Which 400mm f5.6 auto focus lens?

[joe_fuhrman1]

I shoot Nikon equipment and have the 500mm f4.0P. Naturally I only use it on a sturdy tirpod. However, I want to buy a 400 mm auto focus lens for hand held flight shots of birds. Since Nikon does not make a 400mm f5.6 auto focus lens, I have a choice of either:

 

<p>

 

Tokina 400mm f5.6

Sigma 400 mm f5.6

Tamron 200mm-400mm f5.6

 

<p>

 

Which is the sharpest?

[bobatkins]

Both the Tokina and Sigma have their advocates. I'd avoid any of

the zooms though. Watch for vignetting if you are shooting birds.

A nice uniform sky behind them will make any vignetting pretty

obvious and most 3rd party lenses aren't known for their uniform

illumination when used wide open. Maybe they are fine, but it's

something to check in any test.

 

<p>

 

I'm always surprised at the holes in the Nikon AF line (yes, I know,

Canon has some too, but I know about them!). I'd assumed

they had a 400/5.6 AF, but I guess not. Do they have an AF TC to

go with the 300/4 AF? I shoot Canon, and the EF300/4L + EF1.4x TC

makes

an excellent 420/5.6 AF lens. I tested it against a Sigma 400/5.6 APO

(not APO Macro) and it was significantly sharper (and focused faster).

Maybe there's an equivalent Nikon combination?

[ShunCheung]

The only 400mm/f5.6 Nikon currently has is an MF AI-S lens (it is

AI-S, not AF-S). The optical design is very old (I think it is from

the 1970's) and the grey market price is over $2000 at B&H, talking

about over-priced lenses.

 

<p>

 

Nikon's 300mm/f4 AF isn't an AF-S lens (i.e. no internal motor) and

their TC for it is the MF

TC-14B, so you lose AF if you put the TC-14B on the 300mm/f4 AF. One

solution is to use a 3rd-party TC to maintain AF. Otherwise, a

3rd-party 400mm/f5.6 AF seems the best solution available, and it is

relatively inexpensive. One way or another, the quality isn't going to

be as good as the legendary 500mm/f4 P. I agree with Bob that any

3rd-party zoom that goes up to 400mm/f5.6 would provide even lower

quality.

[curt_casteel]

Joe--I wouldn't count on consistently good results tracking in-flight

birds using one of the independent lenses. I use the Sigma 400 APO

Macro on an N90s, and while it is great for many things, the

continuous mode autofocus can be "iffy." I must admit I've never

tried tracking flight with it, but it often has trouble staying with

fast-moving terrestrial subjects. I didn't realize how sluggish it

was until I started using an AF-S lens recently. I'm assuming Tokina

and Tamron wouldn't be much better.

[brian_egeberg]

I also shoot the Sigma lens. It will hunt if it is dark but I was out shooting Sea Gulls Sunday and it was overcast. The lens did fine with the focus limiter on shooting Agfa rsx 100 at about 1/800 sec. Moose Peterson used to use one also but switched to a Tokina lens. He says it is better and faster then the Sigma.Keep in mind he is now sponsored by Tokina!!!! I have 2 Tokina lenses and I do believe they are good lenses also. The Sigma takes sharp pictures and the Macro feature, which the Tokina does not have, is nice to have also. The Tokina is smaller and has a 72mm filter size while the Sigma is 77mm. This may not be important to you but I like all of my lenses to have the same filter size so you only have to buy 1 Nikon polarizer.The Tokina is cheaper. Sigma may have an HSM version for Nikon at some point in the future. Good luck!!!!!!

[rob_distefano]

Joe, I've been using Tokina's af AT-X 400mm/f5.6 on a Maxxum 7xi body

for shooting both action sports and some nature/wildlife. I like it,

a good bang for the bucks for this amateur photog. Go <A

HREF="http://www.kneelo.net/surf/">here</A> to see some images using

the before-mention gear. If I was a pro photog I'd be shooting Canon

EOS and their 600mm/f4L, but....

[danny_weber]

The Nikon 300/4 performs well with the Tamron AF 1.4x. I think you'll

find the results slightly better than either 3rd party 400/5.6, and

the 300/4 by itself is excellent.

[mark_van_bergh]

Here's another option, though I doubt it's one you'll want to hear or

take seriously, but here goes. Minolta has a 400/4.5 lens that is

imminently hand-holdable, particularly for tracking birds in flight

where movement is required to begin with. You could get the lens plus

a used Minolta body (600si, 700si, or 9xi are some recommendations)

and use it solely with that lens. It's not unusual for someone who

uses primarily one camera brand to get a competitor because of a

unique lens offering (witness Nikon users who have a Canon body to use

one or more of the Canon T&S lenses). While the Minolta 400/4.5 is

certainly more expensive than the independent 5.6 lenses, it is also

far better, optically and in focusing speed, at least IMHO. As I

said, it may not be the best solution or one that you'll want to

pursue, but it is an option.

[siegfried_boes]

You did not tell us which body you use. Moose Peterson

recommended the Tokina with the F5 because of the fast AF.

I can not confirm that with the F90X. There is not Nikon AF TC

which works with non AF-S lenses, except the TC16A.

Some people say that it works fine with the 300/4. It does not

provide real AF, because the lens is not focus but the TC internally.

Therfore the range of the focusing is restricted, you have to prefocus

the lens. However, it could be that the range is enough for you

and then AF is very fast, since only small parts in the TC have to

be moved. Unfortunately does the TC not provide any electrical

contacts, i.e. not matrix metering etc.

[ShunCheung]

I think Moose Peterson is now sponsored by Nikon and Tokina, among

other brands. There are some recent Tokina advertistments with

Peterson in them, so I would take his recommandations of Tokina with a

grain of salt.

 

<p>

 

Usually I don't think it is a good idea to use different brands of

camera bodies since it is a pain to carry so many bodies when you

travel, and if your only body of that brand malfunctions, all of your

lenses of that brand suddenly become useless. But if one is willing to

buy a Canon AF body, the EF 400mm/f5.6 lens could be an option. That

lens has received some poor reviews thought, but Arthur Morris

regularly uses it for bird in flight pictures. The combined cost with

a Canon body is probably still cheaper than the very over-priced MF

Nikon 400mm/f5.6 ED-IF.

[dirk___]

I used the Sigma APO 5,6/400mm AF for a long time on my Nikon and had

no complains about the optics. The mechanics of the old Sigma AF

lenses was not very satifying, the lastest version are ok. Same for

the Tokina SD lenses. Always avoid the relatively cheap zooms,

especially when you are used to the 4/500.

Try Tokina or Sigma and take the one that feels more stable in your

hands and go for it. Since Tokina was taken over by some other

companies they have great mechanics and optics. Is your 500 an AF kens

or the AI-P if so, you may go for a MF 400 lens. The Nikon is old, but

some tests show that it is still better than the Sigma Apo, but also

heavier and more expensive.

[larry_korhank]

I have only used the sigma 400 (non macro) so I can't help with

comparisons. This lens will lock on a bird in flight and it is sharp

wide open. Take a look at my "Early Flight" and "Great White (egret)"

in this forum's nature image postings.

[omar_attum]

I am a graduate student who enjoys photographing wildlife. Sometimes I also sell them to magazines. I currently use an EOS 5 and a tokina 400 5.6. On a recent trip to Egypt I used that combination to photograph egyptian geese and birds of prey in flight. The tokina autofocus was fast enough for most situations.

[siegfried_boes]

While the TC16A is not really recommended for longer lenses, I

have heard that people use if with good results. The 16A has its

own moving glass and offers quite fast AF, but only in a restricted

range, i.e. guess it would take some training to use a combination

of the 300/4 plus this TC. Eventually it could a very fast AF

combination.

<p>

This is purely hypothetical, does anybody have actual experience

with that combination?

[nick_stevens]

I have tried the combination with the TC-16a, and a 300f4.5 on an 8008. I tried shooting sea gulls and found the focus was pretty bad, this was probably because of my camera. It was however, slightly better than just manual focus ( It was nice to be able to do both AF and MF at the same time.) I think the TC-16a on a 300f2.8 or 300f4, and an N70 or N90 would probably work pretty well.

I would personally go with the Tokina 400mm, i like its size and focusing speed.

[mike_sells]

I am having the same debate on a 400mm f5.6 equivalent for Nikon for birds in flight, also. I have an 80-200 f2.8 AF-S and was wondering if getting a TC-20e would be an acceptable solution. I'm not sure about the image quality when compared to the 3rd party 400 f5.6 lens, such as Tokina or Sigma. But it should be fast enough to keep and hold focus. I know that the 80-200 AF-S lens is extremely sharp with no TC's, but not sure about a 2x TC. Maybe someone who has tested it against other lens manufactures' lenses might have some input.

 

Does anyone have any feedback?

[davevoelker]

This is an older thread but I am compelled to put my $.02 in on the subject. I purchased a Sigma 400 f/5.6 APO Macro new from an authorized Sigma dealer and on the second roll with the lens the manual focus ring stopped working. The manual focus ring spun freely but the lens did not focus at all. I was shooting with a 1.4x TC at the time which basically required manual focus so I was essentially out of luck without manual focus. I removed the TC and resorted to autofocus which greatly limited what I was after but I tried to make he best of it. Several frames later I had stopped the lens down to f/22 and as I pressed the shutter release the aperture blades stuck in the stopped down position, they would neither open or close which meant that the lens was now a rather expensive paperweight.

 

When I returned home I packaged the 0new lens up and sent it to Sigma service in Ronkonkoma NY, which is the ONLY place authorized to perform Sigma warranty service. I included a letter explaining the two problems along with my warranty card and sales receipt and about a month later the lens came back with a service slip that simply read 'adjusted sensor'.

 

I took the lens home, mounted it and verified that the aperture blades were working fine and then checked out the manual focus. To my surprise the manual focus ring spun just as freely as it had when I sent the lens in for repair, appearantly nothing had been done to correct this problem.

 

A couple of weeks later I packaged the lens back up again and sent it back to Sigma explaining that their 'sensor adjustment' had not had the desired effect of actually making the lens functional. I received the lens back within a couple of weeks this time with a repair slip that indicated 'sensor replaced'. I am not sure what sensor was replaced but it should have been the one in the head of the Sigma moron who QC'd this lens as the manual focus ring STILL does not work. I am beginning to feel more empathy for Michael Douglas in the film 'Falling Down', (if you are not familiar with this film you should rent it and understand how Sigma will make you feel if you purchase their products)

 

I am sure that there are planty of people that have had Sigma products that have operated faithfully for years. My problem with Sigma is not that I received a defective product, this can happen with all manufacturers from Sigma to Canon (my brand), to Hasselblad, and all other regardless of how much you spend. What bothers me is that I have sent this same lens in for service for the same problem twice and Sigma has returned it as fixed each time when it is not. It is not as if the same problem keeps occurring, the problem has never been fixed! Yet, Sigma returns my lens with a note of 'replaced sensor' I have to wonder what sensor is involved in the operation of the manual focus ring?

 

I look forward to the day when Sigma actually corrects this problem, though I am not sure I will send it back to them again for the $20 insured shipping it costs when I am pretty confident that I can pay a local repair tech to just fix it once and for all. I will hold onto this lens as I can not in good conscience sell it to anyone with the expectation that it will last beyond the day after I sell it and my reputation is worth than than one of Sigma's crappy lenses.

 

I hope you think twice before buying a Sigma product and if the dollars sway you to go against your better judgement, I hope you have better luck than I have had. And if you don't, dont be afraid to admit your mistake in public so that others can learn from your experience, which is what my post is all about.

[bill_bufkins]

I bought a used Nikon 400mm f5.6 ED-IF from KEH.com several years ago and found it to be very sharp and contrasty, and a delight to use because it is relatively light weight. It is also very sharp with the Nikon 1.4 X converter, which gives you a 560 mm focal length.

 

I am not sure, but this lens may be capable of being modified to use the electronic lens mount contacts that autofocus lenses already have.

[adiarifin]

I am quite happy which my setup so far. Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 with Tamron 2x tele converter. I used monopod most of the time, but it works OK when I do handheld occasionally. Theoretically 2x TC doubles the focal length, and cuts the light down by 2 stops, resulting in 400mm f/5.6.