Trying to find a longer lens.Has any tried the sigma 100-400-os. or have any recomendations
Printable View
Trying to find a longer lens.Has any tried the sigma 100-400-os. or have any recomendations
[I do not know about a Sigma 100-400. I guess you meant the 50-500 or the 150-500?]
Not in this budget range, sadly.
I bought my equipment less than 6 months ago. A few months earlier, I was waiting for the release of the Canon 60D and the Nikon D7000 before choosing which devil to sell my soul to. After the release, it seemed obvious to me that the D7000 was a clear winner here. Then I went "lens hunting" to fit something appropriate for bird photography.
The only lens that fitted my budget range in the Nikon lineup was the 80-400. However every review of this lens I read burned the "slow" AF system in flames. So I ruled it out.
There there are the 50-500 and 150-500 from Sigma. The new 50-500 seemed like a possible option. However the price froze me a bit. For a similar price, I could get the Canon 100-400mm. So I looked up reviews of the 50-500 against the 100-400. The 100-400 was a clear winner here. So I decided to put my money on the glass and go with the less appealing 60D.
This whole story just to tell that in the 1-2k range for Nikon, the Sigma 50-500 seems like the only option to be considered. I'm not saying it is not good, I have seen images taken with this lens that made be drool. It's just that for the price, the Canon 100-400mm made me drool even more :bg3:
However if you are willing to invest a tad more, the Nikon 200-400 seems to be an amazing piece of glass. Same for the 600mm. However I hear my bank account screaming whenever I think about these. So the 50-500 or 150-500 might be the way to go.
Note that I'm as much as a beginner as they make it so... I would not want you to invest 2k+ based solely on my opinion :eek: But since I've been shopping for this kind of gear recently, I thought I could bring in a few points that might help.
sorry i meant the sigma 120-400 os,
Owh, I had actually forgot this one even existed :2eyes2:
I am still speaking without any actual experience with any of these lenses so... if anyone actually has,
<subliminal message="">
[subliminal message]
it might bring some interesting input into this discussion
</subliminal>[/subliminal message]
Hmpf.
Okay so, the 120-400.
To summarize quickly: I mentioned in my previous post that I decided to go against the 80-400 VR because of the criticisms toward its slow AF system. I found out later, when I started to look at Sigma products, about the 120-400. The reviews I read about this lens actually pushed me back toward the 80-400. I remember this review especially:
http://www.lenstip.com/203.11-Lens_r...M_Summary.html
The 2 "cons" that got me to drop this lens (especially the 2nd point):
- too weak image quality at 400 mm
- mediocre accuracy of the focusing mechanism.
Considering that I'm shooting 90% of the time at 400mm, and that focus accuracy is critical, especially with such long lenses with a very narrow DOF, these 2 points were killers for what I had in mind (bird photography, eh).
Based on reviews and readings, I would go with either the Sigma 50-500 (the newest with OS), Sigma 150-500 (same) or the Nikon 80-400 (much lighter than the 2 other ones). They are more expensive, but I think it could be worth it.
As of which one, well.... Input from someone with experienced required here.
I use the sigma 120-400 on my nikon d90 (and briefly on d40). I would say, for the price, that the results are quite reasonable.
I paid about 700 euros for the lens, so it's a lot less than the 50-500 or canon 100-400 and especially nikon options (with AF-S equivalent and VR).
I went for the 120-400 over the 150-500 based pretty much on the max aperture at 400, which is 5.6 for the 120-400 but only 6.3 for the 150-500.
Stopped down to f8 and when focus is nailed, it is really quite surprisingly sharp, but as P-A says, focus isn't always perfect. Apparently the lens is also heavier than other lenses in its class, although exactly what is supposed to be in its class at 400mm f5.6 af-s vr under 1000 euro I'm not sure....
You can see a wide selection of mu images with this lens here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffwarnock/
and here's a recent example!
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6060/...b5f07d79_z.jpg
green finch flight 2 by Geoff Warnock, on Flickr
just realised that the above photo isn't at 400mm, so since the discussion revolves around that a bit, here is one at 400:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/geoffwarnock/5715111511/
Thanks for the input. Nice images by the way.
As of the "weight in its class", the point that puts it somehow in its own category is clearly its lower price. But it is a bit heavy, just like all the Sigma telephoto zooms in fact.
Canon 100-400: 1380g
Nikon 80-400: 1332g
Sigma 120-400: 1750g
Sigma 50-500: 1970g
Sigma 150-500: 1910g
Are you using the lens on a tripod or handheld?
your list highlights the weight point well, thanks.
my preference these days is to use a monopod with tilt-head, but hand hold where speed or convenience come into it more. The grebe on the nest above was shot from a tripod with ball head, and using live view to nail focus.
the tripod collar on the lens is very sturdy and well reviewed, and also functions well as a carry handle. it is rather big, which does hamper packing the lens a bit.
another point, which i only recently found a plausible explanation for, is that wide-open there can be some 'internal flare', which manifests as a diffuse blur coming off highlight edges. I've not been able to find any mention about this for the other lenses, but as I say, it wasn't mentioned anywhere for the 120-400 either.
Well that sigma doesnt sound so great anymore,,,So that leaves me with: 300f4+1.4 or 80-400vr or 70-300vr +1.4...Ime leaning towards 300f4+1.7 +D7000..anyone shoot this optionQuote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Warnock
the point really is that the sigma 120-400 is still some half of the price of the lens options for 400 f5.6 that you have there (70-300+TC will be manual focus at 420mm...). My suspicion is that an up to date body with focus microadjust like the D7000 will get good images with the 120-400.
Spending time on here comparing my images to ones taken with 8-10000 euro/dollar lenses like the 500/600 f4 can be frustrating, but that's a whole different story!
Thanks Geoff,, Your images look great,,, Have you ever tried 300f4 +1.7?
Thanks Brian. I haven't tried the 300 f4 unfortunately, but I have seen good results with it and 1.4 on here.
Do take a look at Daniel's images :) http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...Daniel-CadieuxQuote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Warnock
These give me strength and hope :) Also Adrian, Stuart Bowie ...
I dont really want a 10000$ lens,,,I can just learn to get closer...is their a difference in pictuer qaulity when using a 300-f4 or a 500-f4...? with or without converters?
I suspect there is a reason why 500 f4 costs a little more than 300 f4... as usual I think it will depend a bit on what you plan to do with your photos, sell, print, sizes etc.
So geoff,,,you think a photo shot with a 500f4is higher qaulity than shot with a 300f4,,,cause it costs more ? anyone else whant to wade in on this,,
300mm f/4 is one fine piece of glass...it works pretty well with 1.4X. I have seen some incredible images taken with it. I have 500mm and sometimes when I do not take extra efforts to get closer to my subject come home with mediocre images to show.
So getting close to subject is one of the most important aspect in this whole game...But in some situations that is not possible and these are the times when long tele lenses come in to play. but you can let go of such situations...
I really believe one should make best use of what they have in hand...I started with 55-200 and then 100-400, Which my wife still uses and makes wonderful pictures.She likes the mobility and not interested in tripod and long lens (She makes the call on what she wants to use - 500 or 1-400 :S3:).
At same locations she has taken many more interesting pictures which I simply could not because I was using a tripod and 500mm
I love my Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G lens. It will be perfect for D7000
