BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="enzodiac" data-source="post: 3281027" data-attributes="member: 132086">Here is a link to a swedish vendor with a review of the 200-500. <a href="http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=200500vr" target="_blank">http://www.cyberphoto.se/info.php?article=200500vr</a>They basically conclude that sharpness is slightly better then tamron and sigma and af and VR is alot better. They are especially impressed with the VR, yielding sharp results at 500mm down to 1/25th of a second. To compare I can get sharp shots with the Sigma 150-600 sport down to maybe 1/125. But most often I have to use 1/250th. So it does look like the Nikon has a big advantage here.If we take in to concideration the faster maximum aperture and the VR we can get away with maybe 2 stops lower iso at certain times.Without having touched the Nikon I can compare it to the Sigma sport in this way.Aperture - Nikon wins with 1/3stopsSharpness - Nikon wins slighltyAF speed and sound - Nikon winsBuild quality - Sigma winsWeather sealing - Sigma winsWeight and size - Nikon winsPrice - TieAbility to take converter - Nikon wins (I know Sigma can take one but Nikons is sharper and we end up with f8 instead of f9 which helps AF)Native reach - Sigma with 100mm.Another win for the Nikon is the native support for it. I can drop the lens and camera off at a Nikon service center and get the AF tuned perfectly. Something that is very hard to do with the Sigma on your own.Based on this comparison the Nikon wins 6 to 3. I think I might have to sell my Sigma and get the Nikon :O</blockquote>

Verification