Sigma 120-400mmf/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG OS

[larry n.]

<p>What do people think of the Sigma 120-400mmf/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG OS as an alternative to the Nikon 80-400 and Nikon 300/4?</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Norman, I have the 80-400 Nikkor zoom, while it is fairly sharp, it is not an AF-S lens so it is relatively slow to focus, although you can work with this. Thom Hogan has a nice balanced review of it here...<br /><a href="http://bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm">http://bythom.com/80400VRlens.htm</a><br />Before I bought it, I also did a lot of research on the Sigma 120-400. My conclusion was that the examples that I saw were not equal to the Nikkor lenses. I wanted a zoom and was not ready to spend the money for the Nikkor 200-400 mm VR.<br />I think that the best quality choice of your 3 options would be the Nikkor 300 mm f4. You could also get the 1.4 TC to use with it which will get you out to 420 mm on FX and the equivalent of 630 mm on a DX body. And, from a price point, I'm assuming that you mean the 300 mm AF-S ED-IF which is not a VR lens.<br>

The Sigma is optically stabilized, and the 80-400 has Nikon's original VR system.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Norman, there are some good example images of the Sigma 150-500 mm at this link which could help you decide...<br>

<a href="http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm#top">http://www.birdingworld.co.uk/Sigma%20Photos.htm#top</a></p>

[larry n.]

<p>Thanks Richard. <br>

What I am looking for (like many others) is a reasonably priced handholdable wild life lens. So I like it to be rugged and well-built, light, fast focussing and image stabilized. What I would love is a 400/4.5 or 500/6.3 with good (doesn't have to be stellar) optics for a reasonable price that's image stabilized and has AFS/HSM. Such a thing doesn't exist yet. So the Sigmas are tempting but I am more focused on their performance at the long end rather than the short end (and frankly I would have preferred fixed focal lengths).<br>

My main problem with the Nikon 80-400 VR is price, and secondarily lack of AFS. My main problem with the 300/4 is price and secondarily lack of VR. My main concerns with the Sigmas are their weight and uncertain performance (lots of sample variability, perhaps?). I already have a manual focus Nikon 400/3.5, which I might end up sticking with. <br>

Btw, I should have mentioned the camera I shoot with: D300.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Norman, it is a dilemma, and I was very excited about the 2 Sigma zooms when they announced them last Summer. I did as much reading as I could find and looked at a lot of examples. I settled on the Nikkor 80-400 mm mostly for it's quality optical performance. I just wasn't satisfied with what I was seeing in the Sigma examples, although there have been some positive user comments about both of the Sigma lenses.<br>

As for the vibration reduction, I think it definitely helps if you are planning to hand hold a long lens for wildlife. Still it takes practice. I discussed that in another forum post and more that are linked here...<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QjA6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QjA6</a><br>

I am happy with the 80-400, but I wish it was an AF-S lens. Nikon is really due to upgrade this lens(as has been mentioned here), but I'm sure that an upgrade to AF-S and VR II will be larger, heavier and much more expensive.<br>

So, personally I have come to the conclusion, like with most things, you get what you pay for. With that in mind I am planning to buy a Nikkor 500 mm F4 VR II before the Summer as long as my family negotiations go my way:-)<br>

If you get the Sigma, it would be great to see some examples of your results. Best of luck with all this...<br>

Dick</p>