Printable View
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
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.
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.
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.
Hi Nancy - I am going to get the 120-300 on approval and see what its like Will let you know what I think.
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.
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.
Hi Michael - is the 200-400 a lot faster to focus than the Sigma 500?
Thanks for the opinions very imformative.
