Update: 14 March 2009

Well, UPS dropped off a box today from Amazon - The Sigma 150-500 OS.

Before I start, let me say one thing - Wow, Amazon's packing sucks. Normally I don't have too much of a problem with their stuff, but today I got my package and the Sigma was very loosely sliding around in the box. It got me worried, but so far no problems. Very limited testing, though. I think I'll save my future large lens purchases for Adorama - they pack enough air around their lenses to sustain Planet Spaceball for at least a year or more.

A few initial thoughts on the lens:

-Weight-wise, I swear it just feels lighter than my former 1.7x / 300mm f/4 combo. It's huge on the camera, especially with the hood

-I'm going to have issues gripping this thing until I become used to it - the focus ring falls right where I want to hold it.

-Build quality is okay - You can't expect too much from a $900 500mm zoom

-OS is a bit noisey. It doesn't bug me, but it's noticeable. Seems to work pretty well though.

Test shots were almost impossible - Cold (35F) and rainy for the past few days. I managed to open the back door of the house and pop this off, about 25 feet away during extremely bad light (raining and total overcast at around 6PM):

VR is your main reason I think, If you shoot bird, their is no need for VR, because you need a faster speed to stop the birdy. on other hand, you can use this faster speed to stop down your shaky hand. I think you want a newer version of 80-400 and 300mm prime just like the canon one. Canon has 100-400 IS USM and 300 IS USM, which are damn good lenses, but canon is lacking some high performance AF system. What camera are you using now? maybe you can try the nikon 70-300 VR with other brand TC or sigma 150-500 and see if its up to your taste ,otherwise return them. or switch to 1DII or so and 300mm IS USM

proximity for BIF makes AF either a big thing or a not so big thing. why not rent the 80-400 and try it ?

I see a 200-400mm VR in your future.... . I am only halfway kidding, BTW. I have been pleased with a 70-300mm VR, yes, it is on the slow side, and another yes for a limited reach but with a crop body, not too bad.

What about the Sigma 120-400 OS?

Thanks for the responses!


VR is your main reason I think, If you shoot bird, their is no need for VR, because you need a faster speed to stop the birdy


True in normal situations, I would not need VR. However, with a long/slow lens, I'm in enough situations that having VR is almost a must, especially since I don't want a tripod. Many of my shots are not of BIF.


proximity for BIF makes AF either a big thing or a not so big thing. why not rent the 80-400 and try it ?

Great point, and something I hadn't thought about...then again, a bird far enough away to make AF-S negligible is probably too far away anyway, but I will research DOF calculators, as this might just be an option.

What about the Sigma 120-400 OS? In glancing at posts, people have thought their 150-500 was sharper, but perhaps not? I will research this more, as I hadn't even considered this alternative.


I have been pleased with a 70-300mm VR, yes, it is on the slow side, and another yes for a limited reach but with a crop body, not too bad


Yes I have been considering this also -- I can get the 70-300, or pay $800 for 100mm more and lose AF-S (80-400). I've seen a lot of samples from the 70-300 that are downright awesome.



Guess I'll do some more search on the 80-400 DOF calculations and some research on the 120-400 OS, thanks for the inputs very much!

Why not the 70-200vr/af-s and get the 1.7 TC? That should be anywhere from $1800 to $2200

Nikon's 80-400mm VR is on about the same level as the 100-400mm L.

AGeoJO wrote:
I see a 200-400mm VR in your future.... .

Hey, I see a(nother) 200-400 VR in mine, too!

For the moment, I also think the 80-400 is probably the best choice for the OP. I hope a new version comes out soon, but while not a "great" lens it's quite a good one. And the AF difference shouldn't be that bad at those distances. But by all means, rent one and try it out! No better way to find out whether you like it.

If nikon coes out with a new 80-400VR, with AF-S, in the next 3 months, under $1500, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I think I'm going with the sigma 150-500, or the 120-400.

dude, man-up and get a 500VR. the only way to fly. also grab a gitzo heavy carbon fiber mono for it. all other solutions are compromises at best.

tach18k wrote:
Why not the 70-200vr/af-s and get the 1.7 TC? That should be anywhere from $1800 to $2200

Funny you say that -- I just sold my 300mm f/4 AF-S, my 1.7x TC and my 70-200 VR

70-200 -- Good range, but I didn't need VR. I do plan on replacing this with the Siggy 70-200, as my event shots are always outdoors in good light. I've been impressed with the images coming from the Siggy 70-200.

1.7x TC - Pretty good TC, but I had some weirdness going on with my copy of the 70-200 and 1.7xTC, when zoomed all the way out to 200mm (340mm) -- Bad fuzzies / ghosting. I had to stop down 1 or more stops to get a usable image. Frankly, though, 340mm is still just too short to play with.

In the end, I basically had my lens needs reversed -- I had VR on the lens I didn't need it on, and didn't have VR on the lens I wanted (300mm)

So, I sold everything and plan to probably get the siggy 70-200, as it makes me money, then buy whatever with the cash left. I was looking at spending as little as possible.

I am still learning but have been down this road.

I think right now a 300 f4 afs with TCs and a monopod.

Read online about long lens technique and also rifle shooting and breathing rhythm.

Also walking like traditional bowhunters, very slowly.

Take lots of shots!

Forget the Tamron 200-500 for BIF.

I'm certain that just one week after you buy your long lense, Nikon will release an affordable new AF-S 400VR 5.6 for sure So hurry up and buy one

Cheers
Leigh

It looks ike the 200-400 is your lens to get. It's even not too bad with a 1.4x TC.
Until the time you've saved enough money you could get a second hand 80-400, you won't loose much on that one.

Man up and learn to use a tripod. No whining! It will help you, no matter which way you go..........

I agree that there's a huge black hole in the Nikon line-up here. The 80-400 is dated and not worth the cost at the moment IMO. Compared to the Nikon 70-300VR and the new Sigmas, it's overpriced and slow focusing.

I've been through this dilemma myself - looking for a light easy to carry long lens. I went with the Sigma 150-500 and believe I got my money's worth..... I just wish they'd put another $500 or so of 'value' into it. The OS works well but you're limited by the max aperture. In bad light, it's an issue. Makes it harder to catch birds in flight as well. In that respect the 120-400 might be better. I've used mine more for large wildlife. IQ wise the 150-500 was better than I expected - at 400 wide open it's clearly better than the Nikon 80-400 and not too far from what the Nikon 200-400 gives you. It IS a bit softer at 500. ANd EVERYTHING looks better stepped down. I can't speak on the Sigma 120-400.

In all honesty I can't say that there's ANYTHING in the $1000-2500 range for 400 or 500 mm that really seems to be 'great' value for your money. Seems like Sigma was trying to keep costs under $1000 with their recent offerings - makes sense from a marketing pov but the limit shows in aperture speed. But then if they were faster how much larger would they be?

Clearly the 200-400VR and 500VR are killer lenses but the cost and size are serious issues. These lenses are simply not affordable for most people. Being blunt - if you're an amateur, you will NOT be recouping your costs. These lenses are an indulgence - an expensive indulgence.

IMO, I think something like the old 400 f/4 and 500 f/5.6 with VR lenses would help fill that existing void. I think that these could come in at an intermediate price level well below the very expensive pro glass. Primes are cheaper than zooms and these speeds make for a reasonable size and cost.


It would be nice if Nikon upgraded the 80-400 VR to AF-S status but it might be even better if they rethought their lineup completely. The 16-85 VR is a nice 'prosumer' start. The 70-300 VR is a good follow up - a little overlap but a good size for a longer reach compliment. I and more than a few others use these two lenses as a 'carry kit'.

Instead of simply revamping the 80-400, Nikon COULD look to extend the line overlapping the 70-300 and go with something like a 200-500 - perhaps an f/4-5.6 or 6.3 (I think the former would be a better choice - though making for a more expensive and larger lens). They COULD follow the Sigma lead and go for TWO lenses based on the same basic model - a la 120-400 and 150-500........ a 150-400 and 200-500 seem logical - narrower ranges work with existing lenses and cut the cost.

Learn to love the 'pods! They are the past, present and future of photography!

bubbag2000 wrote:
Learn to love the 'pods! They are the past, present and future of photography!
Quoted for truth

sooner rather than later you will have to get a tripod or monopod because of weight and for no other reason. just because the D3X and 200-400 is handholdable fairly easily doesn't mean you should do it. VR helps with many things but if you want truly tack sharp images with longer lenses, you will be supported by something with VR disabled.

Herb...

cputeq wrote:
1) I really dislike tripods, and I don't have a good monopod (I can stand monos, though)
4) I need 400mm+

HerbChong wrote:
sooner rather than later you will have to get a tripod or monopod because of weight and for no other reason.


+1

Quoted for great truth.

I love threads like this were the OP pretty much talks themselves out of all their available options...

This has a very instructional thread

I have used the Sigma 80-400OS lens a lot and I really like it. Based on the reviews of the new Sigma lenses, I would seriously consider the 120-400OS, an excellent package for the price. If you have more money, the 200-400VR is by far my favorite...

Guy

A good tripod and a so so lens lets you shoot sharp photos anytime of day or night whereas a fast lens with VR only gains you an hour and a bit of extra shooting compared to the slow lens. Costs a lot less too.

Don't forget, a tripod can also be used as a monopod

HerbChong wrote:
sooner rather than later you will have to get a tripod or monopod because of weight and for no other reason. just because the D3X and 200-400 is handholdable fairly easily doesn't mean you should do it.


I'm a fairly stout guy and I work out a little, so I have no trouble hand-holding longer lenses for at least a little while. Truth be told, I mostly just use bracing of some kind (non-sandbag), perhaps a tree or log, etc. when I'm out and about, or I sit and use my knees as support.


VR helps with many things but if you want truly tack sharp images with longer lenses, you will be supported by something with VR disabled.

Herb...



I'm still going the VR / OS route, at least to try. I have the 150-500 OS Sigma coming in tomorrow -- I figured I'd give it a shot and if I don't like it very much, I'll return it and lose shipping charges but oh well.

I will probably end up using a monopod anyway with OS enabled, to give more sharper images than hand-held OS, we'll see.

Some of the 150-500 shots I've seen have been pretty nice, so I'm hoping the other 70% of the shots I've seen are from people that have no idea how to post-process