User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Lens comparison Nikon/Sigma

  1. #1
    Member redvintage's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 2011
    Location
    wauchope
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lens comparison Nikon/Sigma

    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

  2. #2
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,773
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  3. #3
    Amor fati! ving's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Jun 2007
    Location
    St Helens Park
    Posts
    7,275
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  4. #4
    Member
    Threadstarter
    redvintage's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 2011
    Location
    wauchope
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  5. #5
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,297
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    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.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  6. #6
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  7. #7
    Drifter, Racer and Picture Taker
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

  8. #8
    Member
    Threadstarter
    redvintage's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Dec 2011
    Location
    wauchope
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thank you all for your input, Sorry Ricktas for my mistake

  9. #9
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    05 Jan 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,832
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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!
    Call me Roo......
    Nikon D300s, Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX, Nikkor 50mm 1.4 Af-S, Nikon 18-200mm VR, Nikon 70-200VRII 2.8, Sigma 105 Macro, Sigma 150-500mm f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM, Tokina 12-24mm, Sb-600, D50, Nikon 1.7 T/C, Gitzo CF Monopod

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    10 Feb 2009
    Location
    Upper Coomera, Gold Coast, Australia
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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


    at 500mm but cropped


    the harsh bokeh ?
    A Birth Certificate shows that we were born.
    A Death Certificate shows that we died.
    Pictures show that we lived!
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/knumbnutz/
    http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/neilmorgan


  11. #11
    Ausphotography Regular K10D's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Sep 2010
    Location
    Baldivis, 6171
    Posts
    524
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    [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.

  13. #13
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,878
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by RRRoger View Post
    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.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  14. #14
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,639
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have the 50-500 and its sharper at the long end. I did some tests when I first got it, 460mm was sharpest.
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    29 Jun 2011
    Location
    Caroline Springs
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Have you considered the Tamron 200-500mm?
    I often come across too aggressive on these flat forums, apologies in advance.
    I shoot with a D90 and Tamron 18-270 PZD, Tamron 90mm Macro or Tamron 200-500mm

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    032010r0014w.jpg>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/gallerie...2909r38511.JPG
    http://images.nikonians.org/gallerie...11508r1776.JPG
    http://images.nikonians.org/gallerie...1710r0260n.JPG
    Last edited by RRRoger; 31-01-2012 at 8:32pm.

  17. #17
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,773
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by I @ M View Post
    ..... show some high quality comparison images from the lenses in this thread to help people decide.

    ....


    Quote Originally Posted by RRRoger View Post
    >QUOTE We await your attachments. QUOTE<<

    D3 with Nikkor 80-400.....



    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!

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    061210r0067c.jpg061210r0067w.jpgtaken with Sigma 150-500 @ 500mm

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Nov 2009
    Location
    Monterey Bay, California
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Last edited by RRRoger; 01-02-2012 at 12:54am.

  20. #20
    Ausphotography Veteran vharperv's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Feb 2012
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    2,503
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    just bought the sigma 150-500 cant wait to try it on small birds and large surfers. a great thread here
    Vera

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •