okay so right now i have the 80-400 vr ed and i would just like some opinions on sigma glass,ive never really had any sigma lens so i dont know. The 80-400 gives me MARVALOUS results but its kinda noisy and if i get close to animals(which i do often) im afraid it will scare them off and it seems like this lens will be pretty quite but once again i dont know what kind of glass quality DG is. Any tip, opinions or recommendations are welcome.

You have a lens that gives you marvelous results. If there isn't anything that this lens is failing to do, or anything that it's doing wrong, then there is no reason at all to switch except to lose some money unnecessarily. You're afraid that it will scare off animals? I can understand that, but wouldn't it make more sense to wait until you see an animal scared off before you worry about that?

Sigma makes some very good lenses. The EX line is their best. But the copy-to-copy variation in quality is greater than Nikon's so you might have to calibrate or exchange the lens to get a good sharp one. I'm rather biased in that I think Nikon makes the lenses better, and I want every advantage I can get. So a Sigma 30/1.4 and a Tokina 12-24 are the only two non-Nikon lenses I own right now. For telephoto, I'd stick to my Nikons.

I think your several months away for the sigma (it's not released yet). It's quite possiable that nikon will update it's 80-400mm VR soon too. If you want silent focussing 'NOW" then get a nikon 70-300mm VRII. You loose reach but it sure is silent.

If you are concerned about noise have you tried to focus your lens manually?

Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 II has the hyper-sonic motor and is VERY quiet! When used with a 2x tele convertor you have a 140-400mm f/5.6 which is rather impressive! So much so that I may buy a tele convertor!

Happy shopping!
Mike

The 2x converter is going to degrade your image quality pretty significantly.

My dad and I have been trading results, since we both have the 300mm f/4 and he's got the 1.4x & 2.0x, and I have the 1.7x.

We're both in agreement that the 2.0x image degradation is unacceptable. With good support and very low ISO, it produces acceptable web-sized images. That's about it.

@ Mike: The OP already has Nikon's 80-400, which in my research showed that it has better optical quality than even Nikon's beautiful and legendary 70-200 when a 2x TC is attached to provide that 140-400 range. While I understand your enthusiasm, I disagree with your conclusions: I think the move to a Sigma 70-200 + 2x TC would be a definite step down for the OP.

actually i went back to where i got it from( cord camera) and the man i got it from is quite knowledgeable and according to him the af motor doesnt sound like its suppose to so its been sent off to be lubed. Hopefully this whole thing will be rectified when i comes back. Because i do love the lens and the quality it gives the only thing that put me off was the noise.

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
@ Mike: The OP already has Nikon's 80-400, which in my research showed that it has better optical quality than even Nikon's beautiful and legendary 70-200 when a 2x TC is attached to provide that 140-400 range. While I understand your enthusiasm, I disagree with your conclusions: I think the move to a Sigma 70-200 + 2x TC would be a definite step down for the OP.


I have to back this up. 2.0TC's are not kind to even the best of zoom lenses. While the 70-200+1.7TC is a good quality combo on par with the 80-400, the 70-200 + 2.0TC is a step down for sure. The 70-200 with or without the 1.4TC will beat the 80-400, but we are splitting hairs here.

I don't completely agree... if closed down a bit (f8-f9) the performance of the 70-200VR with 2.0TC at 400mm is really good (not excellent but still ok). The 80-400VR has to be closed down to get excellent pictures as well (similar to my 80-400OS BTW)

Just an example, and you have to believe me, but the picture is sharp (I have an A3 printout - just very good)

this is 400mm TC 2.0 and ISO 3200 on the D3
not on par with top class telelenses but still ok to my standards

Guy, we're not saying it's awful. Just that the IQ of (A) a 70-200+1.7x is better than (B) an 80-400 which is in turn better than (C) a 70-200+2.0x.

It's a relative comparison only, and of course they can all make very nice (even great) images. But if the question is about choosing A over B, then relative comparisons matter.