80-400 or Sigma 50-500 or something else?

[GavinM]

Hi, I'm finding the 600 f4 too much lens for my type of birding (Hiking, wandering around, stalking, opportunist shooting etc) and it's just way too costly to be spending all its time in a case. I'm finding my 50-500 while just about the perfect size is giving me way too many out of focus shots. I have 0 out of focus shots from the 600.

Is the the 80-400 what I need here? Is there something else out there I should look at?

Any ideas gratefully recieved.

[Keith Reeder]

Hard to say if it's what you "need", Gavin - I don't normally associate the 50-500mm with focus problems, so it's not immediately obvious if the 80-400mm will fix whatever problem the 50-500mm is causing you.

But... the (Sigma) 80-400mm OS is a fantastic all-round lens.

It weighs a bit less than the 50-500mm, and I've wandered about with it round my neck for eight hours at a time without any problems.

It's optically very good, and having the stabilisation means that you will get more keepers, in a wider range of conditions than with an unstabilised lens (assuming we're talking about hand-holding).

All of these benefits apply to the Nikon 80-400mm of course (and some folk say it's sharper than the Sigma - dunno really, but the Sigma's plenty sharp for me), but the Sigma has an internal AF drive motor (the Nikon doesn't, it relies on the camera's drive motor), so it focusses noticeably quicker than the Nikon.

I think the Sigma looks better too, for what that's worth!

;)

[paul goode]

Hi, I'm finding the 600 f4 too much lens for my type of birding (Hiking, wandering around, stalking, opportunist shooting etc) and it's just way too costly to be spending all its time in a case. I'm finding my 50-500 while just about the perfect size is giving me way too many out of focus shots. I have 0 out of focus shots from the 600.

Is the the 80-400 what I need here? Is there something else out there I should look at?

Any ideas gratefully recieved.

Hi Gavin,

Just had a look at your gallery and there is a marked difference in the images from the 2 lenses. However the bigma should be able to produce an in focus image, so your post raises a couple of questions.

How do you use both lenses, handheld, on a tripod or monopod?

How much pp work do you do to the images? In my (albeit short) experience of a zoom against a prime the Bigma images need a bit more work in photoshop to bring out their best. Hope you don't mind but to focus the mind I've attached your and mine Teal pics to try to give an idea of what the Bigma should be doing.

If your Bigma is always out of focus when used with a tripod and with a high enough shutter speed to eliminate camera shake could it be faulty? Here and on DPreview there are regular threads on lenses requiring calibrating.

Look forward to your replies

Paul

[GavinM]

Thanks Keith, I wasn't aware of the Sigma, and your images from it are certainly the quality I'm looking for. VR/OS seems like it would be a real bonus when shooting in the woods etc.

As are yours Paul. I shoot from a tripod (same setup for the 600). I'm wondering now if it's a calibration issue. It reports 'in focus' with the dot in the VF, but the results are somewhat random. Same in AF-S or AF-C modes. I'll look into callibration. The teal pictures really show some difference. That's the best my copy produces. I'd be happy if I were getting the same sharpness that you are.

[paul goode]

Thanks Keith, I wasn't aware of the Sigma, and your images from it are certainly the quality I'm looking for. VR/OS seems like it would be a real bonus when shooting in the woods etc.

As are yours Paul. I shoot from a tripod (same setup for the 600). I'm wondering now if it's a calibration issue. It reports 'in focus' with the dot in the VF, but the results are somewhat random. Same in AF-S or AF-C modes. I'll look into callibration. The teal pictures really show some difference. That's the best my copy produces. I'd be happy if I were getting the same sharpness that you are.

Hi Gavin,

Wonder if its worth doing some 'static tests' using the lens on a tripod and set up to take a series of images of a non-moving object big enough for the chosen AF point to lock onto. Using one shot Af (not sure what that is in Nikon speak) The lens should focus once and then not refocus for subsequent shots. If the focus drifts or the image isn't sharp it could point to a lens fault.

Paul

[GavinM]

Paul, I gave that a go. It is misbehaving. It only seems to be doing it at the long end though. I'll get on to Sigma. Thanks for getting me to think about this.

[Andy Bright]

Depending upon your budget (though given that you've got a redundant 600/4, you should have good funds available), you may wish to consider a 300/2.8 VR lens with a 1.4x teleconverter (420mm@f4) or with 1.7x (500mm@f4.8) The weight may be a little off-putting but it's no problem around your neck, and the length is relatively short... feeling very well balanced when you're holding it for the shot.

I initially went down the 80-400mm zoom route, but AF was a bit too slow with the old Nikon version. I also think of it as gaining 2 extra f-stops... as the 80-400 really needed to be stopped down to f8 for the best results, where-as the 300/2.8 + 1.4x tc is no problem wide open at f4.

Obviously you get the benefit of the latest AF-S, VR, clarity of a prime lens and focus memory preset (surprisingly how important that last one can be for the opportunistic photographer)

For a Nikon user wanting a long hand-portable set-up (Canon users have the 400/4), I think the 300/2.8 + 1.4x tc is the best option... the 200-400/4 is just a bit too bulky (length & more weight) to be used handheld with any regularity

cheers,
Andy

[GavinM]

Thanks Andy, I've been thinking about that.

[johnruss]

Just a very amatuerish imput. I wonder if your camera focus is set right. I mean the area by which your af works. I have the big ma 50-500 and I love it. I am not a little guy and I have yet to use my tripod. If I ever figure out how to reduce my images from RAW to jpg I would post them in my gallery. I made the mistake of letting my Brother in law use my camera at a family function and he changed my size to the smallest setting. I didn't check it and came upon a priceless situation with some fox kits playing in a field. so I shot away and when I tried to enlarge them impossible they were too grainy. I was about 80 yards out. Has nothing to do with the subject..I tend to ramble. Check that focus spot. I always shoot in RAW

[DOC]

I would say that the 600 \F4 is in no comparison to the other lenses you mentioned .

But if you are looking into the sigma 50-500 , why don't you give a glimpse at the Tamron 200-500 ? It is the lightest of all lenses in it's group and to my opinion - sharp like a razor.
( take a look at some EXAMPLES (http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/6414) )

[Neil]

I found the Nikon 80-400 zoom to be ok on static or slow moving subjects but a bit slow for fast moving birds and flight shots. I upgraded to the 300/2.8 AFS with a Nikon 1.4x tele and this combo is very fast on my D2x but is a bit heavy for carrying around all day. I have tried a Nikon 300/f4 with 1.7x tele and it's faster than the 80-400 zoom so it'll probably be my next lens although I'm also thinking of the Nikon 70-200/2.8 AFS,VR and Nikon 1.7x tele which is faster again than the 300/f4. I want to carry my digiscoping gear as well so weight is very important. Neil.

[raymondjbarlow]

cool discussion.. I like my 80-400 VR, but I do find the focus slow., I would really like to try that 200-500 Tameron DOC!!

most of the recent shots in my website are with the 80-400VR, before last Christmas, I used the 70-300 Nikor. The last 4 weeks, my body of choice has been the D200, and the 2 D70's are taking a rest.. (well deserved!)

www.rayswildlife.com ... click on "recent photos"

Good luck with your choice!

[GavinM]

johnruss - Nothing amateurish there, first things I checked :-) I almost always use single spot centre focus point, and no problems with any of my other lenses, so I'm confident it's not that. I did check though. Slightly off topic, I did used to shoot raw all the time, but anything hi ISO I'm shooting JPEG now because I haven't found anything that works as well as the in camera noise handling for a printed image. Your mileage may vary, but given the time savings, I'm finding it not worth shooting RAW at all times. Birds, on the other hand, RAW.

Doc, Sure, I know I'm compromising - I'll miss the 6 but its sitting in the corner most of the time. I'm really intrigued by that Tamron. Image quality and sharpness look great. How do you find AF speed?

Neil, thanks, just reminded me that we really are spoilt for choice.

raymondjbarlow - love your stuff.

So it seems the Tamron 200-500, Nikon 80-400 or a properly calibrated Bigma will do it for me. I suppose it's still all about the trade-offs. Hmmm.

[Rob Chace]

johnruss - Nothing amateurish there, first things I checked :-) I almost always use single spot centre focus point, and no problems with any of my other lenses, so I'm confident it's not that. I did check though. Slightly off topic, I did used to shoot raw all the time, but anything hi ISO I'm shooting JPEG now because I haven't found anything that works as well as the in camera noise handling for a printed image. Your mileage may vary, but given the time savings, I'm finding it not worth shooting RAW at all times. Birds, on the other hand, RAW.

Doc, Sure, I know I'm compromising - I'll miss the 6 but its sitting in the corner most of the time. I'm really intrigued by that Tamron. Image quality and sharpness look great. How do you find AF speed?

Neil, thanks, just reminded me that we really are spoilt for choice.

raymondjbarlow - love your stuff.

So it seems the Tamron 200-500, Nikon 80-400 or a properly calibrated Bigma will do it for me. I suppose it's still all about the trade-offs. Hmmm.

Gavin,
I used to own a Tamron 200-500. I sold it to buy a Sigma 500mm f4.5. If i was in the market for a super zoom now, i would seriously consider the Bigma for its HSM motor & therefore faster, quieter AF. The Tamron is sharp in the right hands as are the 2 afor-mentioned sigmas, but the Af is quite slow & very noisy ( at least in comparison with the 500mm 4.5). I would hope that the Bigma was at least quieter & a bit faster.
Regards Rob.

[rezMole]

Check out the August Which camera for reviews of several telezooms. Also a good review of the Nikon D200 and a Canon (can't remember off-hand, which one)