Nikon 80-400mm VR or Sigma 80-400mm OS

[rafikrkamel]

Hello everyone,

I have finally decided to upgrade from my cheap 70-300mm G lens and get some

decent glass, the two lenses that fall in my budget are the nikon 80-400mm VR

and the sigma 80-400mm OS. I intend to use it on a Nikon D70s body.

 

The points of concern (which make the decision more tough:

 

1. The nikon focuses with the front element while the sigma has an internal

focusing system, from what i know focusing with the front element (the case of

nikon) would be very hard to use in case of tracking moving birds. However,the

sigma would be better on that point as it will be faster to track with the IF

mechanism it has. I intend to use this telephoto lens mostly for nature and

bird shots, so please factor this into your recommendations. I have read on a

review on this 80-400mm vr nikon lens that it focuses slower than the 70-300mm

D lens! Also because of that focusing mechanism, they have the zoom ring and

focusing ring reveresed.

 

2. the Sigma is about 400 grams heavier than the nikon which i cant really

explain why, they have the same reach and i would say the same built, so

walking around with the sigma would be more troublesome, i dont have a very

strong build here:).

 

3. Also please tell me from your experience does that VR (nikon) or OS (Sigma)

work that well? I have heard that in the sigma lens the OS causes some lag

while shooting in continous mode, is that true?

 

4. How does each lens perform at the 300-400mm range? i intend to use either in

that range a lot, so please let me know which is better in terms of optical

quality, sharpness and contrast?

 

5. I have recently purchased Tamron Pro 2x AP TC, will this work fine on either

lens? and if so how bad does it affect the AF speed? Also do both lenses

maintain the VR/OS feature with a TC on? I think that the sigma lens would need

a sigma dedicated TC, i am not sure.

 

6. The price difference is not that much, i just want to get the best value for

the money, the sigma is only $250 cheaper, so in case i get the sigma i will

invest those 250 in a decent tripod.

 

I know that you will all provide with the usual valuable recommendations,

thanks in advance, Rafik Kamel

[ky2]

5. No TC is compatible with either lenses.

[rafikrkamel]

Thanks for the reply, does it maintain AF and VR/OS on both lenses u mean?

[vince]

<p>I own the Nikon 80-400 AF-D VR and love it. It doesn't focus as fast as a 2.8 lens, but I love it all the same. Here are my thoughts on your questions.

 

<ol>

<li>The Nikon may focus with the front element, but exactly how that impacts speed I'm not sure. Again, while it's not a fast focuser, I've done fine with it.

<li>The Nikon is not a light lens. It feels good hand held, but it is by no means light. I've owned the 70-300 D zoom too, and it is quite light.

<li>The Nikon VR is amazing and saves shot that would have been throw aways without it. The manual recommends turning VR off when shooting from a tripod, but I've had excellent results with VR on while shooting from a tripod. Still, you're buying this lens for its VR and it is most satisfying when hand held.

<li>I may be less discerning than some here, but to my eye it is plenty sharp beyond 300. Nothing like 80 to 200, but plenty sharp. Personally, I rarely shoot zoomed out more than 300 mm on my D70, but not because of sharpness, just because I'm rarely that far away. Having the extra hundred millimeters is <i>really</i> nice though.

<li>I use a Kenko 300 Pro 2x on my Nikon 80-400 and everything works fine (AF, VR, metering). I rarely use it though for the same reasons cited above. 400 mm x 2 x 1.5 = 1200 mm; my Gitzo 1127 just isn't dead enough to get sharp shots at that extreme telephoto.

<li>I bought mine used and got a good deal with a lot of patience and persistence.

</ol>

 

That said, you might wait until the new 70-300 VR hits the stores and go with that. It will probably have Nikon's new VR II, be lighter and cheaper than the 80-400 models, and be easier to carry around. Good luck.<div></div>

[ky2]

No AF, No Vr, metering should work-- but viewfinder will be very dark (f/9 ~ f/11)

[rafikrkamel]

this is strange as vince above just pointed out that almost teh same TC as mine works fine on the nikon VR and everything is maintained!

Thanks again

[rafikrkamel]

Thanks for your time and for the detailed response, i will see the good points u said on the nikon, thanks for the info, i never knew that the 70-300 will be introduced with a VR feature,

 

Rafik

[ky2]

AFAIK, AF is unreliable for lenses with aperture smaller than f/5.6. The Kenko TC does not report its interference automatically-- the camera still thinks it's attached to an f/5.6 lens, but the light hitting the AF sensor is compromised. I wouldn't be betting on this combination, especially during "quality" light-time.

[rafikrkamel]

The 80-400 VR has a min aperture of f/5.6.

By the way i have used the tamron Pro 2X TC on my cheap 70-300mm G lens and it can focus in bright sunlight, without probelms.

Thanks again for your time yaron

[les_barstow]

I can't answer for the Sigma, but I own the Nikon 80-400VR and it is about what you have read...

 

1. Focus on the Nikon at least is somewhat slow. The lens is an f/5.6 and doesn't have a USM/HSM/S focus mechanism, relying on the screw drive. However, it's fine for animals and birds in "calm" conditions - i.e. not flitting irregularly about. I don't find the zoom/focus ring reversal to be terribly traumatic at all.

 

2. The Nikon isn't light, as others have said; if the Sigma is heavier, it had better be well-balanced if you want to take advantage of the OS.

 

3. The Nikon VR has saved a couple of shots I wouldn't have dared to take without a tripod. Nikon advertises up to 3 stops improvement on the original VR lenses (apparently up to 4 stops (!) with VR-II). My hands aren't the strongest, and I usually don't push that 3-stop limit now that I'm shooting digital, but every once in a while...

 

4. Sharpness is good if not stupendous, even out to 400mm. I do a lot of my shooting at the 400mm end of the spectrum with a D2X and am not disappointed. I would expect better if I had paid $5000 for the lens, but I didn't, and I'm more than happy with what I did pay for.

 

5. As others have stated, TCs aren't supposed to work on the Nikon 80-400 VR; the Kenko *does* work, mostly because it lies to the camera (or rather, it doesn't tell the whole truth). You have to be careful about TCs on the Nikon lens - its rear optic is so exposed it can be damaged by some TCs. Aside from that, Nikon's camera bodies don't really like to admit to AF capability below f/5.6. Test the combo before you buy.

 

6. While a tripod is somewhat vital to telephoto photography, the delight of VR really is in not having to carry around the tripod all the time. Of course, you're going to want a "real" tripod anyway...

[nikon_rh50]

<p>He is a picture of pigeons I took with 80-400mm at 400mm with Kenko Pro 2X TC

on a D200. The pigeons are on top of the light pole on the opposite side of my neighbors house. I was in my backyard and this is on their front yard. This is full frame as is with no PP except for resizing and saved for

web.<br>

<br>

<img border="0" src="http://www.icebergjewelry.com/images/pigeons.jpg" width="800" height="536"></p>

[rafikrkamel]

Thank you for your time and for the details you have provided, now i wanted to ask about the TC, i have the tamron pro 2x which i think is the same as the Kenko pro 2x (except that this is made under a different brand) but i understand that the build is sort of the same, so we will see if it works on it or not.

thanks again,

Rafik

[darren_cokin]

Another pigeon shot with Nikon 80-400mm VR. On railing at Santa Monica Pier.<div></div>

[rafikrkamel]

Thanks for your time and input