Options
Sigma 150-500 vs Nikon 80-400
InsuredDisaster
Registered Users Posts: 1,132 Major grins
I hope this hasn't been covered in depth already, but I'm curious for advice.
I'm trying to decide between the Nikon 80-200 and the Sigma 150-500 I'm strongly leaning towards the Sigma.
Sigma
Pros:
Longer range
Less overlap in the 70-200 mm range (I've got or will have the 18-200 and a 70-200)
Cheaper
Cons: I've heard Sigma has questionable QC. My Sigma 18-200's zoom sticks a bit.
HSM M/A override does not work on other Sigma lenses and the D300, so I assume the 500mm is the same.
Nikon
Pros: Full support of all features.
Recently bought a 50 mm 1.4 and tried the 70-200 (my next purchase) and liked what I see.
Cons: half the lens is "wasted" due to the enormouse overlap (if I need 80-200, I'll use the faster 2.8 I think.
It costs more.
It lacks that extra oomph at 500 mm.
My main concern is that the Nikon will have vastly superior quality or image sharpness. I'm curious if anyone has tried out both and has an opinion.
I'm trying to decide between the Nikon 80-200 and the Sigma 150-500 I'm strongly leaning towards the Sigma.
Sigma
Pros:
Longer range
Less overlap in the 70-200 mm range (I've got or will have the 18-200 and a 70-200)
Cheaper
Cons: I've heard Sigma has questionable QC. My Sigma 18-200's zoom sticks a bit.
HSM M/A override does not work on other Sigma lenses and the D300, so I assume the 500mm is the same.
Nikon
Pros: Full support of all features.
Recently bought a 50 mm 1.4 and tried the 70-200 (my next purchase) and liked what I see.
Cons: half the lens is "wasted" due to the enormouse overlap (if I need 80-200, I'll use the faster 2.8 I think.
It costs more.
It lacks that extra oomph at 500 mm.
My main concern is that the Nikon will have vastly superior quality or image sharpness. I'm curious if anyone has tried out both and has an opinion.
0
Comments
Besides, the main desire I've got is more range so the 400mm range of the Nikon might leave me wishing for more.
What I have read seems to suggest the lense is very good and no horror stories. Probably a bit slow. I'll just have to head to the camera shop and spend some time checking it out.
That's what I was thinking.
I'd of course love to have a 500mm prime, but they are a bit more than I can afford. I'd love the Sigma 150-500 a lot more I think if it had "Nikon" written on it. I'm not sure about others, but the main thing is that not everything with my other sigmas work on the nikon (M/A override). I will admit that I very rarely use manual focus at all, but there are times when I find the focus is hunting full lock in low light situations. With the small ap values of the "Sigmos" I'm concerned M/A override might be missed.
Additionally, I have been reading all these horror stories about sigma lenses, and then recently bought a Nikon lense (50 1.4) after using Sigma lenses for the last 5+ years. I'm not sure if the 50mm is just good or what, but It seems incredibly sharp. And then I'm compared it to the Sigma lenses I had been using until about 2 months ago (though they were budget lenses) and I was blown away. Granted, I'm probably comparing a near pro/pro quality lense to the extreme amature lenses I had used for so long (And I thought it was my D70 that was getting old and crappy) Anyway, I'm definately looking to get the Sigma 30 1.4 since there is no Nikon equivalent available now (I wonder why?) but I'm now trying to buy Nikon lenses whenever possible.
The 150-500 for, price and features is of course a strong reason to buy from Sigma for this lense. I'm sure the slow sigma seems an odd lense to buy after a Nikon 70-200 but I find the zoom range irresistable. I've wanted first the 170-500 (and now the OS model) for years but until now, I've never quite had the money.
http://www.airshowbuzz.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=3245&view=findpost&p=60864
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
For me, I find the lens very sharp & usable. I have posted pictures and info on another thread. We are talking about a $949 lens. Comparing it with a prime or lenses costing twice as much is unfair. This lens is a good, solid built lens with adequate IQ and OS for the price point and, I feel, is an excellent lens for those of us without deep pockets.
Nikon D80, D300, D700 all gripped, Nikkor 50 f1.8 Nikkor 18-200 VR Nikkor 70-200 VR f2.8 Nikkor 28-300 VR, Sigma 50-150 f2.8 Sigma 80-400 OS Sigma 150-500 OS Nikon SB600
On the good side, focus limiting reduces the problems with the slowness and the VR is excellent. My other long lens is a Sigma 100-300 f4. I don't see any appriciable difference in IQ but the 100-300 Siggy is one of their better lenses. I use the Siggy for BIF shooting and the Nikon for everything else (i.e. stationary birds, marine mammals, etc.)
If I had it to do again I would probably buy the Nikon 70-200 2.8 for about the same price as the 80-400 then pick up a 2x TC. You still end up with a 5.6 lens at 400mm.
My Photo Gallery:Northern Focus Photography
I wish I was half the man that my dog thinks I am...
If you don't need the zoom I think you will be very happy with the 300mm f/4.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I looked at that option but the OS sold me. That and the build quality for a great price made this hard to resist. Having the zoom range is a nice feature. The Nikon 300 f/4 is a sweet lens and I love the IQ but the versatility price of the Sigma 150-500 is compelling for those of us on a budget that still want 500mm of reach. I must say this lens gives the Bigma a run for it's money and has OS to boot.
Nikon D80, D300, D700 all gripped, Nikkor 50 f1.8 Nikkor 18-200 VR Nikkor 70-200 VR f2.8 Nikkor 28-300 VR, Sigma 50-150 f2.8 Sigma 80-400 OS Sigma 150-500 OS Nikon SB600
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
than just the questionable images in the posted link you provided. For more objective reviews, such as there are available, one might look at--
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=358
http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/bigmos
A Canon user has some pretty good imaging -- check out her Hummer-in-flight 100% crop here--
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/gallery/5324171_tsMBn
Yet Linda feels she has better results using her 20D
http://netgarden.smugmug.com/gallery/5357151_h2Syy
Point being, there's a lot more to evaluating a new lens then just based on a few quick shots within the first few hours or days of receiving. Long lens imaging requires good technique and user experience, body used all also have a part in IQ. I'm seeing more new users change their initial so-so/poor opinion after getting more use with the 150-500 to expressing its more an issue of learning better techniques (and recognizing a f/6.3 aperture will affect their shutter speeds)
Granted, the older Sigma 170-500 has the rap that its hard to find good copies, but the new Sigmas are just now getting out to users and I feel they are yet to be fully reviewed -- I know my Bigma has more capabilities than I can put them to use but I think the general consensus is that its a great lens for its price point. Whether the 150-500 will fall into the old 170-500 camp; the Bigma camp or somewhere in between remains to be seen.
FWIW, I think the general consensus for cost-effective ways in getting to 500-mm is still:
300 f/4 + TC
Tamron 200-500
Bigma
At least the 150-500 is showing some promise of being a possible player... For other contenders, one may wish to review the extensive reviews I've posted links to at--
http://www.dslrgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2726#post2726
Apple Valley, CA
D50-BIGMA-70-300VRII-35f2D-18-70DX-FZ30
My SmugMug Image Galleries
My Nikonian Image Galleries
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
for the rest of the series go to:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25733720@N05/2681726547/sizes/l/in/set-72157606253038566/
Nikon D80, D300, D700 all gripped, Nikkor 50 f1.8 Nikkor 18-200 VR Nikkor 70-200 VR f2.8 Nikkor 28-300 VR, Sigma 50-150 f2.8 Sigma 80-400 OS Sigma 150-500 OS Nikon SB600
Nikon 70-200 with Nikon 2X TC, giving me 400mm at 5.6
The good: All Nikon hardware. I'll be able to carry the 70-200 and the 140-200 at once, with minimal weight increase. Cheaper, only mabye $400 more to get the 400 mm lens.
The bad: Only 400 mm, and I hear that the 2X TC and the 70-200 isn't such a good set up. But how bad? Noticably bad? I'll be using this set up wide open most of the time so it needs to be good.
Sigma 150-500OS
The good: Extra reach, supposedly good AF performance.
The bad: Sigma's QC is well known to me. Expensive, about $1,000. Heavy. I'm worried that if I get the Sigma, I'll have to chose the Sigma or the Nikon every day I go out and when I want the reach I'll not have it, or when I want the speed of the Nikon, I'll not have it.
The main factor is how good the IQ is with the Nikon TC-20 converter? If its pretty bad, I'll probably look to the Sigma, but if its as good as the sigma (at 400mm) then I'll go with the Nikon set up.
The short, but very honest, answer is that you are probably going to have to try it for yourself. Different people have different expectations of quality and different subjects have different requirements as well.
(I was going to pontificate a lot more here but I decided the above statement pretty well stood on its own.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Here is a gallery of images with the Nikon 70-200mm (not sure which one) and the TC-20E II converter: http://www.pbase.com/jhting/0628_70_200_test
Update: It looks like those images were taken with the latest 70-200mm, f2.8 VR in front of the TC-20E II converter.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I have the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 and recently bought the Nikkor 200-400 VR. If you are looking for the versatility of zoom lenses, these are two extremely sweet pieces of glass that easily cover a multitude of sins and I could not be happier with either their performance or optics (shooting with a D2Xs). Of course, purchasing the 200-400 required upgrading my base so I use a Gitzo tripod with a Wimberley head - no amount of optical quality or VR can make up for shooting on a shaky foundation.
Call me a snob, but I find Sigma's and Tamron's optics are too soft and chalk that up to the old adage that you get what you pay for. What I see in comparing their output to Nikon's is the difference between "very good" and "great".
In the end, though, as with all things, it just depends on what you want to do.
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
Unfortunately, the most I can affford is the Sigma 150-500 or the 2X TC I mentioned. I understand that things might be a bit soft, but for my current and future uses, thats the most I can spend and justify.
I bet you are having a lot of fun though!
Comparing pro grade glass like the 80-200 2.8 and the 6,000 dollar 200-400 to a sub 1000 lens is a bit much.
Oh the humanity!
I humbly disagree. The decision to purchase pro-grade glass was not a decision that I made lightly. Nor is it the kind of purchase I run out and make every day. It is an investment. I did consider Sigma and Tamron and though my finances would have been a lot happier, I knew that in the long run they'd cost me more money replacing them.
It's real easy to go less expensive and then soon find you're better than your equipment. And that takes all the fun out of it. I found this out the hard way by moving into digital via the D70 (a fine little "snapshot" camera that I keep at hand but no longer use for serious shooting). It's better to have to work to keep up with your equipment than to be frustrated and disappointed every time you use it.
Certainly I understand not needing pro quality nor being able to justify the investment. But the question was asked. And since the OP already owns decent glass with the 70-200, to me it makes no sense to have that much overlap with something less.
Besides, regardless how you get to triple-digits with zoom, it's never enough!
(And yes, Insured, it is a lot of fun. And then some!)
"Where beauty moves and wit delights and signs of kindness bind me; there, oh there, whe'er I go I leave my heart behind me." (Thomas Ford, 1607)
You may disagree, but comparing quality of image between pro glass and consumer glass is unfair. It's like writing off a Toyota Camry because it doesn't perform like a Ferrari. They are not meant to compete against each other have different needs for the user. I understand the the reasoning for going pro-glass and agree with it.
Some people want the reach but can't afford it or justify the price of pro-lenses. That's why we have the Sigma and Tamron and even the cheaper Nikon lenses.
I have made an attempt to review the 150-500 sigma lens.
And I find it to be just fine for the money.
I'm sure there are many better options for ultimate sharpness
but not for the kind of money and weight of the Sigma.
So I give it
The review link
******** src="http://shots.snap.com//client/inject.js?site_name=0" type="text/javascript"></********
Btw, the lens is a beast so I'd recommend that you pick up a monopod as well. The jet gallery was shot completely handheld but I wouldn't recommend doing that all day as it will where you out.
My Images | My Lessons Learned and Other Adventures