Sigma 500 F4.5 VS Nikon 200-400

[Lance Peters]

Hi - Has anyone used both of these lenses??? I have the Sigma 500mm F4.5 (Whch needs a service).

I have 200-400 Lust - LOL. Just wondering if the 200-400 is a huge improvement over the Sigma?
(The VR of the 200-400 is attractive for handheld BIF)

Size wise is the 200-400 biger or smaller than the Nikon 200-400.

All opinions valued.

thanks

[Nancy A Elwood]

Lance I have never used the Sigma. But, when I was looking at the BIG lens purchase, I also looked at the 200-400, but ended up getting the Nikon 500 f4, the AFSII model. If a lot of your work is with birds, as mine is, 400 is not quite enough, so now you have to put a TC on. That is why I decided on the 500 and boy I have never looked back. Plus the Nikon 500 accepts the 1.4 TC very well. The VR is nice but the reach is everything, and since I use a tripod with this type of lens, find not having VR, not really an issue. Anyway, those are my thoughts.

[Lance Peters]

I am actually wondering if I would not be better off with a Sigma 300 F2.8 with a 2x converter which would give me a 600mm F5.6 autofocus. The reviews I am seeing on the 2.8 are encouraging.

[Nancy A Elwood]

I have a 300 2.8 and TC's and still went for the 500. There just is no comparison, IMHO. I am not a fan of 2x TC's. I think Canon has the only descent one. Nikon's not so. For the weight I can understand, but man I would not trade my 500 for nothing, or leave home without it. Plus, my understanding is Sigma's 120-300 2.8 is sharper than their straight 300 2.8.

[Lance Peters]

Hi Nancy - I am going to get the 120-300 on approval and see what its like Will let you know what I think.

[Sid Garige]

I used 120-300mm 2.8 and 500mm 4.5 with canon few year back. All my current work is with 200-400mm now.

200-400mm and 500mm 4.5 are about the same in both weight and size. 120-300mm 2.8 may be a little bit heavier.

Other than price, 200-400mm out performs both lenses in focus speed, sharpness and image quality. Also auto focus with 1.7x and image quality is great compared to sigma.

[MichaelM]

Although this is my first post here, I have a bit of experience with the lenses in question..

I have the Sigma 500/4.5, the 300/2.8 and both matching TC's, and have shot with the 200-400VR..

The 300 with the 2x TC can work in a pinch. It isn't great, it's usable.. I have plenty of images to support this. I purchsed the 2X TC at a point when I was reluctant to spend the money on anything more and truth be told I was happy with it for quite a while. But it's isn't going to get through golden light without a fuss.

Enter the 500/4.5. IQ is awesome. Build is on par with the other Sigma EX lenses. Focus speed is far better than the 300 wih the TC's. Size is about the same as the 200-400VR. For me, the loss of a third of a stop and no VR, when I shoo this 100% of the time from a tripod, was a reasonable trade off to gain 100mm without a TC, and have a few bucks in my pocket. Plus I was deeply entrenched in the Sigma line so it was a natural for me. My only complaint is the lack of removable tripod foot. The foot is real solid, and the action is smooth, but a lower profile foot would have been welcome. I had to replace the RRS B87 Flash bracket because it didn't clear the barrel of the 500.

As far as the 200-400.. It's a real gem. Brutally fast to focus. True it has VR and it's very hand-holdable, and a third stop faster but to get to 500 you lose the advantage. At some point, I will probably trade off all my sigma stuff for equivalent VR kit, but for now the 500 trumps the 300 + TC's by a long margin.

[Lance Peters]

Hi Michael - is the 200-400 a lot faster to focus than the Sigma 500?

Thanks for the opinions very imformative.