-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
VR or OS? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rob Chace
- Start date
Tyler Vargo
Well-known member
I, personally, think the Nikon 80-400VR is outdated and overpriced, they need to update fast!
The Sigma is cheaper and I've read that it beats the Nikon in AF speed but that the Nikon has better colour rendition. How about some weight figures?
Sigma 80-400OS
58.2oz, 1.65kg, 3.63lbs
Close focus: 5.9'
Filter size: 77mm
Length (80mm): 7.5"
Diameter: 3.7"
Nikon 80-400VR
47oz, 1.3kg, 2.93lbs
Close focus: 7.5'
Filter size: 77mm
Length (80mm): 6.7"
Diameter: 3.6"
The Nikon is lighter, smaller and will have a better warranty, even if slower AF wise. It is also more proven and probably more well made (I've only handled the Nikon and it is pretty sturdy). The price difference is pretty steep though, I don't think the Nikon is worth the extra $300, it just doesn't seem like a lens that is worth $1,300... Which is only about $100 less than the vastly superior Canon 100-400 IS USM!
I'm beginning to wish I bought a Canon EOS10D when I look at my lens upgrade options, Nikon's lens selection is meager and outdated compared to Canon's and hasn't improved a smidge since I bought my D70!
The Sigma is cheaper and I've read that it beats the Nikon in AF speed but that the Nikon has better colour rendition. How about some weight figures?
Sigma 80-400OS
58.2oz, 1.65kg, 3.63lbs
Close focus: 5.9'
Filter size: 77mm
Length (80mm): 7.5"
Diameter: 3.7"
Nikon 80-400VR
47oz, 1.3kg, 2.93lbs
Close focus: 7.5'
Filter size: 77mm
Length (80mm): 6.7"
Diameter: 3.6"
The Nikon is lighter, smaller and will have a better warranty, even if slower AF wise. It is also more proven and probably more well made (I've only handled the Nikon and it is pretty sturdy). The price difference is pretty steep though, I don't think the Nikon is worth the extra $300, it just doesn't seem like a lens that is worth $1,300... Which is only about $100 less than the vastly superior Canon 100-400 IS USM!
I'm beginning to wish I bought a Canon EOS10D when I look at my lens upgrade options, Nikon's lens selection is meager and outdated compared to Canon's and hasn't improved a smidge since I bought my D70!
Last edited:
Hi Tyler,
Do you really need a form of image stabilisation? How good is it? Does it slow down the af? I must admit i find the lack of focal length a bit off putting (400mm instead of say 500 or 600mm). I am currently using a Tamron 200-500 zoom, & still need to add a 1.4x kenko pro 300 teleconverter on occasion. Do either of the above lenses work with teleconverters? Is the Nikon worth the extra cash? do i sell the Tamron or keep it? Sorry for all the questions but i am trying to justify buying another lens & dont want to regret it!
Do you really need a form of image stabilisation? How good is it? Does it slow down the af? I must admit i find the lack of focal length a bit off putting (400mm instead of say 500 or 600mm). I am currently using a Tamron 200-500 zoom, & still need to add a 1.4x kenko pro 300 teleconverter on occasion. Do either of the above lenses work with teleconverters? Is the Nikon worth the extra cash? do i sell the Tamron or keep it? Sorry for all the questions but i am trying to justify buying another lens & dont want to regret it!
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Rob, the Sigma works with a TC, though you lose AF.
There's a significant price difference between the Nion and Sigma lenses too, remember - if that matters to you (it does to me!
)
There's a significant price difference between the Nion and Sigma lenses too, remember - if that matters to you (it does to me!
)
yossi
Well-known member
The Nikon lens is a very good lens - optically. It's quite slow focusing, but when the range limiter is activated, it's much better. You can get a faster focusing lens by using the 70-200 AFS VR and add a TC-20EII. You need to stop down a bit with this combo - to F:7.1 (from 5.6 with the TC) and you get tack sharp pictures.
The 80-400 packs a relatively small size, an excellent zoom range, a decent price (far less than the 70-200+TC-20EII) and very good quality output. I use it stopped down to 6.3 (a 1/3 of a stop) and the pictures are very sharp. The Bokeh of this lens is very nice too. You can even use it hand held, in good lighting conditions, with the Kenko X1.4 Pro 300 TC and maintain AF, although quite slow. I wish Nikon would have put an AFS function in this lens, but even so - it's very useful.
Here's a sample taken hand held with the 80-400 @ 400mm, fully open (f:5.6) with a 100% crop:
The 80-400 packs a relatively small size, an excellent zoom range, a decent price (far less than the 70-200+TC-20EII) and very good quality output. I use it stopped down to 6.3 (a 1/3 of a stop) and the pictures are very sharp. The Bokeh of this lens is very nice too. You can even use it hand held, in good lighting conditions, with the Kenko X1.4 Pro 300 TC and maintain AF, although quite slow. I wish Nikon would have put an AFS function in this lens, but even so - it's very useful.
Here's a sample taken hand held with the 80-400 @ 400mm, fully open (f:5.6) with a 100% crop:
Attachments
I went for the Nikon 80-400mm, there's absolutely no doubting it's optical performance, the AF side isn't quite as bad as some would make out but certainly no match for any lens with built-in motors (HSM/AF-S). The Nikon 80-400mm does react a bit faster with some of the more expensive Nikon pro bodies. A big % of birds that this lens is pointed at are relatively static, so very fast AF isn't required anyway... birds in flight are not too much of a problem if they are flying in a predictable direction.
With a tc (the only one, the Kenko pro300 1.4x), AF will hunt if your subject doesn't present a good contrast with it's background... results can be very good but, as Yossi says, you'll require good light and good technique for any sort of consistant results.
This lens is not meant to fight it out with the long lenses (500mm & 600mm), it a highly portable lens for the roving photographer who doesn't want to be weighed down with a tripod, allowing you to get off a shot very quickly.
cheers,
Andy
With a tc (the only one, the Kenko pro300 1.4x), AF will hunt if your subject doesn't present a good contrast with it's background... results can be very good but, as Yossi says, you'll require good light and good technique for any sort of consistant results.
This lens is not meant to fight it out with the long lenses (500mm & 600mm), it a highly portable lens for the roving photographer who doesn't want to be weighed down with a tripod, allowing you to get off a shot very quickly.
cheers,
Andy
Option1
Village Idiot
Beware being a slave to any brand. There's really not much difference between the Nikkor and Sigma versions. I think both are probably fine.
I went with the Sigma 80-400mm OS and I'm pleased with it - optically, color rendition, AF speed (comparatively), build quality. There's plenty of examples on my site: http://www.motifwebs.com/gallery/wildlife
I'd rather have a 600mm, but there's just a smidgin of a price difference.
Neil
I went with the Sigma 80-400mm OS and I'm pleased with it - optically, color rendition, AF speed (comparatively), build quality. There's plenty of examples on my site: http://www.motifwebs.com/gallery/wildlife
I'd rather have a 600mm, but there's just a smidgin of a price difference.
Neil
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
I've picked up my new Sigma 80-400mm OS today and - given the cloud and rain outside - I've been mucking about with it in the house.
It's already obvious that the lens has the potential to produce images of high quality (Option1's gallery is ample proof of that), and although it's noisy, the AF's much quicker than on my Sigma 135-400mm, and I generally manage with that.
I have to say though that following over 2 hours and of testing every combination of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, stabilisation on and stabilisation off, the OS doesn't seem to make the slightest difference to the sharpness (or otherwise) of the shot, all other things being equal...
Hopefully I'll be able to get out and test the lens properly tomorrow on some birds, but maybe I might have steadier hands than I thought I had, and that OS isn't going to give the extra edge that I hoped it would.
I'd already bought a Kenko 1.4x teleconvertor to go with it (AF works in good light too), but now I'm starting to think about swapping the 80-400mm for the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX IF DG instead - with the Tcon I'd get 420mm and effective permanent AF - HSM too - and still presumably be able to handhold as least as well as I can with either of the 400mm zooms (it's shorter than the 80-400 at full extension, and zooming on the 300m is done internally).
Watch this space.
It's already obvious that the lens has the potential to produce images of high quality (Option1's gallery is ample proof of that), and although it's noisy, the AF's much quicker than on my Sigma 135-400mm, and I generally manage with that.
I have to say though that following over 2 hours and of testing every combination of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, stabilisation on and stabilisation off, the OS doesn't seem to make the slightest difference to the sharpness (or otherwise) of the shot, all other things being equal...
Hopefully I'll be able to get out and test the lens properly tomorrow on some birds, but maybe I might have steadier hands than I thought I had, and that OS isn't going to give the extra edge that I hoped it would.
I'd already bought a Kenko 1.4x teleconvertor to go with it (AF works in good light too), but now I'm starting to think about swapping the 80-400mm for the Sigma 100-300mm f4 EX IF DG instead - with the Tcon I'd get 420mm and effective permanent AF - HSM too - and still presumably be able to handhold as least as well as I can with either of the 400mm zooms (it's shorter than the 80-400 at full extension, and zooming on the 300m is done internally).
Watch this space.
Last edited:
SeanKP
Fledgling
Hi KeithKeith Reeder said:
I've got the 100-300mm f4 and it is a great lens, very easy to handhold. I've got sharp shots at less than 100th sec with it. Works well with the Kenko convertor too. My only gripe with it was the lack of reach occasionally which is why I bit the bullet and went for the 500mm but I still use the 100-300 when weight is an issue and it performs really well. For example, The crow shot in my gallery is in my opinion, one of the best shots I've taken and that was with the 100-300.
Sean
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Blimey! Missed that one the first time round Sean - what a superb picture!
Was that with the Kenko (he asked, hopefully)?
Was that with the Kenko (he asked, hopefully)?
Valerie
Val
Keith Reeder said:
I certainly am watching .....
I learn a lot from reading your posts Keith. I would love to improve on my photography by buying a new lens and converter but, as they cost such a lot, I want to make the right choice so I'm not jumping in feet first! So, thanks for all the info :t:
____________
Val
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
In which case, Valerie:
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=439007&postcount=10
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=439158&postcount=84
I'm off out today though - the conditions out there are exactly the kind of thing where I'd anticipate that IS/OS would be a Godsend.
If I come back wth a camera full of razor sharp images, all will be forgiven...
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=439007&postcount=10
http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=439158&postcount=84
I'm off out today though - the conditions out there are exactly the kind of thing where I'd anticipate that IS/OS would be a Godsend.
If I come back wth a camera full of razor sharp images, all will be forgiven...
rezMole
Well-known member
Valerie said:
Maybe we all look at other people's photos too much and the equipment they've used, and think "if i had the same gear, i could get shots like that). This isn't the case. Some people are just better at taking photos than others. I did a bit of photography at art school and we were always taught that technique was the most important thing. When i moved up from an old £30 Zenith to a Canon A1 (at ten times the cost), my pictures didn't improve one jot. In fact, for a time they were worse!
Don't ever spend lots more cash on a "better" lens because you think your photos will magically be better. Sure, a longer lens will bring the subject closer, but it won't turn an "ordinary" photo into something special.
And no, i don't consider myself a good photographer. I am improving, but it's a long learning curve.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
I imagine that Valerie's just trying to learn from other people's mistakes, really.
And on that score...
I've just come in after taking about 120 shots through the new lens.
And I can say, hand on heart, that it is impossible to identify any benefit from OS with this lens...
Yes, it's very dull and grey out there, but that's when OS - you'd think - would make the difference. And yet there is no quantifiable difference whatsoever, on average, between the stabilised and the non stabilised pictures.
None.
There isn't a single image which I can look at and say - "oh aye, the OS saved that shot..." and I don't mind admitting that I'm very, very disappointed.
Don't think I was expecting miracles from the thing - I wasn't.
The reason I bought it was purely so that I could stop the camera down to increase the DOF of close shots (thereby getting more of the subject sharp), but without the resultant loss in shutter speed killing any chance of a sharp picture.
This is precisely what the lens is meant to do, and in my experience so far, it doesn't deliver to any extent I can recognise from the pictures I've taken today - and I'd say that out of 120 pictures I'd be able to see some benefit if it was there.
Oh - and it absolutely eats battery charge: from an indicated full charge (the battery was only charged at the beginning of the week and this is the first time I've been out with the camera this week) to a quarter of the charge left after only 120 captures!
Not a happy bunny, I'm afraid.
And on that score...
I've just come in after taking about 120 shots through the new lens.
And I can say, hand on heart, that it is impossible to identify any benefit from OS with this lens...
Yes, it's very dull and grey out there, but that's when OS - you'd think - would make the difference. And yet there is no quantifiable difference whatsoever, on average, between the stabilised and the non stabilised pictures.
None.
There isn't a single image which I can look at and say - "oh aye, the OS saved that shot..." and I don't mind admitting that I'm very, very disappointed.
Don't think I was expecting miracles from the thing - I wasn't.
The reason I bought it was purely so that I could stop the camera down to increase the DOF of close shots (thereby getting more of the subject sharp), but without the resultant loss in shutter speed killing any chance of a sharp picture.
This is precisely what the lens is meant to do, and in my experience so far, it doesn't deliver to any extent I can recognise from the pictures I've taken today - and I'd say that out of 120 pictures I'd be able to see some benefit if it was there.
Oh - and it absolutely eats battery charge: from an indicated full charge (the battery was only charged at the beginning of the week and this is the first time I've been out with the camera this week) to a quarter of the charge left after only 120 captures!
Not a happy bunny, I'm afraid.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Well I honestly don't know what to think, Rob - all I know is that the shots I brought home would have disappointed me if I'd taken them with Sigma 135-400mm - even forgetting the OS, the lens itself is supposed to be a belter, yet the images I got today were mediocre at best (though truthfully I wasn't trying too hard from a compositional point of view).
I'll sleep on it I think, then unless I feel like giving the OS another chance, it's back to the shop and I'll have the Sigma 100-300m F4 HSM to go with my new Kenko 1.4 teleconvertor - that way I get a fast 82mm AF lens with silent, "snap of the finger" focussing and 420mm focal length (ignoring the 1.5x crop factor).
I'll sleep on it I think, then unless I feel like giving the OS another chance, it's back to the shop and I'll have the Sigma 100-300m F4 HSM to go with my new Kenko 1.4 teleconvertor - that way I get a fast 82mm AF lens with silent, "snap of the finger" focussing and 420mm focal length (ignoring the 1.5x crop factor).
Last edited:
Valerie
Val
rezMole said:
Hi rezMole
Maybe "improve" wasnt quite the right word to use - if you look in my gallery you will see I have some pretty good shots with the Canon 75 -300 usm I already own but what I would like to do is advance a little by having a lens with further reach so I can get photos of subjects which are just too far away at the moment. Also, the lens I have, I have been told, isn't suitable for a converter, which would initially have been my next step up without having to spend buckets on a new lens!
By the way, when I bought my Canon lens, after using a Sigma 28-300mm, my photos did improve enormously and the lens only cost about £150. So a good quality lens did work for me. I was advised in Jessops, where I bought it, that it wasn't necessary for me to spend loads more on the same lens with IS for the type of photos I intended taking. What I do like about my lens is the weight, only 480g.
______________
Val
Valerie
Val
Keith Reeder said:
Keith,
I wouldn't say I was trying to learn from anyone's mistakes, especially not yours as I don't wish any mistakes upon you :bounce:
I really havn't got a clue about camera's, I am not technically minded I'm afraid :-C therefore I like to read your posts so I can try to learn from your knowledge :t:
I'm really sorry to read that your new lens hasn't lived up to your expectations..... but it's good that you can take it back and "try" another one
______________
Val
