I would like to know if anyone here have any comparisons between these two lenses. I know the new Sig, now has OS and HSM... so that is really sweet. Of course we all know how the 80-400 behaves.
That was at 155mm but i have others just as sharp at 400 & 500. I find it to be a surprisingly sharp lens and the OS works great. I can handhold that lens and get a high ratio of keepers. Obviously, it's not a fast lens but on a D300 it would be if you shot at iso 3600. Lot of bang for the buck IMHO
Here's one at 500mm
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
The interesting thing is that these were the first pictures taken with that lens, out of the box. I also have a Sigma 80-400 OS so I am familiar with the Sigma layout. This lens is only a few ounces heavier and longer when extended but it has great build quality, great IQ and I find it a bargain.
I've seen enough examples that I know (or have a good idea) of what the 150-500 can do at 500mm, what I don't know is how well the OS works. I can shoot at 1/80 @ 400mm on my monopod and consistantly get sharp results with the 80-400. Could you do that @ 500mm with the 150-500?
The OS works great. 1/80 on a monopod should be no sweat. The focusing in good light is comparable, especially with the HSM, to the Nikkor 80-400. If I were making a choice I would try both lenses on the body I was planning to use unless that is not possible. I can tell you the build quality far surpasses the Nikkor.
To me build quality is a huge sore spot on the 80-400. I've recently moved to banff and I've taken up hiking. The D200/80-400 is a constant companion on my travels. I refuse to stow my rig back into my backpack everytime it starts to drizzle a little bit as you never know when something might present itself. I'm not worried about the D200 but the 80-400 I worry about. It's disappointing to hear about the autofocus performance of the sigma. But what can you expect for around a $1000?
I don't have an 80-400 Nikkor to compare it against. I find it quite adequate and the fact that I can manually focus it while the VR is active helps tremendously. If you're close to the focus point the AF is quick, as far as I'm concerned. I do find the lens built like a tank....it's a great lens for me.
Just My own oppinion and mine only.... I am not impressed with the 150-500. Its the Nikkor all the way.
We must remember we get what we pay for. Nikon has been making lenses for over 100 years! They know what to do when it comes to glass. What they may not know is that many of us are looking for a Nikkor 135-500 AFS VR at $1800.:smile:
Just My own oppinion and mine only.... I am not impressed with the 150-500. Its the Nikkor all the way.
We must remember we get what we pay for. Nikon has been making lenses for over 100 years! They know what to do when it comes to glass. What they may not know is that many of us are looking for a Nikkor 135-500 AFS VR at $1800.:smile:
Here's one I stumbled across... taken with the 80-400 @400. Everything was in M mode with VR on, hand held... if I remember... settings...1/250 at f8. :biggrin:
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Here's one I stumbled across... taken with the 80-400 @400. Everything was in M mode with VR on, hand held... if I remember... settings...1/250 at f8. :biggrin:
Do you have any BIF's? @400, I'd like to see some of dat.
Here's one I stumbled across... taken with the 80-400 @400. Everything was in M mode with VR on, hand held... if I remember... settings...1/250 at f8. :biggrin:
Do you have any BIF's? @400, I'd like to see some of dat.
what can you do you know... nikon doesn't make a prime 400/5.6 VR which would be a great lens. Or bring back the 600/5.6 which would even be nicer small super telephoto.
I don't have an 80-400 Nikkor to compare it against. I find it quite adequate and the fact that I can manually focus it while the VR is active helps tremendously. If you're close to the focus point the AF is quick, as far as I'm concerned. I do find the lens built like a tank....it's a great lens for me.
I just got my 150-500 in the mail yesterday. The jury is still out for me on the IQ. However, I'm really pleased with the OS and the AF, particularly compared to the Nikkor 80-400. To me the OS seems much quieter than the VR. The HSM is really quiet and pretty fast. Last night I took it to a pond and tried some bird in flight shots as the sun was setting. It definitely struggled. It was fine to good on perched birds.
My long lens technique is pretty bad, I suspect.
Here's a 1:1 of my daughter from her birthday party. That's at 500 f/8 1/400.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
This is a larger crop of the same image.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Here she is swinging. The AF seemed to do well. 380 @ f/8, 1/500.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
My dad across the yard. 500 @ f/6.3 (wide open), 1/640.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
I didn't sharpen these before I sent them to Picasa. Picasa does a pretty poor job of scaling them down, I think. They don't look as sharp in this post as they do normally.
In general, I'm not stoked about the image quality, but so far it's a fun toy.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
