Nikon 80-400vr alternatives

[jon_savage]

<p>Hi,<br>

It’s another 400mm dilemma. I have been patiently saving for either the new Nikon 80-400 VR or the 300 f4 VR (which ever came first). I can’t see myself ever spending £2400 on the new 80-400 VR now it’s arrived. £2400!!! Bilmey. But I do get the impression it’s very good wide open. Camera fund stands at £1800 and I was hoping that would have been more than enough for it.</p>

<p>The more I look into it the more I’m tempted by the just discontinued Sigma 120-300 2.8 OS for around £1800 new. I’ve even seen a couple of used ones for £1100-£1400. An older AF 300mm 2.8 prime plus 1.4 TC doesn’t look any better value (UK prices) than this.</p>

<p>Weight isn’t an issue. I’m after very good IQ at at least f5.6 when 400mm. So I would plan to get the matching Sigma 1.4x TC. I have the Nikon TC14 but I’m not sure it would work even if I modified the tab to fit.</p>

<p>Does anyone here have first hand experience of the OS Sigma and TC combination and can they say how it might compare in quality to other set ups in that price range? The spec charts look good and the idea of a 170-420 f4 with stabilisation with the option to take the TC off for better IQ or speed sounds good.</p>

<p>Subjects for it are motorsport, football and birds. Camera is a D300s.<br>

Thanks</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I have lots of experience with the older non OS Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. I have found it to be an excellent lens. More then sharp enough wide open and just amazing at f/3.5. I have never tried it with any TC's but it does work very well with extension tubes.<br>

This was shot with it on my D4 at f/3.5<br>

[User_6502147]

<p>I've had one of those dilemmas...and this is how I went about it. Got 400/3.5 + TC 14B- extender, since I don't have aversion to manual. Naturally zooming capability is important to you for framing and orientation.... so the Sigma 120-300 would make sense and so does 200-400/4. The latter doesn't take the extenders v. well, at least not according to some pros. Sigma may be OK, but I heard that the AF is not responding very quickly (particularly for motorsports). It appears that you can't get the VR-AF or excellent IQ on the cheap....and you might as well face the "elephant in the room" and spend the big bucks for the 400/2.8 + extender. My 2 cents.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I actually just did what you're asking. I have a D300s and bought the Sigma 120-400 (180-600 Dx) f/4.5-5.6 HSM OS a couple of years ago. Then I took early retirement and received a $15,000 US stipend from my pension plan, so I decided to trade in the 120-400 for the 120-300 f/2.8 HSM OS ($2500 US) and 1.4x teleconverter. That way I can have a lens kit that goes from 120 (180) f/2.8 to 420 (630) f/4, a marked improvement over the 120-400. I actually got the Kenko 1.4x ($260), not knowing that Sigma had one ($225). When I realized this, I called B&H in New York where I bought the Kenko to see if I should trade for the Sigma. He said they are both equal to each so I kept the Kenko. Here are a few shots I just did, no adjustments except for uploading size.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>oops</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Here's the photo.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>the old version of the 80-400mm lens my fit your IQ need and budget.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Sigma 120-300 no teleconverter at 120 (180 Dx) f/2.8.</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>Sigma 120-300 no teleconverter at 300 (450 Dx) f/2.8.</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>Sigma 120-300 with 1.4x TC at 120 (252 Dx) f/4.</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>Sigma 120-300 with 1.4x TC at 300 (630 Dx) f/4.</p><div></div>

[Mike D]

<p>I do not use the Sigma 50-500 OS but I've seen a lot of great shots taken with the lens. Much better than the Sigma 135-400. I also waited for years for the Nikon 80-400 AFS but gave up a couple years ago and bought a Sony A57 (10 FPS with auto focus) with Sony 70-400. This combo is outstanding but Sony has discontinued the A57 and Sony's future Alpha mount road map is confusing. I may eventually have to buy the 80-400 AFS but not for at least for a couple years. </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>I have never tried it with any TCs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have (this being the OS version): </p>

<p><a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/house_sparrow_st_marys_1.jpg">600mm, handheld </a>- Canon 7D, Sigma 2x TC, f/6.3, 1/320, 1000 ISO.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Sigma may be OK, but I heard that the AF is not responding very quickly (particularly for motorsports).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You're listening to the wrong people, then.</p>

<p>All handheld:</p>

<p>http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_1.jpg<br>

http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_4.jpg<br>

http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_10a.jpg (600mm)<br>

http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_20.jpg<br>

http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_7.jpg<br>

http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/moto-x/moto-x_cambois_1.jpg<br>

http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/moto-x/moto-x_cambois_16.jpg<br>

http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/moto-x/moto-x_cambois_20.jpg</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>This may be a bit off base but I recently dusted off my venerable old Nikkor 300 F4 and stuck it onto my D300 to loan to someone who wanted to photograph a raptor flight exhibition. The person did not show up so I stuck around and shot it. I quickly remembered why I got this lens in the first place. It is sharp as a tack and really not that slow in the focus department.</p>

<p>It is not a zoom but on your D300 it gets you out there 450mm at F4. At that speed you can get the shutter speed up there pretty good. It would also save you a ton of money. Why not try it? You won't loose a cent on this lens.</p>

[Ray House]

<p>Jon, over on photocamel in the Marketplace forum (classifieds) is a Sigma 100-300 listed that might interest you.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A good 400mm with VR seems to be expensive whichever way you go. I too would like a VR 300/4. Looking at prices of recently introduced lenses, such a lens may turn out to be just as expensive as the AF-S 80-400 (especially if it uses diffractive optics). It should be smaller and lighter than the zoom, though (but combined with a 70-200, the pair would take more space in the bag). If the patent relating to the diffractive optics implementation of a VR 300/4 is realized then the lens would be extremely compact and probably a great choice for travel and backpacking.</p>

<p>Given the quality of the new AF-S 80-400, I suspect it will be a better solution to reach 400mm than using a 1.4X on an(y) 300/4 prime. At 300mm, a 300mm prime should be better than the zoom. I greatly value maximum aperture and portability (when the lens is in my hands, if it is lightweight and compact, I can hand-hold it steadily for a longer time), and do not mind using a prime lens, so for me the (future VR) 300mm is likely to be attractive. However I may not have the patience to wait; time will tell.</p>

<p>For birds I think you're better off with a lens that is at least 400mm in native focal length without TC. For football (which kind?) and motorsport a fast telezoom such as 120-300/2.8 may be good, but it's very heavy; try hand-holding it before making a decision (of course, a monopod can be used, but then do you need stabilization if you can use a monopod?). Also it is a good idea to compare results against a Nikkor such as the 300/4 (or even the 300/2.8 though expensive) side by side to get an idea of what you may gain and lose.</p>

<p>The AF-S 300/4 doesn't have VR, but is optically excellent. It fits in your budget. While VR helps in some situations, on high resolution cameras it has become clear that it rarely yields images comparable with what would be obtained using a good tripod and VR off, especially at these long focal lengths. Best results hand-held are obtained using high shutter speeds, and VR off. The window of advantageous use of VR falls around 1/200s +-1 stop, at which you get better results with VR on than VR off, but still not as good as on tripod. Slower speeds can still yield better results with VR on than VR off (when hand-holding) but the quality is less and less tripod-like. I actually sold my 300/4 because of lack of VR in the lens, but have come to think that actually at these 300mm and 400mm focal lengths it is a much more special-situation feature than something to be used for most shots. Testing with both my 70-200/2.8 II and the AF-S 80-400 revealed that a tripod gives a considerable advantage over hand-held with VR (in sharpness at the pixel level using a D800). This is why I think the 300/4 AF-S is actually not a bad choice at all, but do budget a tripod collar for it from a 3rd party, as the Nikon one is not that great. The same is true of the old and new 80-400's by the way.</p>

<p>The AF-S 80-400 seems to hold contrast and color excellently when shooting into the light e.g. backlit bird against the sky. The AF-S 300/4 produces frequently lowered contrast and washed out color when shooting in such scenarios. I think this is one of the few optical imperfections of the lens, but still it's a great lens for the money even today.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>How important is VR really? You're going to use this lens in scenarios where high shutterspeeds are key, so VR is going to be of limited value, in my view. Which would bring the current existing 300 f/4 to the table. As Ilkka said, optically excellent, and paired to a D300 it may not be the snappiest AF ever, but it's certainly usable. I've used it with TC14 for <a href="/photo/10496611">powerboats</a>, and it could keep up with AF tracking (21pts dynamic AF-C) just fine - in good light. With the TC, in lower light, it starts to suffer, but I would expect the same for any f/5.6 lens really.<br>

The Sigma 120-300 looks excellent value for money, though. But it also looks a lot less portable than a 300 f/4....</p>

[alastair_anderson]

<p>This is very interesting. I was pretty much set on getting the new 80-400 but Ilkka and Wouter have given me much food for thought. </p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>How important is VR really? You're going to use this lens in scenarios where high shutterspeeds are key</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Wouter, that's not the case at all for motor sports: in order to get blurred wheels and backgrounds (pretty much an essential in motor sport, where you're usually panning the camera with the vehicle) you need low shutter speeds - <a href="http://www.kazemisu.me.uk/images/croft_1200_7.jpg"><strong>this</strong></a> for example, is only 1/125.</p>

<p>Make no mistake - image stabilisation is a <em>huge</em> advantage for this kind of photography.</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>Thanks for the responses.<br /><br />I think I might go for the Sigma while there are still plenty of them around new. MTF charts look good.<br>

I tried to think it through logically and I think the only downside is the weight. But physics defines this so if you want faster you get heavier. If I want convieniance I'll stick a x2 TC on the old lens. That's OK but you need a sunny day if you want to freeze the action.<br /><br />One thought was if I want to gain a stops worth of performance maybe trade the D300s for the D7100. But I like the D300 body format and I'm not waiting any longer for a D400!<br /><br />If anyone has any 100% crops of the Sigma OS at 420/f4 I would still be interested to see and hear opinions on it.</p><div></div>

[kohanmike]

<p>Here's one of my shots from above cropped, D300s, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 with Kenko 1.4x TC at f/4, OS on, hand held.</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>My experience with panned shots with slow speeds suggests that mounting the lens on a tripod with gimbal head works out to much higher probability of good results than hand-held panning with VR. But it may depend on technique obviously.</p>