Sigma 400, Tamron 200-400, Tokina 80-400 or TC?

[hayward]

I have a Nikon N80 and a number of lenses including an AF 180 2.8

EDIF and a 70-300 G. I'm not thrilled with the optical quality of

the 70-300, but the 180 is too short for birds. The 300 is usually

too short, too, and I'd like to get a used lens that reaches 400

without breaking the bank on a Nikon. I've seen used Sigma 5.6 400mm

(non macro), Tamron 200-400, and Tokina 80-400 in the $300 range.

Which of these do you have experience with/what would you recommend?

Is a teleconverter with the 180 a better option, if so which one

(Nikon or other brand, which model?)

 

Thanks for your help.

[roland_vink]

Probably the best option would be the Sigma AF 400/5.6 or Tokina AF 400/5.6. I don't think either are in production but you could probably pick up a used one (ebay, keh...)

 

I don't think you will get good results with the zooms in that range, unless of course you go for the Nikon, but that's breaking the bank.

 

Another option is the AF 300/4 and add a 1.4x TC, which would give you a more flexible system. The AF 300/4 with TC-14B works well, but that combination is manual focus. The new AFS 300/4 with TC-14E would have similar quality with AF, but the price is getting up there again.

 

hope this helps

[astcell]

I want the Sigma 400/5.6AF, or the Tokina,...anything! Nikon has no fixed 400mm lens that costs less than a small car. There are 80-400 lenses out there but I personally would go with a fixed lens over a zoom lens if I could not find a Nikon equivalent. Make sure you get the ED, SD, APO, or whatever abbreviation they use to point out the better glass, so you do not get a lens like your G lens. Good luck!

[bob_cook]

I own the Tamron 200-400; it's not a very good lens. With perfect technique,

stopped down, it is acceptable, but that's about it. Probably better off with

something else. Hope this helps.

[rolf_lockwood]

I too went looking for a 400 priced lower than my car and settled on the Tokina AF 5.6 after reading all that I could find on the subject. It seemed to be the clear choice -- hand-holdable, for one thing, and smaller than the others while being generally sharper, the reviewers all said. That was the theory, and it seems to be a good lens so far. I've only put two rolls through it, though, and haven't tried any of the others you mentioned, but I'm pleased. It took a while to find one, I should add. Another option seems to be the Tokina 100-300 4.0 with a 1.4 converter, though that, once again, is theory only.

[goetz_adam_gageik]

I own a Sigma 300mm APO and - since recently - a Tokina 80-400 MkII. The reason I went for this lens was that my old 70-300mm APO zoom copped it and I felt the gap. The results so far have been surprisingly good, even in comparison to the Sigma with a 1.4 converter. Practically it is of course far more versatile and I even manage to handhold reasonably well. I do not publish my images, but here's a sample of the Tokina wide open at 400mm.

[kerry_taylor]

I own the Tamron 200-400 5.6 and got this lens purly on price as i couldnt and still cant aford any other lens. I bought it on ebay for ?100.Thats aprox $150 - yes its not the best lens in the world but iv had more than exeptable photos out of it. You just have to use it right. If you tripod or mono pod mount it and use a release cable, you will get sharp photos. Its better at f8 upwards.

I wish I was a millionaire, and then Id get a nikon f2.8 400mm, but at ?5000 I cant justify that expense just yet. In summery its not realy the equipment we use its our skill in how we use it. When I look back at what we used years ago, the equipment we can get now is a luxery in comparrison. Even the cheap stuff. The Tamron has a constant f5.6 through its zoom range. This is a suprise in such a cheap lens. If money is an issue then the Tamrons fine if you use it correctly. If your rich get a nikon, and oh! any chance I can borrow a few grand?