

That's precisely my dilemma! :thinking:

I do have the 70-300 VR and intend to keep it because of it's size and performance, so I would probably use whatever I decide on purely for it's 300mm and above performance. I would have to pair the AF-S 300/4 with the 1.4x (or 1.7x) TC for the extra reach of course which adds to the price, but still below the 50-500. :D

I have after all lived without VR for most of my photographic life and do have those other VR devices at my disposal (monopod and tripod)! :lol:

I just have to decide if my priority is ultimate IQ over flexibility, or vice versa.
 
After visiting SRS in Watford last Thursday and testing a few Sigma 150-500mm OS and 50-500mm OS lenses (a BIG thank you to Chris! :thumbs:), I've now decided that, for me, sadly neither are going to deliver what I want. :( :shrug:

I actually found the Sigmas to be remarkably consistent and also that the 50-500 is definitely the much better lens IQ wise as others have stated, but, at the end of my tests, the winner is the Nikon 70-300 VR in all but two areas. These are:

  • 50mm reach at the wide end as opposed to 70mm, not a big deal for me, but could be for others.

  • The extra reach above 300mm. But this is only valid for distant subjects as it rapidly reduces as you focus closer. :thumbsdown:.
For me, I wanted that extra reach at close distances, i.e. small birds at around 3m or less, at 2.5m the 50-500 is about 380mm, see here Sigma 50-500 review. I found that unlike many telephoto zooms, the Nikon actually increases it's focal length at close focus, I estimate it's about 340mm at 3m and nearly 400mm at 1.5m! Have a look at some test shots I did here - Nikon 70-300 VR focus breathing test.

Additionally the Nikon has the following advantages:
  • It's much lighter and smaller which means I can comfortably fit it into most bags including a small shoulder bag.

  • It has slightly better IQ than the 50-500 at 300mm (and 1/3 stop faster), below 250mm it has considerably better IQ and below 200mm it's superb, almost up to 70-200 f2.8 VRII levels!

  • Cheaper by over £800! :D

I actually tried the Nikon with a Kenko Pro 1.4x TC and I was quite surprised by it's performance! I will say that it's not really a workable solution as the AF is pretty freaky and hunts in poor light, the Sigma is much better, as, of course, is the Nikon without the TC.

Just for interest here is a quick shot with it. Full size here 70-300 VR + 1.4x Pro 300 TC

5427682847_e1209e7907_b.jpg


So, what to do? :thinking:

I have decided that I will eventually end up with the Nikon AF-S 300mm f4.0 + 1.4x TC, but in the meantime, I've now proved, to my satisfaction, that the currently affordable longer zooms don't offer me much more over the 70-300 VR, I really do like it a lot! I just wish that Nikon had something in between it and (the huge and expensive :gag:) AF-S 200-400mm f4.0!

Finally, a very big thanks once again to Chris and John at SRS for having the patience and allowing me to do my tests. I've used them for a few years now, they are a great shop and heartily recommended. :thumbs:
 
Too late now but I have the 150-500 OS and the 70-300 VR and generally I would rather use the Nikon and crop than the Sigma.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top