Lens upgrade - Nikon 70-300 x Nikon 55-300 x Sigma 150-500 - Any thoughts?

[Otavio]

Dear fellows,

I am thinking about upgrading my Sigma APO DG Macro 70-300mm. Reasons: Lack of stabilization (VR on Nikons) and supposed lower optical quality.

Three Lens came to my mind, each of them with Positive aspects, as well as negative ones. All the three lens are below USD 1,000.00, which is what I am accepting to spend for a Hobby right now. I would appreciate any comments from you. They will surely help me making my mind.

1 - Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR:
Positive: FX format (although I am not sure if I would go to a full frame in the future); related superior optics, manual focus override, superior building quality (mechanics), VR, filters wont turn while focusing (internal focus)
Negative: more expensive than the Nikkor AF-S 55-300 VR; a bit heavier
Price: Around USD 450

2 - Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX:
Positive: It has a VR over my current Sigma; Covers the range from 55 to 70mm (although this is not a big deal); the cheapest of the three options listed
Negative: I've heard its optics are not as good as the Nikkor 70-300 above; slower autofocus, lower construction quality
Price: Around USD 280

3 - Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM
Positive: Ultra long reach (500mm) for an interesting price (that would mean 750mm FFE on my D5200); many reviews qualifying its optical quality as very good; Optical Stabilization (OS); FX format;
Negative: The most expensive of the 3 options; the heavier of them; gap of coverage from 55mm to 150mm focal length;
Price: Around USD 800

As you know, I shoot most nature/birds. Although I am sure any of the 3 options would bring me some improvement over my current Sigma 70-300 (mainly the stabilization), I am not sure about which one would be the best option, considering the "cost-effective" side of the deal, as the 3 options have differerents pros and cons. Any thoughts on this are welcomed. Thank you.

Cheers,

[tclune]

I have two of the three lenses you are considering. For birding, I use the Sigma 150-500. It has been a good lens for that, although I would almost assuredly buy the Tamron 150-600 instead now. That lens is almost the same price but is optically noticeably superior. The new Sigma 150-600 is supposedly even better than the Tamron, but is almost twice the price. At that amount of money, there are various options that might be worth serious consideration for birding. But, to my mind, for the approximately $1000 price, the new Tamron is the clear winner. For anything in this focal range, you need to up your game a lot, though. I was the weak link in the system with my Sigma when I stepped up from a 70-300 for birding until I got clear on how much more demanding these long lenses are. And, of course, there is no substitute for getting close -- no matter what focal length you use.
Long lenses are also very heavy. It's a pain to lug them into the field. Between their need for great stability and their heavy weight, they really change how you shoot. I have evolved a monopod-only style for most birding because I just don't want to carry a stable enough tripod into the field very far when I'm also lugging the lens and camera. You will evolve your own approach, but it will probably be quite different than what you use with the shorter lens.
The Nikon 70-300 is my least-favorite lens It is OK, but nothing special. One of these days, I will dump that lens and get the truly wonderful Nikon 70-200 f/4. But that is a pricy piece of glass. There really aren't any budget lenses at the xx-300 range that are particularly exciting AFAIK. I would suggest living with the one you have until you can afford a lens you really want to live with, and my candidates would be the Tammy for birding or the Nikon 70-200 f/4 (possibly with a TC for make-do mediocrity when birding) for just about anything you'd want to use that focal range for. FWIW

[JR1]

I have the 80-400 Nikkor "NANO", and the Sigma 150-600, and would say they are the best available (IN MY opinion), for sports and birding, however I also had the 150-500 up to a month or so back before the 150-600, and you will loooooove it.

[NorthernFocus]

Hi,Otavio. Lens decisions are always tough. Have you reviewed your images to see what focal length you typically shoot? Specifically for birding my bet is you'll find you shoot as long as possible. With that in mind and with your desired budget, the Tamron 150/600 seems logical. If you find you do always shoot the long end you may also consider the Nikon 300 f4. That would be optically superior to anything else in that price range. Later you could add a 1.4TC. One downside is no VR.

[Manfred M]

We have both the old Nikon 80-400mm and the Sigma 150-500mm. Optically, both are okay, but not outstanding, but likely a step up from what you are shooting now. The old Nikkor would not be a good fit for your camera, as it requires an in-camera focus motor. It has been replaced with an updated version that is getting excellent reviews, but is quite expensive.

The Sigma is a bit dated too, as others have noted. It has a bit of a checkered quality history (there have been bad production batches, more so when the lens was new). Ours has gone back to Sigma twice for repairs (total failure of onboard electonics / focus system), but has been behaving ever since. Of the three you propose, I would certainly suggest that this would be the lens you should go for, but as others have said, there are better, newer options out there, albeit at a higher price. One other issue with the Sigmas is that they turn in the opposite direction from the Nikkors to focus, which is a minor annoyance.

[Shadowman]

I tried the Sigma 150-500mm for a couple of hours, liked it a lot, didn't get a chance to swing it at any BIF, it is very heavy but I was able to get some handheld shots. Wouldn't recommend using it handheld for longer than a few hours.

[IzzieK]

My choice will be for the Sigma. I tried birding with the 70-300 and there are many times it just doesn't cut it.

[ajohnw]

I think you should add the Tamron 150-600mm to the list but make sure you are happy about size and weight but if ok with the sigma 500 that's unlikely to be a problem. Optically I don't think you could go wrong with this lens.

There is also the 2 Sigma 150-600mm now. Weather proof and not weather proof. There has always been some debate about the Tamron 200-500mm against the Sigma 150-500mm. Tamron's problem was the lack of image stabilisation - not any more but the Sigma's are another alternative.

Nikon to 300mm. Some feel that there is little difference between the models. I have used my 55-300mm at 300mm and the only problem was the usual one - longer would be better.

John
-

[Otavio]

Thanks to everybody for the valuable feedback received so far. While reading some reviews, I am starting to consider the Sigma 120-400 4.5-5.6 APO HSM OS as a 4th option. Would anybody comment on this lens? It costs about U$800 now. Cheers,

[mrinmoyvk]

Dear fellows,

I am thinking about upgrading my Sigma APO DG Macro 70-300mm. Reasons: Lack of stabilization (VR on Nikons) and supposed lower optical quality.

Three Lens came to my mind, each of them with Positive aspects, as well as negative ones. All the three lens are below USD 1,000.00, which is what I am accepting to spend for a Hobby right now. I would appreciate any comments from you. They will surely help me making my mind.

1 - Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR:
Positive: FX format (although I am not sure if I would go to a full frame in the future); related superior optics, manual focus override, superior building quality (mechanics), VR, filters wont turn while focusing (internal focus)
Negative: more expensive than the Nikkor AF-S 55-300 VR; a bit heavier
Price: Around USD 450

2 - Nikon 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX:
Positive: It has a VR over my current Sigma; Covers the range from 55 to 70mm (although this is not a big deal); the cheapest of the three options listed
Negative: I've heard its optics are not as good as the Nikkor 70-300 above; slower autofocus, lower construction quality
Price: Around USD 280

3 - Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM
Positive: Ultra long reach (500mm) for an interesting price (that would mean 750mm FFE on my D5200); many reviews qualifying its optical quality as very good; Optical Stabilization (OS); FX format;
Negative: The most expensive of the 3 options; the heavier of them; gap of coverage from 55mm to 150mm focal length;
Price: Around USD 800

As you know, I shoot most nature/birds. Although I am sure any of the 3 options would bring me some improvement over my current Sigma 70-300 (mainly the stabilization), I am not sure about which one would be the best option, considering the "cost-effective" side of the deal, as the 3 options have differerents pros and cons. Any thoughts on this are welcomed. Thank you.

Cheers,

Not sure about other two lenses but Nikon 55-300 is one of the worst lenses Nikon has made till date. Rather consider 55-200 but never 55-300. Autofocus is hell lot slow and in dark it just cannot find on what it has to focus. It takes atleast 2-3 seconds to focus on a subject 100-200 feet away when lighting is poor.

[Polar01]

Mrinmoy, if you want a slow to focus lens try the older 80-400mm not the new one it is blindly fast. As to the speed that it takes to focus depends on two things, the speed in which the lens moves to the correct focus and the ability of the auto focus system of the camera to lock on focus. That 55-300mm, put it on a D4s or D750 and used in poor light will be slow compared to say a 70-300mm on those to same cameras which is known as a fast focusing lens. Put that same 70-300mm lens on your D5200 in poor light and it will be a slower than if it was on one of the other two cameras. The auto focus system on the D5200 in poor light is crap same as the D600 (which I own) compared to that of the other two. The speed that a camera and lens focuses depends on the combination of the two items, to say that it is all the fault of one components (lens) is incorrect.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

You reckon Nrinmoy. There is a lot of difference in price between the 200mm F2.8's and the 55-300mm. I would go for the F4 anyway as it focus breaths the right way and doesn't weigh as much.

As to the 55-300mm 3 casual shots, jpg's. What's been done to them - very very little. Conditions poor. A D700 so I suspect your focusing time might just be down to the camera. My screw focus 300mm focuses quicker than that.











John
-

[ajohnw]

The duck shot was cropped from this. Gives some idea of distances.



John
-

[mrinmoyvk]

Mrinmoy, if you want a slow to focus lens try the older 80-400mm not the new one it is blindly fast. As to the speed that it takes to focus depends on two things, the speed in which the lens moves to the correct focus and the ability of the auto focus system of the camera to lock on focus. That 55-300mm, put it on a D4s or D750 and used in poor light will be slow compared to say a 70-300mm on those to same cameras which is known as a fast focusing lens. Put that same 70-300mm lens on your D5200 in poor light and it will be a slower than if it was on one of the other two cameras. The auto focus system on the D5200 in poor light is crap same as the D600 (which I own) compared to that of the other two. The speed that a camera and lens focuses depends on the combination of the two items, to say that it is all the fault of one components (lens) is incorrect.

Cheers: Allan

Agree to the point that focusing speed depends on both, lens and camera's focusing system. But 55-200 is much better than 55-300. I have tried both mine 55-300 and friend's 55-200 lenses on mine D5200 as well as friend's D90. On both cameras, 55-200 was much faster as compared to 55-300.

Comparing same lens on different bodies is of no use unless one has multiple bodies. It is better to compare multiple lenses on same body and as Otávio Oliveira seems to have D5200, 55-300 is of no use.

I returned my 55-300 in couple of days when I found Coolpix L820 to be faster than it in same conditions.

[Manfred M]

Agree to the point that focusing speed depends on both, lens and camera's focusing system. But 55-200 is much better than 55-300. I have tried both mine 55-300 and friend's 55-200 lenses on mine D5200 as well as friend's D90. On both cameras, 55-200 was much faster as compared to 55-300.

Comparing same lens on different bodies is of no use unless one has multiple bodies. It is better to compare multiple lenses on same body and as Otávio Oliveira seems to have D5200, 55-300 is of no use.

I think you may find that this is a camera / subject matter issue, rather than a lens issue. The camera has to determine what to focus on and if there is a lot of extraneous matter in the image and you have chosen a complex (matrix) focus mode rather than a point focus mode. A longer lens will tend to take a lot longer to lock focus as it analyses the image (and will often choose the wrong focus point).

I have both the 55-200mm lens and the orignal screw drive 80-400mm Nikkor (plus the 150-500mm Sigma). Focusing with a long lens takes a different technique than a shorter focal length one. I suspect you are seeing a techique issue, rather than a camera / lens issue. Try using a point focus setting when using the 55-300mm lens and see if that gives you a faster focus time. I suspect it will.

[mrinmoyvk]

I think you may find that this is a camera / subject matter issue, rather than a lens issue. The camera has to determine what to focus on and if there is a lot of extraneous matter in the image and you have chosen a complex (matrix) focus mode rather than a point focus mode. A longer lens will tend to take a lot longer to lock focus as it analyses the image (and will often choose the wrong focus point).

I have both the 55-200mm lens and the orignal screw drive 80-400mm Nikkor (plus the 150-500mm Sigma). Focusing with a long lens takes a different technique than a shorter focal length one. I suspect you are seeing a techique issue, rather than a camera / lens issue. Try using a point focus setting when using the 55-300mm lens and see if that gives you a faster focus time. I suspect it will.

Now I don't have 55-300 to try, its almost an year now since I had tried these lenses when I had bought 55-300, so I don't remember even what focusing point was I using at that time. Quite possible it was on auto, but whatever it was, it was same for both lenses.

[Otavio]

Thanks, again, to everybody for the useful comments. I ended up going for the Nikon 70-300 ED VR. The better focus speed, the Internal focus system, the manual focus override and being a FX lens played a role here.

I am still to receive it. As soon as I get it, I might share some shots.

Thank you!

[rpcrowe]

I am SURPRISED, since NIKON and CANON are always competing, that NIKON has never introduced a lens to compete with the CANON EF 400mm F.5.6L lens. This lens, is relatively light in weight: 2.75 lb (1.25 kg) and has excellent autofocus capability and superb IQ. I purchased this lens along with a Canon 300mm f/4L IS lens for the price of a new EF 100-400MM f/4.5-5.6L IS lens, several years ago.

IMO, it is one of the best BIF lenses on the market...

[Dave Humphries]

I am SURPRISED, since NIKON and CANON are always competing, that NIKON has never introduced a lens to compete with the CANON EF 400mm F.5.6L lens. This lens, is relatively light in weight: 2.75 lb (1.25 kg) and has excellent autofocus capability and superb IQ.

Yes, it is a shame isn't it.

As a Nikon shooter, I have the 70-300mm and do crave a bit more reach with good IQ.
Having already got 300mm, I am therefore reluctant to get the 300mm prime that Christina shoots so well with since it gives me no reach advantage over what I already own - but if a reasonable price and weight 400mm were available .....

I hope you enjoy your new lens Otávio, it is a good lens, but mine gives better bokeh at f/8 and f/11, than wide open (f/5.6).

[ajohnw]

I suspect Nikon call it a 300mm F4 plus a 1.4x converter which according to tests works rather well. Unfortunately the same can't be said for the 2x. Noticeable drop in performance. There usually is when these are used though.

Biggest problem as I see it is lack of image stabilisation. The 300mm F4 is well over due an upgrade.

Johh
-