Nikon 80- 400 mm, Sigma 150-500 mm

[Nicks Pics]

Hi, have any of you owned the older Nikon 80 - 400 mm http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._80_400mm.html or the Sigma 150 - 500 mm lens? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...6_3_DG_OS.html I'm looking at these as budget super telephoto lenses, for wildlife and birds, as well as other things. I know that a bird photographer "should" have a 400 or 500 mm lens, (or at least most really serious enthusiasts seem to ultimately end up with something like that), but if I'm not going to get quality results with a budget super telephoto, and need to replace it, then maybe I should go with a decent 300 mm for now? So if any one here has used those lenses, and can recommend them, or would not, I would appreciate hearing from you. Just so you know, I've got the DX Nikon D7100. Thanks!

Nick

[Manfred M]

Nick - we own both of these lenses. Both are optically about the same, but the Nikkor can be more difficult to use, even with the D7100. It uses a screw drive focus mechansim, with is fairly slow. It is also the first VR lens that Nikon made, so the VR performance is not as good as other, newer lenses.

On the plus side, the lens is actually fairly compact and takes 77mm filters.

The Sigma uses an internal focus motor, so is more responsive than the Nikkor. That being said, it is not built to the same level of quality as the Nikkor (it's been back to Sigma for repairs twice). It uses 86mm filters, that are more expensive and harder to find than the more standard ones. I would rate the image stabilization a touch better than on the Nikon.

Just to confuse matters a bit more, the focus and zoom rings work in the opposite direction to Nikon's. The lens is big and heavy too.


I've gotten great shots out of both lenses, and with the new Nikkor 80-400mm lens available and newer longer lenses from both Sigma and Tamron, I would be unlikely to buy either of these lenses again.

Honestly, it is a complete toss up as to which one I would recommend as I find the advantages and disadvantages of both lenses pretty well cancel each other out. If you did not have a camera with the built in focus motor, I would definitely recommend the Sigma, but as you do, the decision is not nearly as clear cut. Unless you use a centre point focus, both lenses are going to be problematic and will focus on the wrong place. By the way, both lenses are FX lenses, so if you ever go full-frame in the future, these lenses will work for you.

[Brownbear]

Hi Nick,

I've owned neither lens and I'm not the most technically minded person but I can share that before I upgraded to the Nikon f4 300 mm lens (which I absolutely love for image quality, especially for birds in flight) I had a 200-400mm Tamron push pull lens, likely very ancient as I purchased it used. With the Tamron lens I experienced lots of chromatic aberration (yes CA can be fixed but one sees lines at 100% view) and the focus was much slower and sometimes impossible for birds in flight in low light.

The challenges I have with the 300mm is the fixed distance, clipped wings if I'm too close or just not being able to get close enough. I also own a 1.7 teleconverter which I plan on exchanging for a 1.4 teleconvertor because my understanding is that with the 1.4 it will be easier to grab focus in low light. So still a fixed distance but easier to focus in low light which of course is typically when the birds/wildlife is most active.

I've heard that the newer telephoto lens from Sigma and Tamron are better performing than my old Tamron lens but because of my past experience with that lens, and my delight with the performance of my Nikkor 300 mm lens, my long term lens plan is to save up for the newer Nikor Telephoto lens which goes to 400 mm.

[Nicks Pics]

Manfred, Thanks for your helpful reply. I know you know your equipment and can give a good analysis of the lenses. How would you rate the image quality from either lens? Is it lacking in comparison to pro grade lenses? I am not very interested in the idea of impaired IQ, (though I have heard some decent things about the Sigma), and would rather not buy a long, but unsatisfactory lens. On the other hand, if the quality of the output from these lenses is good, why spend more? would you consider uploading a 100 % sample from one or both of the lenses that might show the performance quality?

Christina, thanks for your reply. Besides these lenses my other idea was to buy a 300 mm and a 1.4 TC, but unfortunately, to my understanding, most 300 mm zoom lenses don't work well with a TC, and a prime 300 is probably more expensive than the two longer lenses in question. Plus, as you have mentioned, the versatility of a zoom is attractive. I am concerned that 300 mm might not be long enough, especially for birds, but some of your photos help lead me to think that it can be done.

[Manfred M]

Shot with the Sigma

Croc 01 by The Grumpy Diver, on Flickr

Shot with the Nikon

Red Fox 01 by The Grumpy Diver, on Flickr

[NorthernFocus]

If you are genuinely interested in optimizing IQ, you can't beat a prime lens. With the D7100, either of the lenses you have listed will definitely be the limiting factor. I had the older version Nikon 80-400 as well as currently own the new AF-S version. I also shoot a D7100. Far and away the best performing lens that I've ever shot on the 7100 is the AF-S 300mm f4. With a 1.4x TC you have comparable focal length to the two lenses in question and far superior optics. This is purely from an IQ perspective. If the convenience of the zoom is as/more important to you as ultimate IQ, then the discussion goes into those areas. But for pure IQ on a budget, you can't beat the 300mm f4. There are plenty of them on the used market and you can pick up lens plus 1.4 TC for the same general price range as either of the lenses in question if bought new.

[Nicks Pics]

Manfred, thanks for posting those, I must say the IQ is not too shabby. Especially the detail in the foxes fur, and there isn't much CA where one may expect it.

Dan, thanks for your reply. Is this the 300mm you mentioned? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...00mm_f_4d.html I would assume that to make use of the prime lens you need a high quality TC, which one do you use? Did you find the older Nikon 80 - 400 mm to be responsive enough for wildlife, or to produce sharp images? I suppose I'm not trying to say that the ultimate best IQ of any lens is the primary objective, however, something that meets a standard of decent quality may be a requirement.

[JR1]

I have the new 80-400 NANO, so can't help there but I have owned the sigma, it is an exceedingly good lens, I would have absolutely NO hesitation in saying get it, believe me you will not regret it, I only moved up to the Siggy 150-600 Sports last year and sold the other one because I wanted the extra 100mm.

Most of my shots on my site and on www.jrs-photography.co.uk were taken on it (powerboats - surf - cyclists)

[Acorn]

I have a Sigma 150-500 and have taken some very acceptable pictures with it. However, a friend who also had the same lens has replaced it with the newer Tamron 150-600. He swears he gets more detail from the Tamron and I've seen some impressive stuff his new lens is capable of producing. Hope you don't think I've thrown a spanner in the works. Barry

[JR1]

I have a Sigma 150-500 and have taken some very acceptable pictures with it. However, a friend who also had the same lens has replaced it with the newer Tamron 150-600. He swears he gets more detail from the Tamron and I've seen some impressive stuff his new lens is capable of producing. Hope you don't think I've thrown a spanner in the works. Barry

But as the poster stated he is looking at "budget" lenses, I could suggest the better sigma 150-600 Sports at £1,600

If he wants a better lens then he should forget the hampered primes and do as you say get either the 150-600 Tam/sig or the better Sports version of the Sigma

[John 2]

Nick, I can't compare the two lenses. Even though I have generally bought Nikkor glass for my D7100, when it came to a long lens, cost was the deciding factor. I settled for the Tamron 150-600mm based on some pretty enthusiastic reviews and the fact that it was voted lens of the year at EISA. You might like to consider it as an alternative. I put it through some controlled testing and posted the results here:

Tamron 150-600mm - Part 2

If I did the same test today, I would probably lock the mirror up as well to eliminate any suggestion of camera shake affecting the displayed IQ.

The 80-400 Nikkor, at nearly twice the price, should be better but the question it posed to me was when is good , good enough. The other thing to take into account is that both are full frame lenses and any fall off in performance towards the edge of the frame on the Tamron compared to the Nikkor will not be visible on the D7100 because as a crop camera, it only uses the centre of the overall field of view.

I have not been disappointed with the Tamron, it does all I need.

Sigma have since launched their 150-600mm lens and it has received similarly good reviews. The only difference that might matter to me from what I read is that the Sigma is a more solid lens and therefore a little heavier. It's also claimed to have some moisture proofing if that is important to you.

[NorthernFocus]

...Dan, thanks for your reply. Is this the 300mm you mentioned? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...00mm_f_4d.html I would assume that to make use of the prime lens you need a high quality TC, which one do you use? Did you find the older Nikon 80 - 400 mm to be responsive enough for wildlife, or to produce sharp images? I suppose I'm not trying to say that the ultimate best IQ of any lens is the primary objective, however, something that meets a standard of decent quality may be a requirement.

Yes, that is the 300 that I'm talking about. Used with a Nikon TC-14E II there is no practical drop in IQ.

The older version 80-400 is not terrible optically. The old version of AF is extremely slow compared to modern lenses with the AF motor imbedded in the lens. That said, the only time it really manifest itself is with subjects that are moving fast either toward or away from the camera.

If you are going to go with a zoom lens the most logical thing to do is to go with one of the 150-600 options. As far as IQ, all of the supertele zooms are going to be much of a muchness. Particularly shooting with a cropped sensor camera. I doubt the average person can differentiate images taken with one versus another. If I were making a choice today between them it would be based on practical reasons and cost.

[Polar01]

Nick like some of the others I also have the older 80-400mm Nikkor lens and yes it is slow to get on focus, get lens but you have to learn what it can and cannot do. I shoot very little in the way of birds in flight, the owls this year have mainly been sitting and I get them on takeoff, if the focus misses it takes forever it seems to get it back. I have used a friend's new 80-400mm and it is blindly quick to get on focus and hold it, he often uses a teleconverter on it as it will accept one where the older model will not. To my way of thinking shooting wildlife and birds are two different things, to me wildlife are larger and slow moving when compared to birds, so using the older model for wildlife would be easier but if wanting birds I would go to the best of both world with the newer model. Now the other lens are also great problem I have little experience in using them.

Cheers: Allan

[JR1]

I accidentally started a new post when it should have been added to this one sorry

Anyone interested in a great 28-300 LCE have on pre owned, superb for a lot of wildlife shots and carry round.

London Camera Exchange Nikkor lens

[Nicks Pics]

Hi folks, thanks for the many helpful replies. I appreciate the sample photos posted. I hadn't considered the 150 - 600 mm Tamron much since my logic was that a longer lens for the same price would = lower quality, but that may not be the case. I'm considering it. I have come to notice that most of the very enthusiastic bird/wildlife photographers whose work I follow are not always using zoom lenses, but more often using brand name prime 500 mm, or other, which of course, are in a whole different boat price - wise. Plus I imagine that the lack of flexibility would be hindering in many circumstances. For those reasons, I probably won't consider a super tele prime now, and am then left with the options of super telephoto zoom, or just a 300 mm option, zoom or not. I would like a super telephoto lens, but I have not found many cases where they have been used by serious wildlife photographers, so I don't know how highly their performance is regarded or how it looks - perhaps other than those posted here.

Sample images on the web stores are fairly useless because they may be taken by photographers from any level of skill, or lack there of, and are too small to show image quality. As for the samples posted here, the crock image looks fairly good, as does the speed boat, but the swallows look a little soft.

Thank you all again for your help!

[Stagecoach]

- perhaps other than those posted here Sample images on the web stores are fairly useless because they may be taken by photographers from any level of skill, or lack there of, and are too small to show image quality. !

Nick,

I understand your predicament and it's always a problem when trying to determine WHAT a lens can achieve. One of the best sources of 'examples' I found was to look at the specific lens groups on FLCKR. You will see good and not so good taken with the same lens. The good, generally being taken by experienced users do show the capability.

It seems that in any evaluation one of the greatest hurdles is what some define as good or acceptable.

Looking at the examples posted above in post 5 & 8 which examples suggest that the 'examples' are sensible evidence of what a lens can achieve?

[Nicks Pics]

Nick,

I understand your predicament and it's always a problem when trying to determine WHAT a lens can achieve. One of the best sources of 'examples' I found was to look at the specific lens groups on FLCKR. You will see good and not so good taken with the same lens. The good, generally being taken by experienced users do show the capability.

It seems that in any evaluation one of the greatest hurdles is what some define as good or acceptable.

Looking at the examples posted above in post 5 & 8 which examples suggest that the 'examples' are sensible evidence of what a lens can achieve?

It would really take having the lens in an experienced photographers hands, and then looking at the finished product they produce with it to tell the potential in the lens. I think we have some samples above which are reliable representations. The other way would be to be able to see the actual RAW images. On web store sights, and other similar places, many sample jpegs appear to be reduced in save -quality for upload to the Internet, which also makes them look worse. Perhaps I'll check on Flikr, and keep doing research, since I don't need to be in a hurry.

[NorthernFocus]

...I hadn't considered the 150 - 600 mm Tamron much since my logic was that a longer lens for the same price would = lower quality...

Which, broadly applied, is flawed logic. For one thing, "longer" isn't necessarily more expensive nor technically difficult to build. Lenght comparison has to take into account maximum aperture. If two lenses are the same focal length AND the same aperture, and one sells for multiples less than the other, then yes, something is amiss.

There are some objective generalities that can be made regarding optical design:
1) Prime lenses are easier to design and simpler than zoom lenses. That lends itself to better optical performance.
2) Similarly, the lower the zoom ratio, the easier it is for the designer to achieve good optical performance across the zoom range. It is generally recognized that zoom ratios of 3x or less achieve optimal image quality. There are technical reasons that zoom ranges such as the traditional 24-70 and 70-200 are some of the only ones widely used by pro shooters.
3) As another general rule(and contrary to popular belief), lenses utilizing modern glass forumulations and optical coatings peform better than older ones of similar design.

So you to consider a lot more than maximum focal length. I've never owned either one but I'm willing to bet that the Tamron 150-600 will outperform the famous Sigma 50-500. Why so? Per above, you're comparing a 4x zoom to a 10x, modern glass to 15 years old, etc. Tamron would have to have blown the design pretty severly for it not to be so.

As another example, based on my own (admittedly flawed) subjective judgement, the $1500 Nikon 300mm f4 plus 1.4xTC (i.e.420mm) combination outperforms my $5000 Nikon 200-400mm VR shooting at 400mm. It pains me to say it, but having shot them side by side, so it is.

...Sample images on the web stores are fairly useless because they may be taken by photographers from any level of skill, or lack there of, and are too small to show image quality...

Making use of sample images on the web is highly dependent on ones reasons for doing so. But generally speaking, comparing random images posted by random individuals(myself included) in order to attempt and compare the relative quality of various lenses is at best a crap shoot.

[jcuknz]

To help Brown Bear I would ask will there be much difference between a x1.7 and a x1.4 tele converter in light transmission?

[Nicks Pics]

Which, broadly applied, is flawed logic. For one thing, "longer" isn't necessarily more expensive nor technically difficult to build. Lenght comparison has to take into account maximum aperture. If two lenses are the same focal length AND the same aperture, and one sells for multiples less than the other, then yes, something is amiss.

There are some objective generalities that can be made regarding optical design:
1) Prime lenses are easier to design and simpler than zoom lenses. That lends itself to better optical performance.
2) Similarly, the lower the zoom ratio, the easier it is for the designer to achieve good optical performance across the zoom range. It is generally recognized that zoom ratios of 3x or less achieve optimal image quality. There are technical reasons that zoom ranges such as the traditional 24-70 and 70-200 are some of the only ones widely used by pro shooters.
3) As another general rule(and contrary to popular belief), lenses utilizing modern glass forumulations and optical coatings peform better than older ones of similar design.

So you to consider a lot more than maximum focal length. I've never owned either one but I'm willing to bet that the Tamron 150-600 will outperform the famous Sigma 50-500. Why so? Per above, you're comparing a 4x zoom to a 10x, modern glass to 15 years old, etc. Tamron would have to have blown the design pretty severly for it not to be so.

As another example, based on my own (admittedly flawed) subjective judgement, the $1500 Nikon 300mm f4 plus 1.4xTC (i.e.420mm) combination outperforms my $5000 Nikon 200-400mm VR shooting at 400mm. It pains me to say it, but having shot them side by side, so it is.


Making use of sample images on the web is highly dependent on ones reasons for doing so. But generally speaking, comparing random images posted by random individuals(myself included) in order to attempt and compare the relative quality of various lenses is at best a crap shoot.

Thanks for the advice, much appreciated and I will keep those things in mind. The only point that confuses me is why are prime lenses, being easier to design, so much more expensive? It seems that it should be the opposite.