Superzooms!

355858

355858

Messages
679
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi guys,

I have a couple of q's. i currently have a 70-300 vr lens and was wondering if it would be woeth my while changing it to a bigger zoom? I want fx lens as plan to get d700 next yr. Is the 80-400mm nikkor lens good? Or **** i go for the 500mm sigma instead? The sigma being cheaper?

Ben
 
I did a cost / benefit analysis on the Canon 100-400mm and the Sigma 150-500mm lenses so I suspect the issues will be similar for you. I chose the Sigma due to it being much cheaper, having more reach and also having two more stops on the image stabilisation system (very important to me, probably less so for many other folk).

The Canon (and, I suspect, the Nikkor lens) has better image quality but is much, much more expensive than the Sigma.

Do you really need a lens with 400-500mm of reach? I'm a hard core wildlifer so it made sense to me. What is your main photographic interest? you may be better off with a better version of your existing 70-300mm lens, if such a beast exists.
 
A long zoom lens is for a particular use, usually wildlife and birds where you can never have enough reach. The law of increased focal length and cost are inextricably linked. In terms of pure IQ then Canon 500mm and 600mm primes for example would be the choice at a price of course. No doubt Nikon offerings are similar.

For flexibility then a 150-500 Sigma offers excellent value for money with pretty decent IQ. This is a 100% crop from mine on a Canon 7D

http://SPAM/c3whur/nov/IMG_3167-100.jpg
 
i have had 4 sigy 170-500mm in various mounts all have been very good, and better than both the siggy 150-500mm i have had, but not quite as good as my 50-500mm os i have now.
heres some pics from the 170-500mm wide open 500mm.
SJB10042a.jpg


SJB10933.jpg


150-500mm
DSC_3285.jpg

50-500mm os
SB1_0140.jpg
 
Last edited:
I know several people using the sigmas, and they all pull it back to 420ish mm, because it is sharper enough when you pull back from 500mm to actually resolve the same amount of detail at 400 as it does at 500. The sigma's certainly are excellent value for money.

I went for a 100-400 because I got an excellent new price at amazon, whether I would have bought it at full price, I don't know. I got it at the same price as they were selling the old non OS 50-500 sigma, so it was a bit of a no brainer.

The 80-400VR is considerably lighter than the sigmas, and I expect it has sharpness similar to the 100-400, but I don't think it is AF-S, so the focus might not be as fast as a sigma.

It's a tricky choice.

Unless you win the lottery.

Then you should get a 200-400mm VRII :nuts:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top