AF VR-Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 Zoom lens...continued 2

[rarmstrong]

<p>Keith, sounds like a good deal and a real viable alternative, thanks!<br>

Dick</p>

[doug_santo]

<p>There are a couple of alternatives that have not been discussed. One is the new Sigma optically stabilized (OS) lenses including the 120-400 and 150-500. I have the 150-500. I bought it because I hoped the OS would allow hand held shots at long focal lengths. It does to some extent, but my experience suggests that consistent acquisition of good pictures at focal lengths over 300mm requires a tripod. On a tripod, the 150-500 requires a sturdy head especially at longer focal lengths. As the barrel extends, it changes the lens/camera weight balance and can result in vibrations during image capture. Remote or cable shutter release is also required. The lens is slow and performs best in good light conditions. After a little practice, the lens produces razor sharp images out to 500mm especially on a crop sensor body. I have also used the lens with a 1.4x teleconverter. The tele eliminates autofocus, but I have achieved some good results with this setup. On a crop sensor you can get an effective focal length of 1050mm.</p>

<p>Another option is a used Nikon 300mm f/2.8. I purchased one on e-bay. They are routinely available between $1,500 to $2,500 depending on condition, model, etc. I have the ED-AF version, which was the first AF version before AF-I. I paid $1,130 and my copy is used, but very good. There is no on-lens autofocus motor. Autofocus can be slow, but autofocus speed is improved by focus limiters. This lens performs flawlessly. It maintains autofocus with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. It is razor sharp. With a 2x tele and crop sensor body you can achieve an effective focal length of 900mm.</p>

<p>For people on a budget looking to get long focal lengths, I would recommend a used 300/2.8 plus teleconverter and crop sensor body.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>On one hand - I really like the lens - it is nice to get close that long distance wildlife....</p>

<p>On the other hand - I tend to agree with the comment in the Hitler D3 rant regarding this lens - something about a "makeover" and Rosie.</p>

<p>I have learned that it is not fast enough focusing for sports (at least the way I have my body set up) nor is it "fast" enough apperature wise to allow available light shooting in the venues I visit... so sadly - it gathers dust a lot of the time.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[patrick_rodgers]

<p>Has anyone compared this to the new Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM? Does the HSM approach an AF-S in a Nikkor? Also, it apparently works with Sigma's optical 1.4x EX DG APO or 2x EX DG APO Tele Converters.<br>

Sigma also has an APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM for not much more. You give up some speed for length.<br>

I'm hoping someone has done a thorough pros and cons comparison of these to the AF VR-Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6. Also, is there ANY chance an AF-S version will be available any time soon?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>"I'm hoping someone has done a thorough pros and cons comparison of these to the AF VR-Nikkor 80-400mm f4.5-5.6."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We have done that quite a few times in this very forum, including in this thread. I have four different Nikon teles from 300mm and up, all AF-S, but there are good reasons that I don't have the 80-400.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Patrick, there is a lot of information out there about the Sigma 120-400, but I am not aware of a head to head comparison with the Nikkor 80-400. For my needs at the time, after reading about both lenses, the Nikon was the better choice for me and my budget.<br>

Dick</p>