Nikon 80-200 or Sigma 50-500

[crabby]

or maybe the Sigma 80-200. Sharpness is top priority for me. Is there any noticable difference in these lenses at the 200 mark same f stop? If not, then I could use the extra focal length more then the wide apeture.

[Igor]

Hi Mike, I never tried both 80-200's, but you can't go wrong with the 50-500. My vote is for this baby :)

[crabby]

Thanks Igor. I have seen many a great image shot with this lens. Its a tough choice for me, more focal length vs. more light/faster shutter speed which may in turn give sharper images.

[Igor]

Mike, this may sound ridiculous, but the 50-500 sharpness comes to a big extent from its weight. It really lies quite steadily in hand. I can compare this feeling to my 70-200VR with the VR off. It does shake more than Sigma :)

[Swampy]

I will say that the 70-200VR is much sharper than the 50-500.

However, you ARE talking about a 10x optical lens here. The 50-500 turns into a useless/specialty lens when the sun starts going down to me though. This is why I have both. :rockon:

I love the 50-500 for say an air show. One stop lens for everything really. I don't think there's any comparison here really. One goes to 200, the other goes to 500. Huge difference.

[Swampy]

Here. Lemme try this. I set up the tripod. Shot at 4256, both at 200mm (196mm on the 50-500 - sorry ;) ), ISO 200, auto focus, self timer.

Here's the full shot, untouched other than resized to 800x535.
Next will be 100% crops.

[Swampy]

Here's the 100% crops. I just opened the file, zoomed in to 100% and cropped that window. Nothing else done.

[Swampy]

Same thing here, except I threw the 50-500 out to 400mm and put the 2x Kenko Pro TC on the 70-200@200mm. This is where the 70-200 really starts to shine. Again, both lenses at f11.

[Swampy]

And here's the full 100% crops. Just like the ones at 200mm.

[crabby]

Swampy-Thank you for all your work. I hear the 70- 200 and the 80-200 are very similar as far as image quality goes so I concider your tests to be quite valid. Does the VR still work with the teleconverter?
I can see the difference in sharpness between the two (I assume the sigma is the top image) but frankly it's pretty darn subtle. I like the contrast of the nikon more. That could easily be corrected with the sigma later in PS. I could also shoot a higher iso and correct the noise issue later.
Decisions, decisions. The sigma has a decent lead in versatility which is great for guys like me who have a hard time making up their minds sometimes. But throw a TC in the nikon's corner and that is somewhat nagated, and I have a faster lens with an ever so slight edge on sharpness. The good news is which ever one I get I'm sure I'll love.

[Swampy]

The VR does continue to function well with the TC on. So, if you can do without the extra 100mm at the end, you've got a faster, sharper, cleaner lens with VR. :)

I'm no knocking either lens mind you. They're both terrific lenses. The 70-200 is less picky and less image work needs to be done afterwards though. But the images from the 50-500 are definitely useable, but like you said, need some post work, but I'll take that for the versatility I gain.

I'm not making this any easier for you, am I? LOL. Wasn't easy for me either. That's why I have both now. haha

[crabby]

Definitely not making it any easier, but I greatly appreciate your imput as well as Igor's. I do love shooting in the twilight hours.
Mostly I'm pissed at sigma for coming up with such a good 10x zoom. I would not have even concidered looking at it if you guys and others with great shots didn't shatter my disbelief.

[cbeam2]

I just picked up a used Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM. I have been very pleased with it so far.

chuck

[crabby]

Don't even tell me that!
By the way Chuck, thanks for the battery tray!

[Swampy]

Hey Mike, I have the Nikon 400mm f2.8 and I'm really impressed with it!!!!! :rofl:

[crabby]

You know you're only making more work for yourself! Next I want to see a test with 70-200 w/TC, the 50-500 @400mm, and the 400 2.8. Perhaps of your lovely daughter about ¼ mile away so I can see how well each one can resolve fine hair! Ha, so there.
Actually, I am concidering the 300 2.8 but I was afraid to say so.

[Swampy]

You got it Mike. I'll make some time to do it later. I think between mine and the daughter's schedule, I won't be able to do it until this Sunday.

I can't do the 300 test for you though. Never really considered using something that low end for my work. The 400 or nothing for me. Although, I hear the 300 is a very nice lens as well. Besides. Walking around with the 400 on the camera is worth every penny for it. The looks on people faces. LOL

Eww. I just thought about it and I sounded very snooty about the 300mm lens. I don't mean to sound that way. It's a good lens. Just too short for my non-zoom telephoto work.

Wait for Sunday or a miracle when I can find my daughter home at the same time as me. Also no traffic on my street as my backyard falls just short of 1/4 mile wide. ;)

[crabby]

All tongue n cheek, Bryan. I wasn't too serious, but definitely interested as I'm sure many others are as well. After all I did (mistakenly) start this thread in the lens tests forum. So don't try too hard on my account, but then again I know it isn't very hard to get a pretty girl to stand infront of the lens and it's even easier for a gadget junkie to get out all the toys.

PS-Don't worry bout sounding snooty. I always see the humor of the situation.
Enjoy your weekend.

[Swampy]

I'm serious. I'll do it. I don't want to leave the 70-200 out of the competition either. So, I figure, I'll put TWO Kenko Pro 2x TC's on the 70-200. Even with two of them, the 70-200 will still be a faster lens than the 50-500 I think. I'll have to check, but even at 400mm, I think the 50-500 is f6.3, with a 2x, that's f13? On the 70-200, two TC's will make it an f11. I think the 400 2.8 is going to blow both of them away though, starting at 5.6 with the TC, I'll be shooting it at f11 or 13 which should give it the edge since it won't be wide open. The 70-200 will be wide open or 1 stop under wide open, which will (on top of superior contruction/glass) give it a little edge over the Sigma which will still be shooting wide open at 11 or 13. Should be interesting. Maybe I'll try stopping down to f16 for all of them though, but I'd like to see what the 70-200 is going to do with double 2x's!

[Ruffles]

I think it's important to consider the other lens you have. I looked at the sigma 70-200 f2.8, sigma 100-300 f4, and sigma 50-500. Since my other lens was the 24-120 VR, I didn't really have anything for good low light / twilight pictures. I figured I could always add a TC and stop down a bit to get focal length but speed is a little harder to get. I posted some pics from the 70-200 + 2x TC if you want to check them out. I'm happy.

Of course, if money was no object, I'd get the sigma 120-300 f2.8 in a heartbeat!

[Swampy]

It's not so much seeing sample shots from the 70-200 with TC on it, as much as seing identical samples from various lenses of the same exact thing at the same focal lengths, f stops, exposures, etc. This will give someone a better idea of what to expect from each lens. People can't just throw different shots up from different cameras as well as from different photographers. They'll all be seriously different and won't tell the right story. No consistency, there by not having a good test. Without consistency, a test can not be validated.

[crabby]

You got it Swampy. It's hard to find examples of a really valid test. Usually about the best you can do is weigh the opinions from other people whom you respect.