Zoom telephoto lens up to 500 mm

<p>I am going to buy a telephoto lens up to 500 mm.<br>

I am looking at the following options:<br>

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6,3 DG OS HSM Nikon<br>

Sigma 150-500mm f5/6.3 APO DG OS<br>

Sigma DG 135-400 mm F 4.5-5.6 APO (are the APO lenses out of date?)<br>

Tokina AT-X 840 AFII 80-400 mm F 4.5-5.6 SD (I have a Tokina PRO 16-50 lens which I am happy with)<br>

Sigma 120-400 DG OS HSM<br>

All on eBay and other outlets. The prices seem reasonable, but reading reviews confuse me a bit. I need a quality lens (have ditched the Tamron 70-300 mm once) as I need good quality. But for now finances don't allow buying topend Nikkor and Sigma lenses. To be used for wildlife photography.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unfortunately, there is always some trade off between high-quality super teles and cost. Only you can decide on how to compromise for yourself. One of the cheapest way to achieve that is to find an old Nikon 500mm/f4 P lens. It'll likely cost over $2000 so that it is not exactly "cheap," but that is all relative, and you lose auto focus.</p>

<p>FWIW, I'd be very leery of paying more than you can afford to lose for a Sigma lens. I was just quoted $160 to recalibrate the AF (faulty out of the box) and barrel (started chipping after two uses) on a brand new EX lens. A brand new Nikon, at least, comes with a warranty. </p>

<p>I use Sigma lenses and have had great service from them. Back in the early eighties I sent them a 75-300 APO that I had been using to shoot some Rodeo. The front element had met up with a piece of gravel kicked up by a bull. It put a not so nice little ding in the front element. I sent it in to Sigma to be repaired. Sigma to there credit repaired it and shipped it back to me inside of two weeks. Best part was they did not charge me for it.<br>

Last year I sent them my 120-300 f/2.8 because the screws in the mount where loosening up. At that time I had been using the lens hard for over a year. The repaired it cleaned and collimated the lens at no charge. Again I had it back with in two weeks.<br>

Much like Nikon service there are many different experiences. I have found that going strait to the manufacturer is usually the best way to go.<br>

As to the OP I can only comment on the 150-500 and that being you might find the AF a little slow.</p>

<p>Hi Thorkild.<br/>

<br />

Firstly, I believe Sigma only have one 150-500 design (at least with OS - optical stabilisation), so the first two options you list are the same lens - and it's the one that I mentioned in another thread has had some glowing reviews, but others (including me) have trouble with it. I'm getting rid of mine, for what it's worth. It's very nice for a slowish zoom below about 400mm, but it's a hack of a big way of achieving that. I have nothing against Sigma, but this lens turned out not to be the "cheap way to get a slowish 500mm" that I was hoping for.<br />

<br />

Sigma <i>do</i> have a couple of 50-500 lenses (or at least did - I'm not sure if the non-OS version is discontinued). I believe the non-OS version is worse than the 150-500 at the long end; some resport suggest that the OS version might be <i>better</i> than the 150-500 (but it's more expensive). They also have a 200-500 f/2.8 and a 300-800 f/5.6, but I suspect they're a bit outside your budget.<br/>

<br />

If this is still for your trip to Africa, I'd still consider hiring some pro glass - if this is an infrequent holiday, better to have shots to do it justice. On the other hand, if you want something to keep, bear in mind all the available options have some compromises. For what it's worth, Nikon have apparently patented a zoom telephoto design with a 500mm long end, which might mean the 80-400 will get replaced (and therefore might be available cheaper) at some point, but I wouldn't hold your breath.<br />

<br />

I've not done Africa, but just as a sanity check... do you really need a 35mm equivalent of 750mm? Keeping it steady is going to be tricky - my impression (with no personal experience) was that most wildlife spotting opportunities can get by with less than that; I got a 500mm lens for my full-frame camera to be the equivalent of a 300mm on my crop body, and while I occasionally feel the need to be a bit closer, there's only so far you can go before you're better off digiscoping.<br />

<br />

Would you consider a D7000 to replace your D200? The extra pixel density (not, admittedly, a lot) means that if you crop the middle out of your image, you'd get the equivalent resolution with your 70-300 of using your D200 with a 380mm lens. There's not much between that and the 400mm options you're considering. (A D7000 is, of course, more expensive than most of the lenses we're discussing, but you might be able to trade in your D200, and you'd get better autofocus to go with it.)<br />

<br />

Good luck, and I hope that helps.</p>

<p>I recommend the Sigma 150-500. I use it a lot and it still looks and functions as new. Here's a photo I took last week for a photo class. <a href="mailto:150-500@500">150-500@500</a> + D2H:<br /><img src="http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/data/15989/PN_seagull.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="463" /></p>

<p>I also have had good results from the Sigma 150-500. Most of the wildlife shots in my Photo.net gallery were taken with that lens, most at the 500mm end. Some of the Yellowstone shots were taken while it was snowing pretty hard, so they may not show the lens at its best. It is slow and likes good light.</p>

 

<p>I also have good results with the 150-500 OS. Not stellar, but that can quite as well be me to blame, as I mostly use it handheld (and drink waaaaay too much coffee). I'm sure I would have had better results if I used a tripod or some other kind of support.</p>

<p>I just put up a post about the Sigma 120-400 HSM OS, but here is my experience: I bought it to replace a Nikon 70-300 VR because I have a Sigma 50-150 (which is very good) because it cuts into the focal length of the Nikon too much. So far the little I've used the 120-400 has been very good.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's one at 400mm.</p><div></div>

<p>I may be over-stating my objections to my 150-500 (besides, until I sell mine, I have a vested interest in people liking this lens) - but some people seem to do better than others. Mine's reasonable at f/11 at 500mm, but I've never been entirely happy with the sharpness (or at least, microcontrast) at the long end. That doesn't mean I'm unhappy with all my shots, just that I felt a bit compromised with it and have to avoid pixel-peeping. This may be entirely my technique (although I've experimented to try ruling that out) or it may be that my sample is sub-par; there seem to be reviews which show it as an amazing lens and others that claim it's horrible. It's no 500mm f/4 AF-S VR, but I suspect how good it is also comes down to what you compare it to - I suspect it's a fair bit better than Genuine Fractals and a 70-300, for example.</p>

<p>I wouldn't say don't try this lens, but I would say you might have to be prepared for not getting pro quality results.</p><div></div>

<p>I use the Tamron 200-500 - I've had no quality or other problems - works fine if you accept that for that price level you're not going to get top notch kit.</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses. I am now focusing on these three lenses:<br>

Sigma DG 135-400 mm F 4.5-5.6 APO<br>

Sigma 120-400 DG OS HSM<br>

Nikkor VR 80-400 mm F 4.5-5.6 D ED<br>

The first one the cheapest. Is it very old and maybe outdated?<br>

Seems to me that people around are mostly satisfied with the Sigma 120-400. But I like the<br>

Nikkor because it is very compact.<br>

Which one of these would the experts out there go for....?</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="35%" valign="top"><br /></td>

<td width="65%" valign="top"> </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

 

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td width="35%" valign="top"><br /></td>

<td width="65%" valign="top"><br /></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>I believe the 135-400 is discontinued. It'll be cheaper in part because it lacks optical stabilisation - if you intend to hand-hold at the 400mm end, I suspect you'll want this (if only to frame the subject accurately - my first experience with a 500mm lens on a crop sensor camera persuaded me that I had no control over what I was pointing at without some kind of image stabilisation).<br />

<br />

The Nikkor has pretty universal good reviews, I believe - see <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/VR80_400_review.html">Bjørn's</a>, for example. The biggest issues I've heard are that the autofocus is a bit sluggish (being screw-driven) and that the tripod foot is inadequate. I've no personal experience of any of these, I'm afraid.</p>

<p>I would not buy the Nikon 80-400mm lens because of its slow AF. I would recommend as an alternative the Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AFS lens, not the earlier AF version. And the Nikon 1.4x AF tc thst matches it. I know it is not a zoom, but if your purpose is wildlife, I doubt if the 80-400mm will be used much at the lower focal lengths. Just get the longer focal length lens that you need and at a fixed f 4.0 so your AF will work. I do agree that if you can find and afford the manual focus (electronic) Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens, get it. It is a wonderful lens, and a great value at around $ 2200. For my wildlife shooting I now use Nikon 70-200mm, 300mm f 4.0 AFS and a 500mm f4.0 AFS on a D 300s. My most used lens is the 500mm with a 1.4x tc.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

 

<p>I have the Sigma 120-400 I use on a D2h and have nothing but praise for it. It has been reliable and quality has been excellant to me. I am NOT a pro and don't tend to be nearly so critical as some on here. Rarely do I print or rather have printed (I can only print to 8x10) anything greater than 11x14 and it does this quite readily. Handholdable and affordable to me.</p>