nikon d70 and sigma lens (1 Viewer)

[jace2004]

does anyone know if the following is compatable when used with nikon d70 with sigma 170-500mm F5.6-6.3 APO or
sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO
are the pictures good

thanks

 

[Andy Bright]

does anyone know if the following is compatable when used with nikon d70 with sigma 170-500mm F5.6-6.3 APO or
sigma 135-400mm F4.5-5.6 APO
are the pictures good

thanks

Hi Jace,
I don't have personal experience with either lens but, providing they are recent models, they should be be fine. I know of at least one BF member happily shooting the D70+Sigma 135-400 (see Greypoint's photos in the gallery) as well as numerous people using the 170-500mm.
If you're buying from new, you should be fine but older models may need rechipping by Sigma to work on modern cameras.

cheers,
Andy

 

[greypoint]

If you can manage with 400mm instead of 500mm, the 135-400mm is a great lens. Very easy to handhold [remove the tripod mount] because it has rear focussing so the front does'nt move - handy as it's quite long when extended. AF is'nt as fast as more expensive lenses but I don't miss too much [apart from user error of course]. Another plus is the virtual absence of CA - great if you're pointing towards a sunny sky! It feels nicely balanced on the D70 - stays on it most of the time!!

 

[jace2004]

thanks for the info

 

[yossi]

The 170-500mm is slightly better optically than the 135-400, but is bigger. The best in the group is the "Bigma" - the 50-500, but it's huge.
If you can afford it - go for the Nikkor 80-400. The VR allows it to be used hand held, and even when fully open, It's very sharp. I got very good shots with it @400mm even at 1/80th of a second.

 

[led_snapper]

Greypoint, what do you mean by CA?

 

[Keith Reeder]

"Chromatic aberration" - dodgy colours (fringing and whatnot), in other words...

 

[led_snapper]

Thanx I know what Chromatic aberration is, just hadn't recognised the acronym - that's why, cos it's an APO lens after all...

I've been weighing up pros and cons of sigma 80-400 OS 4.5-5.6 vs the Nikon 80-400 AF VR. Anyone got any opnions?

 

[yossi]

The Nikon 80-400 is much better than the Sigma version. I've compared them. You can also see the differences in the MTF charts, especially @ 400mm. (The Sigma is the upper chart).

 

[led_snapper]

Thanks Yossi,

I had heard there wasn't much difference optically but I take your point on the MTF curves. The Nikon seems to offer better contrast and better centre sharpness, but going towards the edge is not so consistent and doesn't appear asif it would deliver any better shot wide open then the Sigma - stopped down it would appear to be better though. In general I always tend to liike Nikon for its optics if I can afford the expense. I had reckoned AF would be a tad faster on my D100 with the Sigma though because of its internal focussing design whereas the Nikkor has to move a lot more glass around.

The Nikon 80-400 is much better than the Sigma version. I've compared them. You can also see the differences in the MTF charts, especially @ 400mm. (The Sigma is the upper chart).

 

[beji]

I shoot birds and people with the nikon 80-400. My hands are not steady at all. With VR, I am able to shoot hand held at below 1/60 even at 400mm. I never hesitate to use that for portraits aswell. Especially when I shoot kids events and stuff, it is really nice to reach them close at 400 mm from far behind
I think the Nikkor 80-400 is realy a great lens. Just that, you need to spend some time to get used to it to take good pictures.
regards,
-Beji
www.bejiphotography.com

 

[gophish]

You may want to look at comments at www.dpreview.com in D70 forum before you buy the 170-500, it gets mixed reviews. I have the (Bigma) 50-500 and like it a lot, but, it is more expensive and is quite heavy (over 4 lbs).
I have just reciently started to experiment with shooting it on a BushHawk rifle stock and am having pretty good luck with it. Not quite like using a tripod, but, tough to lug tripod when hiking any distance.
Ken H., Ballston Lake