Sigma Zoom Telephoto 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 EX APO OS

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Dragonflydm, Jun 20, 2005.

  1. Has anyone used this lens? For the price and the reach if the optics aren't half bad, it might be worth me looking into... so I am.

    anyone?
     
  2. Ken-L

    Ken-L Guest

    A comparison with the Nikon 80-400VR would be interesting.

    The Nikon is 2.9lbs, 6.7"x3.6"
    The Sigma is 3.6lbs, 7.5"x3.7" which is 25% heavier than the Nikon and an inch longer.

    Just for comparison the Sigma 50-500 Bigma is 7.5" long (3.7" wide) and weighs 4.1lbs.

    The reviews I read mention the Sigma as being "heavy". It is also about $400 lighter than the Nikon, but likely to lose that in resale.

    New Nikons are going for about $1,300-1,400, used $900-1000. The sigma is about $900 new, and I have not seen any for sale used yet.

    Let us know what you learn.
     
  3. From what I understand the Nikon 80-400 works on first generation VR and that the Sigma OS is supposidly as good as the 70-200 VR or even better.

    I have read that is it no AFS USM speed on focus and that it is a monster lens--- but after so many years with the 80-200 push-pull, I am used to big lenses.

    I really prefer fast glass to VR...but for the reach of the lens it is worth looking into.
     
  4. Ken-L

    Ken-L Guest

    For me the question is, do I want to "save" $400 more than I want a smaller, lighter lens.

    I KNOW that I want a smaller, lighter lens, and the Sigma 80-400 (½ pound lighter), is virtually the same dimensions as the 50-500 Bigma which IS too heavy for me.
     
  5. cwilt

    cwilt

    Apr 24, 2005
    Denver, CO
    I have been considering the 80-400's from both companies and I think its going to come down to sharpness, contrast, and color. Money verus weight is a trade off for me. I need VR/OS to get sharp handheld shots with the D2x. This weekend I ran into a situation where my 300/f4 did not have enough reach and 400 would have been nice. I am sure the 80-400's won't be as sharp when used on a tripod but I am betting the VR/OS would make up the difference when being handheld on the 2x for me.
     
  6. JeffKohn

    JeffKohn

    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    The thing that's holding me back from the 80-400 VR/OS is lack of AF-S/HSM. The thing holding me back from the the Bigma is lack of OS. After getting used to the 70-200VR I really want both.

    There has been speculation/wishful thinking about an updated 80-400VR with latest VR tech and AF-S added, I would love to see that happen but who knows when/if it will.
     
  7. IF they put out a new 80-400 with newer VR and AFS then the older version will drop in price enough for us poor working photographers.

    But from everything I have read the OS is much better than the VR in performance.

    Also..I was never really all that impressed with the VR on the 70-200. I mean it works..but by the time you get to a speed that you NEEDED the vibration reduction...there were usually other issue to consider.

    For example.. VR will not fix DOF issues, subject movement, excessive camera shake, occasionally does not to be "too stable" like on a tripod.

    VR really only helped me for slow movement at a medium distance (like 70-135 area and occasionally at 200). Eventually, you ask too much from VR. You get angry when you are shooting at 1/15th handheld at 200mm shooting into the sun.

    What you get is ghosting and camera shake even VR won't fix.

    The 70-200 was soft wide open also, and combined with the ghosting issues....I sold it.

    Now the 80-200 was sharp wide open with no ghosting. Shooting at f/2.8 gave you a fast shutter to stop motion. Unfortunately, the push pull had no bracket to put on a monopod and the all versions of the lens had a habit of hunting.

    I find at AFS doesn't really get me as excited as the rest of you guys. It is really nice, but not so critical that I am missing shots.
     
  8. ckdamascus

    ckdamascus

    928
    May 14, 2005
    New Jersey
    The only reason I would want the 70-200mm VR is because it is sharper than the 80-200mm at least at the wide end and especially with a teleconverter.

    I suppose you could argue "well that's not a big enough difference", true you could save a lot of money by forgoing it. I am still in a constant debate about it myself. :)

    You are right that the 70-200mm surprisingly was more vulnerable to glare than the 80-200mm!

    I only have a D70, so I figured having AF-S would speed up my focusing speeds tremendously being that the built in motors are pretty slow on the D70.

    Do you have a D2H(S) or D2X? I can see why you would not care for AF-S if you have one of the pro body motors driving your lens. Or did you find that the AF-S wasn't that much faster?
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
300mm zoom sigma vs tamaron Lens Lust May 2, 2016
Sigma 8-16mm ultrawide zoom Lens Lust Mar 12, 2016
Ordered a Sigma 18-250 mm zoom! Lens Lust Jun 15, 2013
New Sigma OS telephoto Zooms? Lens Lust Mar 13, 2008