Rent Nik 80-400 or Sig 50-500??

Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,035
Location
Upstate SC
Looking to rent one or the other for a few days of shooting birds on the beach. It'll be the most current version of either and I don't have the budget to get what I really want (500/4 or 200-400/4). I could get either of these shipped round trip for around $100.

Which one is "better"?

Will be on a tripod and also on a "slider" at ground level. Will be used on a D700.

Thanks!
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
3,053
Location
Mohawk Valley, New York , USA
Don't if it's available to you but you also might want to think about a Tamron 200-500 ....
I used one at Yellowstone last year and it gave decent results ... first time I'd every used it or any long telephoto so I'm sure I could improve my results simply by being more familiar with it ....
The problem I've read so much about with Sigma is the variations in lens quality ... some will give great results others not very good ...


ron
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
6,035
Location
Upstate SC
Hey Randy - thanks. That's what I was sort of leaning towards, but my ADD has kicked in and now I'm thinking renting the 300/4 may be a better option. Also thinking about renting the tc2iii to try out on the 70-200ii. I see mixed results, but the rental is pretty cheap...

Ron, thanks for the suggestion. Only Sigma and Nikon are available or I'd look that one up.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
2,483
Location
Missouri
the 80-400 easy....the 50-500 is junk
focus speed will be a prob at 1st but you will get the hang of it
The new 50-500 with OS? I've heard and seen a lot of good things out of the new one...I know the old one had some quality issues though.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,520
Location
Orlando, FL
Nikon 80-400 - better IQ, glacially slow AF
Sigma 50-500 - little longer, decent IQ on a good sample (not as good as the Nikon), pretty good AF (not great).

For stationary birds - the 80-400. For BIF, probably the Sigma due to AF speed
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
2,483
Location
Missouri
Yeah, it would be the newest version with OS. Still not sure what I'm doing, but time's running out so I have to decide!
Yeah, I was asking Randy if he was referring to the newest OS version because his comment is opposite of everything I've heard about the new one.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
124
Location
Guam
I have the latest OS version and it is pretty good. Though I haven't really tried it outside on a sunny day, it gave me decent shot indoors at my son's school program on a monopod.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
440
Location
North Vancouver, Canada
I haven't tried the 80-400, but I had the 50-500 os for two weeks. I returned it because I thought the colour and contrast was lacking in the long end. I took it to the zoo and a bird sanctuary to test it out. it was my first experience with long glass, so I probably didn't get the most out of it. here's a couple examples


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bigma OS 210mm 320iso f/11 1/250 by Izithombe, on Flickr

partially cropped, on tripod with remote release
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bigma OS 500mm 200iso f/8 1/400 by Izithombe, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bigma OS Duck 420mm 200iso f-8 1-640 by Izithombe, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Bigma/OS-500mm-f8-iso200 by Izithombe, on Flickr

I'm not an experienced bird shooter either, so my bif attempts turning out oof is probably not only the AFs fault
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,444
Location
Boston, MA
Those 50-500 shots look like others I've seen from the lens - they're fine, they just don't pop like shots from something like a 300 f/4.

I don't think I'd be happy with those after paying $1600.
 
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
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom