Imagemaster wrote:
Well I was shooting with Canon at the time, and had the Canon 100-400 II, which was much better. The Sigma won only for price, weight, & size.
With Nikon, I have the 200-500 & 300 f4 PF, again both of which give better results than the Sigma.
Again, I would not buy the Sigma without first comparing it to the Tamron.
I just really want to favor the 100 end vs the 500 end for hiking in Colorado. I don't shoot birds, mostly mammals so thats kind of where I am at.
Well, I've been using the Nikon AF-S 80-400 on both D7100 and D7200 crop-sensor cameras for awhile now---being a crop-sensor camera, I'm only viewing the center of the photo and not full-frame edges---my example (the only sample I have) is proving to be a very fine performer---AF speed is wonderful---it locks on the subjects very fast (keep in mind, I am shooting motorcycles and cars, not little birds)---the picture quality is also very good, but I'm not making huge crops to see every pixel...
I purchased my 80-400 used but mint at a very decent price---the 200-500 lens was not on the market yet, but even still, the 200-500 is a lot heavier to carry around. All in all, I pretty satisfied with my AF-S 80-400...
I took a new copy out for a test drive tonight. I didn't do any calibrations to it but it seems to be pretty spot on. and somehow this website always seems to lose sharpness on my images.
Just picked up the Sigma 100-400 as a walk-about hiking lens for those days when I don't feel like carrying the Nikon 200-500. Preliminary testing is very positive... it seems as sharp as my Nikon and definitely has the size/weight advantage. Trying to capture a fast moving puppy however, did not give me as high a "keeper rate" as my Nikon.... Perhaps some adjustment with the Sigma dock will improve this however....
