Trial of 4 LONG lenses !

[JPS]

Today I went to my photo-shop and rapidly tried the following lens: Nikkor 80-400 VR, Nikkor 300mm f/4, Sigma 50-500 f/ 4-6.3 HSM OS (Sigma's VR version) and Sigma 120-400 f/4.5/5.6 HSM OS !

Here's some of them, at different F-length and all handheld:

Nikon 80-400 AFS VR ED @ 400mm - 1:250 @ f/4.6
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299757/original.jpg

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.6-6.3 DG OS HSM @ 380mm. - 1:45 @ f/6.3 - Shot inside the shop !
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299759/original.jpg

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.6-6.3 DG OS HSM @ 500mm. - 1:180 @ f/6.3 - Shot inside the shop !
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299762/original.jpg

Sigma 50-500mm f/4.6-6.3 DG OS HSM @ 500mm. - 1:350 @ f/6.3
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299764/original.jpg

Sigma 120-400mm f/4.6-6.3 DG OS HSM @ 400mm. - 1:500 @ f/5.6
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299767/original.jpg

Sigma 120-400mm f/4.6-6.3 DG OS HSM @ 400mm. - 1:500 @ f/5.6
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299769/original.jpg

Sigma 120-400mm f/4.6-6.3 DG OS HSM @ 400mm. - 1:1000 @ f/5.6
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299772/original.jpg

Nikkor 300mm f/4 ED IF AFS @ 300mm - 1:500 @ f/5.6
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299774/original.jpg

Nikkor 300mm f/4 ED IF AFS @ 300mm - 1:350 @ f/5.6
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299776/original.jpg

Nikkor 300mm f/4 ED IF AFS @ 300mm - 1:500 @ f/5.6
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127299778/original.jpg

...I'm quite pleased with ALL these lenses... Not being used to shoot them, I beleive the results were nice and sharp ! All in all, I had about 80% of sharp pics !

The first thing that really jump to the eyes is the NEAT SUPREMACY of the Nikon 300mm f/4 ! It really is one -or more- step above all the others !

...still, I'm very much surprized by the 2 Sigma big zoom !

Your comments, opinions, etc... ?

:)
J-P.

[Tom V]

It's hard for me to compare - looks like a subjective test.

The longest lenses I've ever owned and used: current 70-200 f/2.8 Nikkor, 250 f/5.6 Reflex Rokkor (Minolta), and a 70-220 f/4 Tamron.

When I first started using DSLRs, having a long lens wasn't the issue: with the DX sized sensor (APS-C), having a wide enough lens was the challenge. Now that I use a full-frame DSLR, having a longer lens is starting to look attractive to me. I would want something at least 300mm... someday....

[JPS]

Hi Tom !

I've been searching for a long lens, prime or zoom, for sometimes...

I've never been a bird or any wild animals shooter, but soon I'll be retiring in Brazil (before the end of next year for sure) and I'd like to go our and shoot animals... so I will NEED (:cool:) a long lens ! OTOH, the problem is $$$, so, even though I KNOW that the best would be a 400 f/2.8 + TC, I just CAN'T justify -even to myself- spending this amount of money...

So I have to try and try and try as many lens as I can and DECIDE which one I will buy...

...but now, with the above trialy, I'm even more puzzled: they all are quite good !

Ohhh well...

:)
J-P.

[KeithM]

I can't give any personal advice... aside from my old preset paragon 400mm f/6.3, the longest lens I can muster is a Sigma 28-200 and then 90mm ( Tamron sp90 or the new Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar f/3.5 - a very compact and discrete lens ).

A lot does come down to how you use the lens - being careful with shutter speed for example... and your experience above seems to indicate you could use just about any lens to get good results :)

Thom Hogan had a few words to say in his recent LensWeek (http://bythom.com/lensweek.htm) - scroll down to the Going Long section. If you want the latest and greatest, there is a very sharp price step after 180mm ( ish ) - but if you're prepared to go for earlier versions ( which is no problem on the D700 ) then you can pay a lot less. And given the high-ISO ability of the D700, I guess you can sacrifice a bit of speed.

As Thom says, long lenses are a sore spot for many photographers.

Best of luck with your search !

Keith.

[JPS]

Hi Keith !

Thanks for the kind words :red: ! (where's the damn "BLUSHING" icon when you need it ?)

I read Thom's article and agree with him on the "older" lens, without all the VR, nano-coating, AF-S etc... but they are quite difficult to find, and they tend to keep their price -if theyr'e in good condition- !

Not to worry... I still hope Nikon might come up with a new 80-400 + AF-S and better glass, or/and a 300 f/4 with VR, all this in the same price range (one can dream, can't one ?) before my -definitive- departure for South-America !

In any case, I'll keep everybody informed...

:D
J-P.

[Igor]

IMO all of the lenses you've tested are very good to excellent (300/4).
I'm pleasantly surprized with both Sigmas, well done for sure.
As for choosing ONE long lens.... it's a VERY hard decision. You can't go wrong with AFS 300/4 but it's too short for real wildlife shooting even with 1.4x.
Sigmas are nice, but slow..... 80-400 is nice , but slow focusing.....
Let's hope someone comes up with a lens almost all wildlifer strives for the AFS 500/5.6.
I for one would grab it instantly!

[JPS]

.................Let's hope someone comes up with a lens almost all wildlifer strives for the AFS 500/5.6.
I for one would grab it instantly!

Me too... but it should have Nano Coating, VR, all the jazz, and a price below US $2000.- !

:D
J-P.

[Igor]

nano coating is just a trendy BS.
Sigma or Tamron can come up with such lens below $2k, I'm sure.
This would be a huge seller.

[jhawk1000]

I have Nikkor 300mm f4. It is AF but an older model. It is light, it is slow focusing, but I love the pictures it takes. One of the sharpest lenses I own. You also might check out a used 300mm 2.8. Great lens and fairly reasonable used. I have this lens and it is a god-send for wildlife.

Mel

[Tom V]

IMO all of the lenses you've tested are very good to excellent (300/4)....

Let's hope someone comes up with a lens almost all wildlifer strives for the AFS 500/5.6.
I for one would grab it instantly!

That reminds me that about 10-15 years ago I owned a 400mm f5.6 AF Tokina. I liked it, but it suddenly developed a fungus infection, and I felt lucky to sell it for $72 to a fully informed buyer that intended to take it apart or bake it or something (good luck with that). I think Tokina and maybe Sigma made a 500mm f/6.3 around that time... maybe they can update the formula?

[Tom V]

A little ebay search found a Sigma 500mm f.7.2. I would doubt that f/7.2 is the lens's best aperture, so for optimum sharpness, you would be at f/8 or f/11. Say "farewell" to the shallow depth of field and "hello" to high ISO.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-AF-500mm-f7-2-APO-Prime-Nikon-D90-D70-D300-D2X-/140427354684?pt=Camera_Lenses#ht_17819wt_1601

[Auminer]

You won't ever regret a Nikon 300 2.8 VR if you can swing it! I shoot everything from flowers to landscapes to wildlife with mine. (all of these (http://www.fmount.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23973) were shot with it) Fast focus and tack sharp with the D700 and I never use my Gitzo. Adding the Nikon 1.7 TC makes it a 500mm with the FF D700. :)

Oh yeh, it will hold it's value, I consider it an investment that's making me $$ while using I'm it. :D

[JPS]

It's true that some very nice sharp tele-lens have been made in the past, but they weren't "motorized" nor did they have VR (or OS or....) !

I think the most difficult now is to combine a GOOD motorization -enough to move al these heavy pieces of glass- and the widest possible aperture, all this at a "decent" price !

...but when we see the number of people having a 300 f/2.8 VR AND a 400 f/2.8 VR AND a 500 or 600 f/4... while NOT being professionals but keen amateurs, I reckon the "crisis" hasn't touched everybody...

I know that I can't even dream of getting myself one of these $6'000 to $8000 -or more- lens...

Ohhh well... maybe one day (although I doubt it :()

;)
J-P.

[JPS]

BTW, here's the 1000x666 pixels crops of the 100% *.TIF above:

1)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331297/original.jpg

2)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331299/original.jpg

3)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331300/original.jpg

4)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331302/original.jpg

5)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331304/original.jpg

6)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331306/original.jpg

7)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331307/original.jpg

8)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331309/original.jpg

9)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331311/original.jpg

10)
http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/127331312/original.jpg

Don't forget that they've all been shot at a distance of 35 to 50 feet !

...and do not either forget that I'm NOT USED to shoot such long lens handheld, so some "blur" or apparent lack of sharpness might well be human's fault !

Cheers,
J-P.

[JPS]

That's it !!! I found THE solution !

I will buy the 300mm f/4 plus a TC 1.4x...

...then in a few weeks/months (?), I'll buy a 70-300 VR, so it will fill the gap between my -actually- longest lens, eg. Tamron SP90, and the Nikkor 300mm !

...and all the reviews I read on the 70-300 are praising this lens for it's ratio quality/price !

How about my idea ?

:)
J-P.

[Tom V]

The only negative thing I've read about the 300mm f4 is the tripod mount. See Bjøorn Rørslett's review and commentary. You have to dig, because his pages don't have individual URLs (that I can find).

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

[Igor]

who needs tripod for 300mm anyway ???? :D :D :D
Bjorn was too harsh on his comment re. tripod mount. I used it only once and it's no worse and no better than similar TM's of Canon, Sigma, Tamron.
They all are flimsy to save on weight.

[Tom V]

Igor,

I agree with you. JP showed that he can handhold a 300mm just fine. Whisker sharp images from all his long mm samples. And with the D700, instead of using a tripod in dim light, just turn up the ISO.

[Igor]

actually Nikon should've added VR to this great lens instead of good tripod mount.
Canon's 300/4 IS beats Nikon's first of all because of stabilizer feature.
I "decypher" Canon's IS as "Incredibly Sticky" :)

[DOXHOPE]

Before this thread, Igor guided me to a number of lenses, including the 300mm f4, and Ive never looked back, its incredibly sharp, and this is what I strive for..I loved my Nikkor VR 80-400 as Igor will testify, it now lies redundant, even though it was the bees knees for me at one time. I have a 1,4 tc to go with it, and my pics seem just as sharp, I do miss the VR though

[Igor]

Bill, you hit the point here: Nikon loves to trail Canon for some crazy reasons (mazochism? :) ).
It was plain many years ago: the 300/4 needs VR, but.... nothing.

I love Nikon gear but hate Nikon management :(

[gt13013]

I have a Sigma 120-400, a Nikon AF-S 300mm F/4, and a Kenko Pro x1.4 teleconverter.
You can find some comparison here:
http://snipurl.com/sigma_nikon_tc

Considering that my Sigma 120-400 has some problems (probably misaligned lenses (http://snipurl.com/10m0wd) , and consequently focus problems, particularly at close distances), the results of a healthy Sigma 120-400 should be nicer.
Sorry, my pages are in French, but you can get an automatic translation at the top of the second link.

The problem with the Sigma is to get a good one. Mine is presently being repaired.

[JPS]

...........Sorry, my pages are in French, but you can get an automatic translation at the top of the second link.......

Bienvenue sur le site, "gt13013" ! ...et merci pour le "link" !

...I'm from Geneva, so I don't need translation...:lol:

:)
J-P.

BTW, could you be kind enough to -when your 120-400 comes back from Sigma- keep us informed of the results ? Thans in advance...
.
.

[JPS]

Following........

I checked your comparisons between Nikkor 300 and Sigma 120-400 (btw, great thing you have uploaded FULL SIZE images !) and frankly, I think the Sigma hold his own against the Nikkor !

Thanks again !

Cheers,
J-P.

PS. As you write apparently currently in english, why don't you translate your article ? I reckon there's a lot of UK/USA people that would be VERY interested in reading it !
.
.

[Igor]

good luck with your lens repair and welcome to the F-Mount forums!

[gt13013]

I have to choose between French and English, but my website is mainly dedicated to French people.
I will put a link for an automatic translation, like in the 2nd link in my previous post.
Today I am leaving for holidays, and I am a little bit in a hurry :)

[Serge]

Excellent test series, amazing quality, and the crops really show them off.
Wish I had kept the Sigma 'Bigma", it was slow and unwieldly but very sharp. Wonder if they changed anything apart from adding the VR?
There have been several iterations of this excellent optic over the years.

[JPS]

Excellent test series, amazing quality, and the crops really show them off.
Wish I had kept the Sigma 'Bigma", it was slow and unwieldly but very sharp. Wonder if they changed anything apart from adding the VR?
There have been several iterations of this excellent optic over the years.
Hi Serge !

One thing I noted about the new 50-500 is the WEIGHT !!! I don't remember the old one to be so heavy..... The combo D700+Bigma is weighing a TON !

:)
J-P.

[Auminer]

Wish I had kept the Sigma 'Bigma", it was slow and unwieldly but very sharp. Wonder if they changed anything apart from adding the VR?Hmmm, you must have had a better 50-500 than the one I had. I didn't find mine as being sharp, slow and unwieldy yes. Sure I had a few shots, but these really eat up the light to get them. Notice JP's best (50-500) sharp shot was the one with good direct light. These must have been shot with the new 50-500 'cause I don't believe the older version would have preformed as well. Maybe I had a bum lens? I sold it along with the D2X a few years back.

Just commenting...

[JPS]

Hi Dave !

I had a 50-500 for a short time, in 2004, but I had to sell it because I couldn't justify it... I wasn't using it enough and I needed a bit of $$$...

Nevertheless, I quite liked it ! Here's some shot with the old Bigma, all handheld, of course !

http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/30686419/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/scherrer/image/30686423/original.jpg

...what I like most about long lens is their capacity to ISOLATE the subject -at large aperture- !

:)
J-P.

[Igor]

awesome swallow shot J-P, you Bigma was definitely better than mine.
Sigma's QC wasn't consistent probably :)

[JPS]

...........Sigma's QC wasn't consistent probably :)

I'm afraid that QC is Sigma's main problem :( !

:baldy:
J-P.

[Serge]

I have a pano framed which I shot with Bigma, back in 07, sold it the following year.