dxo tested new 80-400

Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
certainly not directed at you Dino...

once again another reason to NOT read reviews, test lenses or AF adjust them, shoot em and keep them, return them or sell them

I have been shooting the new 80-400 on the new D7100 and it screams IQ, comparing very well to the big boys, 300,400 and 500vr
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
Hmmm, doesn't fare too well either on the D700 which I think is FX :wink:, not as good as the old one. Perhaps prior to making any broad judegments FX vs DX we should wait until testing is done with the "new" DX models. Interesting to note how different the results are between the different bodies.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,559
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I don't think the 80-400 VR II is a bad lens, but at it's current asking price it's kind of a tough buy in my opinion. I just picked up the 300 f/4 AFS (again) and for the price it's a much better value in my opinion.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
As far as worth the price considering flexibility, cost, and IQ, it is quite lopsided in favor of the 80-400 and i have shot a 300/4 for many years

I predict you will buy another 80-400 someday
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
88
Location
Austin, TX
As far as worth the price considering flexibility, cost, and IQ, it is quite lopsided in favor of the 80-400 and i have shot a 300/4 for many years

I predict you will buy another 80-400 someday

In the end I reached that conclusion as well.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2008
Messages
467
Location
Canada
Compared side by side. I'm sticking to the Sigma 50-500 OS. sharper at near focus, but not quite as good at far far distance. VR not quite as good as the Nikkor. But the wider at 50 and extra 100mm's at the end clinch it for me.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Compared side by side. I'm sticking to the Sigma 50-500 OS. sharper at near focus, but not quite as good at far far distance. VR not quite as good as the Nikkor. But the wider at 50 and extra 100mm's at the end clinch it for me.

did you compare them side by side
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
4,976
Location
Collecchio, northern Italy
Lol, you already know what I think about reviews, however since it's a hot lens, I thought you might be interested in reading it :)
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
28
Location
California
I've never used a Sigma 50-500 is the AF even close to the 80-400? The 80-400 AF's faster then the 120-300 OS based on using both.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
I've never used a Sigma 50-500 is the AF even close to the 80-400? The 80-400 AF's faster then the 120-300 OS based on using both.

When some folks (Randy/Jim) told me how good this lens was I thought they were nuts, until I actually tried the darned thing. Focus is as good as my 200-400. Even with the TC1.4 mounted. I have also had the older Sigma 120-300, and that puppy was no slouch at AF speed either, darned near as good as the Nikons, I personally felt that the high-end Sigmas were 90-95% of the Nikons. I used both the 500 f4.5 and the 120-300 f2.8 for a number of years.

I suspect that the same would be true of the 50-500 as well, that the Nikon will still AF a bit faster. As with all these zooms, you don't get exactly 400mm from the Nikon, nor do you get 500mm from the Sigma. Most reviews I have read state about 385 for the Nikon and 465 or so for the Sigma.

So, why would I still buy the 80-400 over the Sigma?

1. Faster max aperture, 5.6 vs 6.3. With a 1.4 TC I can still AF with never Nikon bodies.
2. Filter size. The Sigma is 95mm I believe, adds $$$ and not easy to use filters on other lenses
3. Somewhat faster AF
4. Somewhat better IQ

What is in favor of the Sigma?
1. Wider range
2. $1,000 less
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,002
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
When some folks (Randy/Jim) told me how good this lens was I thought they were nuts, until I actually tried the darned thing. Focus is as good as my 200-400. Even with the TC1.4 mounted. I have also had the older Sigma 120-300, and that puppy was no slouch at AF speed either, darned near as good as the Nikons, I personally felt that the high-end Sigmas were 90-95% of the Nikons. I used both the 500 f4.5 and the 120-300 f2.8 for a number of years.

I suspect that the same would be true of the 50-500 as well, that the Nikon will still AF a bit faster. As with all these zooms, you don't get exactly 400mm from the Nikon, nor do you get 500mm from the Sigma. Most reviews I have read state about 385 for the Nikon and 465 or so for the Sigma.

So, why would I still buy the 80-400 over the Sigma?

1. Faster max aperture, 5.6 vs 6.3. With a 1.4 TC I can still AF with never Nikon bodies.
2. Filter size. The Sigma is 95mm I believe, adds $$$ and not easy to use filters on other lenses
3. Somewhat faster AF
4. Somewhat better IQ

What is in favor of the Sigma?
1. Wider range
2. $1,000 less

i used to have a non OS 50-500, complete junk

I don't think a 10x zoom can come close to a 5x zoom especially a sigma vs a nikon....there i said it and I feel better:smile:
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,476
Location
Lompoc, CA
certainly not directed at you Dino...

once again another reason to NOT read reviews, test lenses or AF adjust them, shoot em and keep them, return them or sell them

I have been shooting the new 80-400 on the new D7100 and it screams IQ, comparing very well to the big boys, 300,400 and 500vr

Nothing wrong with geeking out over MTF curves and test shots, its just that is a different hobby than photography. :wink:
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
144
Location
Clearwater
did you compare them side by side

I did a quick comparison of the AFS 80-400 with my Sigma 50-500 OS at 400mm. The AFS 80-400 is sharper, the AF is faster and the new VR is amazing.

I was able to shoot the 80-400 at 400mm handheld about the same sharpness as the 50-500 OS on a tripod. This really impressed me. The 50-500 OS is pretty good and I am happy with the images, but IMO the AFS 80-400 is better, at least at 400mm, except for tripod mount....really poor design!!
 
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
3,522
Location
North East, UK
Real Name
Colin Carter
well, guys you had better believe it but the new 80-400 is up there with the 300vr. I took it to a motorsport event at the weekend and the image quality and autofocus speed is indistinguishable from the 300 f2.8 and af speed is better than the 300 f4.

the sigma 50-500 is junk is comparison

8994055335_3bd29c2fde_c.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
586
Location
Lagrange, OH
Not to add fuel to the fire here but since I'm still a total newbie at understanding the highly technical aspects I'll just ask the silly question:

If you are going to compare the Nikon 80-400 to a Sigma lens (which of COURSE the Nikon will stomp it rather strongly)...would it not make more sense to compare it to the Sigma 120-400mm instead of the 50-500? Kind keep the focal length classes somewhat similar for a "true" comparison. Again, I'm sure the Nikon will win hands down but just wanted to put this out there...mostly also because I'm pondering the Sigma 120-400 as the next potential purchase if I can't get my conscious to be OK with dropping $3K on a piece of glass and metal.

Thanks in advance for tolerating my technical inexperience.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,134
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Not to add fuel to the fire here but since I'm still a total newbie at understanding the highly technical aspects I'll just ask the silly question:

If you are going to compare the Nikon 80-400 to a Sigma lens (which of COURSE the Nikon will stomp it rather strongly)...would it not make more sense to compare it to the Sigma 120-400mm instead of the 50-500? Kind keep the focal length classes somewhat similar for a "true" comparison. Again, I'm sure the Nikon will win hands down but just wanted to put this out there...mostly also because I'm pondering the Sigma 120-400 as the next potential purchase if I can't get my conscious to be OK with dropping $3K on a piece of glass and metal.

Thanks in advance for tolerating my technical inexperience.

The Sigma 120-400 would be the comparison that comes to mind immediately - but most folks say the 50-500 and 150-500 are actually better than the 120-400, and therefore more worthy opponents of the Nikon :smile:

Cheers

Mike
 

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom