nikkor 70-300 vs sigma 135-400

[plamena_dimitrova]

<p>Hello ! <br /> I've just bought Nikon D7200 and I am wondering which lense will be better for photoing birds ?</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Plamena, we need more information to give you a helpful answer. First, which Nikkor version are you talking about? There is a cheap G version, a more expensive ED version, and then a VR version. The latter is a great performer for the money. As for the Sigma 135-400, I have no experience. It goes to 400mm which is nice, but the quality may not be top notch. Figure out how long a lens you need as the first step. For birds, you might want to consider the new 200-500 if your budget is large enough.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As far as I know, the Sigma 135-400 is a pretty old lens dated back to the last century. Since the OP has a very recent D7200 and into birds photography, hopefully she can match it up with something like a 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR or either the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm zoom. For bird photography, you need focal length. However, either one of those lenses will be considerably more expensive than Nikon's 70-300mm AF-S VR.</p>

[peter_perry]

<p>I owned a Sigma 135-400 in Olympus E mount several years ago. I could never manage to get it to perform to my satisfaction. It produced very soft images, especially at the 400 end of the scale. I sold it and eventually sold the camera and the rest of the kit and switched to Nikon. I am very happy with my Tamron 70-300 on my D7000, but have recently been experimenting with the Tamron attached to a Nikon 1 J5 and FT-1 adaptor. The reach is amazing and if the bird is perched, the results are pretty nice. No luck at following them in flight though. For that I stick to the D7000.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I had the privilege to review the Tamron 70-300mm VC lens for photo.net: <a href="/equipment/tamron/70-300di-vc/">Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 Di VC USD Lens Review</a><br>

Optically it is quite good but I find its construction mediocre. That maybe a good choice on a limited budget. However, the problem that 300mm is not quite sufficient for bird photography in general remains.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Hello Plamena,<br>

First, I see that you joined photo.net today. Welcome!<br>

As Shun pointed out, the Sigma 135-400 is an old design, from a time when Sigma was not producing the sometimes excellent lenses it builds today. Nikon currently produces three versions of the 70-300mm lens. One is designed for the Nikon 1 system, and is not what you want for your D7200. The 70-300mm f/4-5.6G (without VR) is not a very sharp lens. I have the third of these, the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, and it is very good, much better than the non-VR version. Even when you are using shutter speeds that don't require vibration reduction, it is still a far better choice. I have a couple of shots of hummingbirds in flight <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00VVrS"><strong>in this thread</strong></a> that will give you an idea.</p>

<p>Shun is exactly right that for bird photography, you want long focal lengths. If you can accept the cost, the weight and the size, the long lenses he suggests are excellent. For what it gives you, the Nikon 200-500mm seems amazing. The current version of the Nikon 80-400mm VR (the one that has AF-S) has had excellent reviews. It is even more expensive, but more compact, and may be a better choice if you are going after birds in flight and need to shoot hand-held.</p>

<p>Finally since you may be in Bulgaria, where it is already March 1, let me send you the traditional greeting for this day: Честита Баба Марта.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the Sigma 135-400 isn't exactly an artifact from the 20th century, but it does appear to date from the dawn of the digital age (early 2000s). there appear to be two versions of it: the original RF APO version, and an updated "DG" version with anti-flare coatings. it's not an "EX" lens, so one shouldnt expect stellar performance from it, no matter what version you get. the biggest thing to note here is that it's an unstabilized long lens which weighs almost 4 lbs. so it's not gonna be an easy lens to handhold, and would require high shutter speeds and good light to deliver acceptable results at f/8-11. i would probably pass on this unless you got a mint condition copy for, say, $200 USD. You can still buy a new one for $500-$750, but why would you?</p>

<p>400mm is better for birds, sure, but i would take a stabilized 300mm over an unstabilized 400mm any day for handheld shooting. i'll second the tamron 70-300 VC's optical quality, even wide open, even past 250mm. The Tamron doesn't have particularly blazing AF speeds, but it's fast for a consumer lens. the other obvious choice is the Nikon 70-300 VR. a little less good optically, possibly a bit better mechanically. forget the other two versions of the Nikon 70-300 unless you're on a tripod. There is a $100 rebate on the Tamron 70-300 VC currently, so i don't know that you can beat that price.</p>

<p>Beyond that, you're looking at much more expensive options. you could still get a tokina 80-400 beercan for around $500, but that lens isnt stabilized either. if you dont have the budget, forget about 150-600 and 200-500 and 80-400 VR.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> I am very happy with my Tamron 70-300 on my D7000, but have recently been experimenting with the Tamron attached to a Nikon 1 J5 and FT-1 adaptor. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>just saw on the Amazon page for the Tamron that,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This lens is not compatible with the Nikon 1 FT1 adapter and the firmware 1.1!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is a bummer if you a) were considering the Tamron and b) thinking about using one on a Nikon 1 body. Perhaps Peter has an old FW version for the FT1. While a 70-300 + Nikon1 would give you an astounding 810mm @5.6 equivalent, it's not a perfect solution for BIF because you only have the center AF point active. If you want to be able to move the AF point around on a Nikon 1 body with a telezoom, my understanding is, you have to use the 70-300 CX, which is pricier than either of the stabilized full-frame 70-300s. We'll have to wait and see what happens to the Nikon 1 line now that the DL series has been announced; there's quite possibly many bird photographers waiting for prices to fall on current N1 bodies like the V3, and who knows what will become of the N1 lenses already on the market, should Nikon abandon this line. </p>

<p> </p>

[peter_perry]

<p>Hi Eric:<br>

I've never done a firmware upgrade for the FT-1, but I only bought it two months ago. It is working for me, as you note, with the limitiation of the single center focus point. AF is still slow and I usually manually focus to get close and then use the center spot for a finer focus. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Please pay attention to the fact that the OP has a Nikon D7200, not a Nikon 1 mirrorless camera. Therefore, info about Nikon 1 and its adapters is a bit off topic here.</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=9468505">Plamena Dimitrova</a>, hopefully you are getting some helpful answers. If you have any follow up questions, please feel free to ask. We also have a Nature Forum where there are plenty of bird photographers: http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/</p>

[johne37179]

<p>I have been doing this (photography) for roughly 65 years -- for some of those professionally for advertising. I currently have a well used D7000 and the Nikon 70-300 G VR. I am astounded by the lens -- all of the shortcomings I have found have been in my own technique, not the lens. 300 is a bit short for many bird shots, but there are many that you can get. Like shooting birds with a shotgun, shooting them with a camera is more dependent on how good a shot you are than your equipment.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm not a great fan of Sigma lenses, but I have their 135-400mm. Mainly because it's one of the few lenses to cover that zoom range. The common 80-400mm range requires too much optical compromise for IQ to be acceptable - let alone good.</p>

<p>Anyhow, all I can say is that the Sigma 135-400mm provides good IQ - much better than Tokina's 80-400mm lens for example. Up against my manual focus 400mm f/5.6 IF-ED Nikkor it's not too far behind in IQ when stopped down to f/8 and beyond. The one thing that lets it down is build quality. The zoom seized almost solid on mine and required re-greasing, despite fairly light use. But at the price I paid used, it was what I'd consider to be a bargain.</p>

<p>I also own the Tamron 70-300mm SP VC zoom, which I can't fault for optical or build quality. Since on a D7000 its equivalent A-o-V is that of a 450mm lens on FF, I really don't see the "not enough reach" argument. You just need to improve your stalking or baiting skills if you can't get close enough for a 4.6 degree A-o-V to work.</p>

<p>The more distance you put between your camera and the subject, the more you're dependent on good "seeing" conditions if contrast and/or definition isn't to be impaired by mist or heat-haze.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The common 80-400mm range requires too much optical compromise for IQ to be acceptable - let alone good.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Other than the fact that it is a rather slow f5.6 on its long, 400mm end and it is pricey, the current 80-400mm/f4.5-5.6 AF-S VR is among the best telephoto lenses I have seen. I have compared it side by side against the 600mm/f4 AF-S VR, and the 80-400 remains competitive.</p>

<p>I am not sure the OP is looking for something in the 80-400's price range, though.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Yes Shun, I should have qualified that statement with - "in a reasonable price range".<br>

But given close on 2000 bucks to spend, I still personally wouldn't choose to spend it on an f/5.6 80-400mm zoom that would hardly ever get used at the short end.</p>