80-400mm - nikon or Sigma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dod
  • Start date Start date
dod

dod

TPer Emeritus
Messages
16,680
Name
Ebenezer McScrooge III
Edit My Images
Yes
Much as I would love the 200-400 the banker says no :(

So, given that the 300mm and 1.4X is a bit restrictive I think returning to a zoom will suit me better. But which one? Anyone used either or both? I know that these will probably not be as good a solution as the Canon 100-400 but needs must :)
 
Why not the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 and 1 1.4*TC ?

Unless you want the OS....

The 80-400 VR is slow to focus, a bit soft at the far end. It also entends in size as you zoom.

No experience of the Sigma 80-400
 
I have a 120-400 sigma for sale in the canon ads, only 6 months old, I'm upping to 2.8 L glass but it has served me well

Sorry didn't see the nikon bit.....
 
barneyrubble said:
Why not the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 and 1 1.4*TC ?
Click to expand...

Cost mainly. I also need to buy some new implements for my wife's sand school which weren't budgetted, last time it was a bloody horse box :(

I'll pick up one of these just now and if I don't like them it won't involve too much of a loss if I don't like it.
 
The Nikkon 80-400 is considered one of the poorest lenses they make... certainly you'll never see it reccomended for motorsport!

No idea about the Sigma one - also one though that you never hear anyone suggest...

Hire the 80-400 from Stewart? Got to be less money than buying it a flogging it on?
 
I actually took a body into a shop today (ffordes at beauly) and tried both. Interesting, here's a shot at 400mm from both, wide open. Shooting through a gap in a window at about 30m distance, roughly. Any guesses as to which is which?





100% crops from both





and a reference shot at 80mm
 
desantnik said:
The Nikkon 80-400 is considered one of the poorest lenses they make... certainly you'll never see it reccomended for motorsport!
Click to expand...

I've read that as well :) However, there's plenty don't recommend the 100-400 for motorsport and to my mind it's a better lens than the 70-200 F2.8IS ;)
 
The first shot deffo looks best - more contrasty, sharper and with better detail.... bet that's the siggy....
 
specialman said:
The first shot deffo looks best - more contrasty, sharper and with better detail.... bet that's the siggy....
Click to expand...

it's the Nikon :) I'm quite surprised by both of them to be honest, better than I'd been expecting. These were shot in RAW and apart from saving as jpeg have had no processing whatsoever.

With this "test" :gag: the sigma is definitely warmer (I prefer the colours it produces), contrast isn't quite as good and there's a tiny advantage to the NIkon in sharpness.
 
Yes, definitely more contrast in the first one...

Thats better than I would have expected too. Mind you, usually people complain its the non-AFS bit that makes it suck really badly.
 
You may also like to consider the Tokina AT-X 80-400 which is a great lens for the price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top