Waiting patiently for my new D200 with the 18-200 VR and battery grip. I will need some additional reach though and I prefer to use stabilized lens so I'm looking at the Sigma 80-400 OS and the Nikon 80-400 VR. Does anyone here have any experience with these lens and can offer any comparison insights?
The Sigma lens is quite a bit cheaper for me to buy but it's also a lot heavier than the Nikon. I'm guessing the stabilization systems are roughly comparable (yes/no?) and reviews I've seen suggest both lens are pretty decent optically with good contrast and sharpness.
What I'm not sure of is the autofocus speed. Reviews on both lens have been less than stellar in regards to focus speed. Anybody know if they offer similiar performance in this respect with their different mechanical designs? I don't mind paying extra for the Nikon lens to save some weight but if the Sigma is noticeably faster then I would tend to lean that way.
As an alternative, does anyone know if a 1.4 TC can be used with the new 18-200 VR, Nikon branded or other? I realize this question may be a little premature as the lens isn't out yet but never hurts to ask!
Some have suggested that Nikon will upgrade their 80-400 to use the faster focussing motor sometime in 2006. Will it be January, July or not at all, nobody knows. The waiting game is a pain but until you need the reach, I wouldn't just buy it just in case. If I were to buy right now, I would go with the Sigma as it is a newer design and costs less. It is heavy but I would probably monopod either one so weight isn't as critical.
I already posted examples and my conclusions about those lenses (I could compare both thoroughly thanks to a colleague of mine).
You can have a look at the posts in the archive, for instance this one:
Greg, thanks for that. I've also heard rumours regarding a possible upgrade and I can definitely wait if that's the case. I currently shoot with a 20D and prematurely bought the 70-300 DO IS lens (Waaayyyyyy overpriced in my opinion...) and it was "ok" but I was never really happy with it (pretty soft and balance was weird with all the glass out in the front when zoomed out. Horrible zoom creep as well because of this DO design). Turns out the new Canon 70-300 IS was just around the corner and in my mind is a much better bang for the buck and has turned out to be a surprisingly nice lens for the money. I only bought the DO because at the time there was nothing else in the lineup that had the features and reach that I wanted.
Fortune smiled on me this time thanks to a botched repair job by Canon on my DO lens that put me in a position where I was able to return the DO lens and get the new 70-300 IS. Lesson learned so I can wait if the update is indeed potentially around the corner.
Guy, thanks for the link! Great shots and definitely puts to rest any hesitations I might have had on image quality with the Sigma. It doesn't really clarify though what your thoughts were on focus speed differences (if any) between the two lens. Do you recall what your perception was of the speed? I definitely like the lower weight of the Nikon glass but if the Sigma is faster then that matters to me and of course, if the Nikon is getting an update that will certainly change the game as well. The Nikon lens in Canada currently sells for around $1,700ish but I can order the Sigma from the U.S. and it will end up around $1,200-$1,300 when I factor in shipping and exchange rates. Quite a difference in price...
Regarding the focus speed of the Nikkor, sure it's slow. A lot of people are under that misconception that AF-S (silent wave motor) will speed it up, but that's not the case. This lens is a 'long throw' lens, for lack of a better term, and it's the way the focus gears are designed that make it slow. Ok, you didn't need all that, but I'm perfectly happy with the speed on my D2X. The optical quality can't be beat in a zoomer, and I can track a model racing boat running at 80mph or a train running at 65mph. Go figure.
Thanks Jack! It will be interesting to see if the focusing system in the new D200 can drive that lens as fast as your D2X. As much as I complained about the 70-300 DO lens on my 20D, I do have to admit I got spoiled by its smokin fast focusing. The new Canon 70-300 IS is ok in this regard but the DO lens was pretty darn fast.
My local dealer here always has the 80-400 Nikon in stock and I've seen the Sigma there once in a while so I may just have to test them directly when my D200 shows up. Again, I like the price savings on the Sigma but I like the weight of the Nikon and all else being equal it's going to be a tough choice. Sigh.....
Appreciate the feedback!
P.S. Jack, any opinions on battery life with your 80-400? I've read from some people that it can chew up battery life pretty quickly or is that just crazy talk?
joudbren wrote:
Jack, any opinions on battery life with your 80-400? I've read from some people that it can chew up battery life pretty quickly or is that just crazy talk?
James 8-)
With VR on, it does substantially reduce battery life, but I think this is true with any VR/IS lens, especially with the amount of chimping I do However, I'm usually shooting on a tripod with VR off, so that hasn't really been a huge issue. I would recommend a spare battery though.
joudbren wrote:
P.S. Jack, any opinions on battery life with your 80-400? I've read from some people that it can chew up battery life pretty quickly or is that just crazy talk?
James 8-)
I have used the 80-400 quite a lot during the summer (80% of my nature shots). On the D70, battery life changed from 500-600 shots down to 300-400 max. So it does have an effect but not dramatic.
Regarding focus speed, I had the impression when I compared that the Sigma was slightly faster, but not significantly (on a D70 body). This should definitely not be the reason to choose Sigma.
Reasons to buy Sigma:
- heavy (balance on the camera)
- quite impressive on the camera
- VERY good tripod mount, I use it constantly to carry the combo (handle up)
- cheaper (cash out)
- excellent lens (optically, OS performance)
Reasons to buy Nikon:
- it is a Nikon
- excellent lens (same as for Sigma)
- 'compact' design
- 'light' weight but nothing to carry it
- better build (finishing)
BTW I also posted a few pics in Jack's recent thread and you can see that the 'slow' AF allows to shoot flying birds. Personally, I didn't have real problems with the AF speed in practice. (very rarely hunting compared to my 70-200 HSM: AF is incredibly fast but regularly hunting as well - this is probably body dependent....)
Hope all this is helping... otherwise just flip a coin
VR on my 70-200 drops battery life too. Also the 80-400 with that long throw and no AF-S cuts down on battery life too. Telephotos just burn batteries because they have longer focus throws. I'm sure the Sigma will be the same.
Thanks again everyone for the feedback. It seems like a pretty safe bet that I'll have to at least try both lens at the dealer. I'm leaning towards the Sigma at this point due to price and comparable optics but I'll need to see if I can deal with the weight or not. I like to travel fairly light and the only thing that is going to answer that for me is to put it in my hands. Cheers everyone!
However, I'm usually shooting on a tripod with VR off, so that hasn't really been a huge issue. I would recommend a spare battery though.
