farmer on the hill

For thoes of you that may be interested in my lens tests between the AF-S

Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8 D and the AF 200-400 5.6 Tamron. Please note that each

lens were tested at the opposite extrems and one is far more expensive than

the other. Immages will show how much better each lens performed. both lenses

were used on a tripod and set at 200mm at f8 I hope this will be usfull to any

one wondering how to spend their money.<div></div>

I have the same lens and have found that at certain zoom focal lengths the image is very soft on the right side. I now have a D200 and tried this lens on it, the same problem occurred. I now use a Nikon 17-55 2.8 and no longer have this problem.

I have both the D70 and D200; The D200 is a superior camera in every respect; it's better built, has weather resistance, you can make many changes without having to go into the menu and feels better in my hands. Having said all that, I am keeping the D77 as a back up.

Nikon say that their 500 f4 will work with their 1.4 and 2x converters in certain conditions. That means in good light. So with the right bag I should be able to fit 2 bodies, 80-200 2.8, 17-55 2.8 and the 500 with converters.

OK! The Nikon 500 f4 will work to a limit with the TC14 II and TC20 II. I guess that means in good light. That makes it more practicable for traveling with 1 lens and 2 converters

Yes Doug,

 

The 300-800 looks like the way to go. I will have to go to the gym and work out in preparation for this beast.

Shun,

 

As you said, with birds you need all the focal length you can get. The shorter focal lengths of the 300-800 make it so versatile for other applications; it's just the weight that is the down fall of this lens. For this reason I am no longer interested in the Nikon 600 f4 as this lens is the heaviest of them all. I am now down to 3 lenses thatI am considering, the Sigma 500 4.5 is light and has a good price tag....The Nikon 500 f4 is a bit faster but bigger and heavier and more expensive, and the 300-800. I agree that with the DX format, the 500 will work like a 750mm but then the 300-800 will be a whooping 1200.

I have to make a correction. " Sigma state that the lenses in question can be used with conversion as a manual lens".

I have to make a correction. "Sigma state that the lenses in question can be used with the 1.4x and 2x as a manual focus lens"

Sound advise Mark, So I am once again looking at the Nikon 500 and the 300-800. How about your 800 Mark, what's your best rock bottom price?

Oops, I forgot Mark shoots with Canon.

Sound advise Shun, Mark has said the same thing with regard to f4.5 and conversion; Sigma claim the 500 will work with the 1.4x but not the 2x. As far as renting, where I come from I can't rent. Barbadod is not exactly third world but renting lenses down here is out. So I am back looking at the Nikon 500 and Sigma 300-800. I may be interested at Mark's 800 if he gives me a good price.

Mark,

 

The speck sheet on the Sigma states that it will work with the 1.4x but not the 2x.

 

I have read what I think to be non biased reports on the Sigma 500, 300-800 and the 800 which say these lenses are optically very good , however as far as the 1.4x converters; do they make premium converters for their top end lenses or do they use the ones I have seen? If so I would rather have the Nikon converter as they look much better made. Will a Nikon converter work better on a Sigma lens than the Sigma converter will or are brand names better suited to their own kind?

 

Here we go again, only this time the topic is converters.

The Sigma 500mm is only 13.2" in length and 4.8" wide and 6.9 lds. It also has a great write up however I am weary of write up's; they may be a bit twisted as advertisers pay big $s.

To Mary and Shun Cheung,

 

Both of you have summed up what I am considering perfectly on opposite ends of the stick. Yes the zoom is so important for composition and maintaining good image quality as it is an expensive lens. On the other hand portability is a very important factor, I am used to carrying around a RB 67 with 4 prime lenses in a pelican case to do landscape and I have managed so far to get it on as hand luggage and I have managed to take all this gear up hills and through tropical forest. Having said all that, the two lenses I am considering is for digital, and will be used for many types of photography such as sport, birds and landscape. The 300-800 I think is the best choice for sport (Will have to up the ISO 1 stop), but because of it's size and weight will be difficult for wild life. It is a challenging compromise for sure.

 

Thank you all for your thoughts and time.

If I recall correctly, it's about 2" longer and about the same width

I thought it was the 17-55 that was designed for digital and the 17-35 was for 35mm.

The reason for looking at the zoom is primarily at composing the shot. With sports and landscape you often need different focal lengths and don't have the time to change lenses. Whats the point in having a razor sharp image with perfect contrast if the soker players head has been cropped off for lack of having a wider focal length. A prime lens as great as they are can loos the shot and with zooms as good as they are now, make it an obvious for fast moving subjects going away and coming at you

Michael,

 

The link was very informative. I just had a look at the specs of the Nikon 600 f4 and it's heavier than the Sigma 800 prime! So that kind of changes my outlook on things. The 300-800 is the heaviest of the lot, what a hard decision and so many compromises. I mainly shoot sport, birds and some surfing, I thought the Nikon 600 would be the best as it fell between the 500 and 800 but after seeing the dimensions and weight I will have to think again; so I am back looking at the 500s and the 300-800 zoom. I am shooting with the D200 which with the 1.6 factor will benefit more focal length. If the 500s work well with a 1.4 x conversion and maintains Auto focus with not much quality fall off, then maybe that's the way to go. I would love to see some comparative shots with the Nikon 500 and the Sigma 500.

 

Regards

 

Jonathan

Michael,

 

What is your 500, Nikon or Sigma, and if it is on the shelf, do you want to sell?

Nikon don't make a zoom up at these focal lengths, I keep second guessing myself, I was pretty sure on the Sigma 300-800, now having been told it's a monster to work and travel with; I am now looking at the Nikon 600 f4, I think it's the best compromise (longer than the 500mm and more manageable than the 800mm)but with the biggest price tag (7549.00). The Sigma 500 f4.5 sure is tempting at $4199.00.

To Robert And Mark,

 

Thanks for your time It has been a big help

 

Regards

 

Jonathan

Mark,

 

Your images of birds are remarkable. Among the best I have seen. I am now considering either a 500 0r 600 with a high quality Nikon 1.4X.

 

Your opinion on this would be appreciated.

 

Jonathan

Thanks guys for your thoughts and time on this. The point on being to big as carry on baggage is well taken however I am looking at the 300-800 as the versatility of being a zoom and being able to crop with the lens and not on PC has big advantages. So many times you loos that perfect composition due to prime leases due to lack of time to set up.

 

Thanks

 

Jonathan

Thanks guys for sharing your thoughts. I am 60% going for the 300-800; reason being that while it might be a tab not as sharp as a prime lens, I think the benefits of having the capability to crop with the zoom and not on the PC will be to a great advantage as I will be able to use bigger files. So many times you can loos the perfect composition because of the use of a prime lens, as good as a prime may be, there is a big compromise if you don't have time to compose.