Sigma f4 100-300vs Nikon 80-400VR

carauction

Veteran Member
Messages
6,662
Reaction score
101
Location
US
Can anyone chime in on comparing these 2 lenses. On the Fred Miranda board, the Nikon gets an 8.1 overall rating. The Sigma gets a very respectable 9.5.

Does the Sigma, while not having VR, make up for lack of VR by being a faster lens? I have read that the Sigma is a very fast focusing lens. How does the Nikon focus.

The Nikon is $500 more$$$. Od course it has more reach. To cancel that out, would a good TC on the Sigma be worthwhile.

Does anyone find the color produced by the Sigma, less saturated and/or contrasty than the Nikon.

Thanks

Mike
 
Can anyone chime in on comparing these 2 lenses.
Sure, I own both lenses. For what I do, the sigma gathers dust while the nikkor has had many thousands of shots done with it.
On the Fred
Miranda board, the Nikon gets an 8.1 overall rating. The Sigma
gets a very respectable 9.5.
heh, well, that depends a lot on user expectations, experience and application. User reviews of the 80-400vr are all over the map. IMO, that's mostly due to unreasonable user expectations, inappropriate application and/or user skill issues.

These are 2 very different lenses, for the most part. The sigma is much more suitable to sports, used on a monopod or tripod. It's also better suited for shooting birds in flight. It is an excellent lens, IMO, at least until the light levels get too low. Its bigger brother, the 120-300 f/2.8 is a much better lens, but it also is much more expensive.

The nikkor is a much better general purpose, long telephoto lens, especially for hand held application. It's not well suited to many sports applications, especially lower light level sports. It works very well with reasonable light levels and where the subjects aren't relatively small and moving too rapidly. For example it should work fine for auto racing, air shows and such, but not very well on sports like football, when compared to the sigma.
Does the Sigma, while not having VR, make up for lack of VR by
being a faster lens?
No. It's only a stop faster, which is lost as soon as you put on the 1.4x TC.
I have read that the Sigma is a very fast
focusing lens. How does the Nikon focus.
Almost all of the sigma HSM lenses are very fast focus lenses, very similar to nikkor's AF-S focus speed. The 80-400 is an AF lens, driven by the motor in the body. Its focus speed depends on which body you're using, but it will be slower than the sigma.
The Nikon is $500 more$$$. Od course it has more reach. To cancel
that out, would a good TC on the Sigma be worthwhile.
The sigma 1.4x TC is pretty good, giving you 420mm at f/5.6. It's unlikely that you'd be able to hand hold the sigma at 400mm anywhere nearly as well as you could the nikkor. IMO, you need to be using a monopod with the sigma, from about 250mm and up, if you want reasonable sharpness at lower shutter speeds and a tripod for excellent sharpness at most any shutter speed, especially when beyond about 300mm.
Does anyone find the color produced by the Sigma, less saturated
and/or contrasty than the Nikon.
Dunno, Mike. I don't pay much attention to that stuff. Color and saturation changes with the lighting. Using the lens hoods and not shooting into the sun or other bright light sources will give you best contrast, with any lens.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
I've chosen the Nikkor 80-400VR over both the Sigma 100-300 and 80-400OS, in part on the testimonials from Kerry and also Morris on this and other forums. Another reason was that I could get a Nikkor in mint condition for a very good price.

--
Kees

For a collection of photos see http://www.kdbruin.net/photos/
 
Thank you very much Kerry.

What do you think of the upcoming Nikon 70-300VRII as a nice compromise between the Sigma 100-300 and the Nikon 80-400VR?

Mike
 
or anyone else who can offer assistance.

How would you compare the amount of available light afforded between the Sigma100-300, Nik80-400VR and new Nik70-300VR. The 70-300VR is reported to have an enhanced VRll, giving you 4 stops advantage.

appreciated

Mike
 
How would you compare the amount of available light afforded
between the Sigma100-300, Nik80-400VR and new Nik70-300VR. The
70-300VR is reported to have an enhanced VRll, giving you 4 stops
advantage.
Out of those, I've only used the 70-300mm VR, which was at a Nikon demo day. I was shooting with a demo camera, which was a "sealed unit" with internal memory, so I didn't have the opportunity to do a 100% crop check. However, shooting a clock tower at 1/100s at 300mm gave results that looked tack sharp on the LCD screen of the D80 at maximum zoom. As a comparison, I get sharp shots with my 70-200mm VR + 2x TC (Kenko Pro) at 400mm at about 1/100-200s (depending on monopod/hand-held) ...

Dunno if that helps any.

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://www.som.soton.ac.uk/staff/martin/default.asp?ms=2
 
Thank you very much Kerry.

What do you think of the upcoming Nikon 70-300VRII as a nice
compromise between the Sigma 100-300 and the Nikon 80-400VR?
Dunno, Mike. The specs look good, but that doesn't mean much. I'd expect it to have optical performance pretty much like the other 70-300 zooms. It won't compare to the sigma because of the constant f/4 aperture of the sigma and it won't reach 400mm, so it's a different animal than the 80-400 and I rather doubt that it would be as good optically.

If you'd be happy with 300mm, then it would likely be a pretty nice lens, would be my guess.

IMO, hand held shooting really starts to fall apart for the average shooter, at 300mm and beyond. Demand on user technique increases tremendously at 400mm.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
How would you compare the amount of available light afforded
between the Sigma100-300, Nik80-400VR and new Nik70-300VR. The
70-300VR is reported to have an enhanced VRll, giving you 4 stops
advantage.
VR has no direct affect on the light gathering characteristics of the lens. That depends mainly on the aperture, optical quality and coatings. The 100-300 f/4 will have 1 stop better performance than either of the other lenses, at the longer focal lengths.

What VR allows you to do, is compensate for the slower max aperture, by lowering the shutter speed, to gather more light. That's not the same thing as having fast glass, but it is certainly useful and for practical purposes, performs sufficiently similar, to do the job.

You have to remember that VR has no affect on subject motion. Even if you can hold the lens at 1/10s at 300mm, you'll still have motion blur to contend with. That means you need to keep your shutter speeds up, by upping the ISO, which also helps the VR work better anyway. The same applies to non-VR lenses.

IME, having VR while using higher shutter speeds, or on a monopod, is really where VR shines. You get much sharper results that way, than trying to abuse the VR by using very low shutter speeds, like most folks seem to do.

Higher shutter speeds, with the lenses stopped down a couple of stops will generally give you excellent sharpness and contrast that you won't get with the lenses wide open at marginal shutter speeds. You should always use a lens hood too, for better contrast and less chance of flare.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
It's really difficult to take these decisions...

I'm just putting on my staff (I recently moved form other system) and I've just covered the glass in short focal lengh, now I've the same problems as here reported.

I think I'll go for a handily tele like the new Sigma 50-150F/2.8 or the new Nikkor 70-300VR

After that I'll go for a long tele, to use with a tripod, like the Tamron 200-500

What do you think about that idea?

Thanks!
 
I think I'll go for a handily tele like the new Sigma 50-150F/2.8
or the new Nikkor 70-300VR
These are 2 rather significantly different lenses, IMO. The 70-300 is a general purpose, long tele and should be very nice for any general purpose application out to relatively long telephoto. I suspect that it might make a pretty nice closeup lens too, when mated with a 6T or 500d closeup lens. This lens, along with the 24-120vr and a 12-24 type lens would seem like a pretty nice, light and compact, travel, walkaround kit.

The sigma is a fast lens, rather short focal length, which makes it a specialty lens, especially useful for low light, subject isolation type shooting. I'm thinking it might be a nice replacement for the sigma 70-200 for shooting candids at events and for short tele, low light sports, like volleyball and such, indoor dog/cat shows. It's smaller and lighter than the 70-200, which is a bonus. Of course, the lack of VR/OS, means you need to be more disciplined in your technique when shooting the lens, than you would with the 70-300vr.

Neither lens would make a good replacement for the other, IMO. I'd suggest trying to nail down exactly what your priority use would be and pick the lens that best fits the majority of your need.
After that I'll go for a long tele, to use with a tripod, like the
Tamron 200-500

What do you think about that idea?
Sorry, I have no experience with that lens and know very little about it. There were a couple of recent threads where users stated that they were happy with it and that's about all I know. :-)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
--caressing my new 80-400 VR. Couldnt wait for the vaporware VR II, etc.
Mode 1 and mode 2 appear to be = to continuous, or shoot only.

Do you have a specific recommendation for air show shooting? I generally run the wee little canon S3is in continuous.

The little, very little, manual infers that what ever axis you pan in, horiz or vert, the other axis will be VR'd. Is that your experience? Will be interesting to see exactly what it does on those climbing turning sequences, which are combos.

Will be using a D2h with a D200 as a backup in the bag. Do you have any particular Dont Dos, or Must dos for the air show?

I have followed and enjoyed you work here for several years. Thanks for your many contributions, and thank you in advance if you get a moment to answer this.
MATTinNE_FL
 
--caressing my new 80-400 VR. Couldnt wait for the vaporware VR II,
Congrats on the new lens. :-) Even if it's replaced by VRII with AF-S, which I seriously doubt will happen anytime soon, if ever. It's a fun lens and will bring home the bacon more often than not. Just be patient with the 400mm shooting, hand held. It takes much more solid technique to do that, than it does with the 70-200 at 200.
Mode 1 and mode 2 appear to be = to continuous, or shoot only.
Do you have a specific recommendation for air show shooting?
I have always used continuous, I think.... The VR switch is all the way forward, away from the mount. I've never experienced the dizzyness that some have reported with the lens, nor have I ever had a problem with panning, that wasn't my fault. I'm not very agile or supple, these days, so long, sweeping panning shots are a challenge for me.
experience? Will be interesting to see exactly what it does on
those climbing turning sequences, which are combos.
I had no trouble with those, that, again, weren't my fault.
Will be using a D2h with a D200 as a backup in the bag. Do you have
any particular Dont Dos, or Must dos for the air show?
Well, I've only been to one airshow, in my life. :-) So, everything that I think that I know, I learned here or at the airshow in August. So, keep that in mind, when you read my comments.

First, I would question the need for the d2h. Yes, it will AF faster and better than the d200, but I think you might find that the d200 will be more than adequate to the task for the vast majority of your AF needs at the show. Plus, it will give you a lot of wiggle room for cropping. You may not need that, if you're good at panning while zooming and keeping the AF sensors where you want them. I'm not good at that, so I couldn't always keep the lens zoomed to frame the planes as I wanted. Needless to say, having the extra crop room saved many shots for me.

For planes in flight, I used single sensor AF, usually the center sensor, which I think was a mistake. My next airshow, I'll use closest focus dynamic for the vast majority of the flight shots, only using selective focus for special shots of formation flights. I had no trouble at all, using the d200 outer focus points on the planes. I frequently used the outer points on the closest engine on the big planes with no problem.

Use the focus limiter on the lens, especially if you have clutter that goofs the AF. If you can shoot the planes as they're taking off or landing, you'll probably have a lot of background clutter at certain points.

continued next post.................

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
I think that shutter priority is the only way to fly. If you have good light, you'll get more than sufficient DOF to cover the plane and use the sweet spot of the lens.

I made a huge mistake, in not using higher shutter speeds for my shots of the jets and even some of the shots of the hotrod Mustang pilot, because most of them had motion blur and were ruined by that. Dunno why I didn't think of it, but IIRC, all of my shots were 1/200 to 1/250, for the planes in flight. That was pretty stupid, like DUH, jets are faster planes!

Prop planes, in flight, need about 1/250 to 1/300 to blur the props nicely. Jets need a much higher shutter speed, at least 1/500, I think, probably higher would be even better, so long as you can keep a decent aperture for keeping the entire plane in focus. If necessary, I'd suggest bumping your ISO to make sure you keep a minimum of f/8 to f/10 at a minimum of 1/500 for the jets. Again, I'm not sure about how slow you can go for the really fast movers, but I think 1/500 will get you in the ballpark, but I think I'd rather run 1/1000 for the jets, if I could. You might want to research the shutter speeds folks are using on the jets, to nail that down better.

The only time the lower shutter speeds work okay on the jets and speedy prop planes is when they're flying in mixed formation, a jet with a prop plane.

The other time slower shutter speeds are needed, is when you have prop planes taxiing or idling, waiting for takeoff. 1/200 worked "okay", but 1/150 or so worked better, I think, to blur the props. You still might want deep DOF with those shots, depending on how far away you are.

Real deep DOF is not a huge issue for the smaller planes or when the larger planes are farther away, but the big planes, close up, need some serious DOF. I have shots of the Lancaster and B-51 bombers in flight, which are very large, slow planes, so the slow shutter speeds and deep DOF worked great.

IMO, your best shots will come from the turns that the planes make, either at the start or finish of their runs down the main flight path, when the sun is hitting them directly. If you're lucky, they'll be using an east/west runway for their main show path. Get as close to their turn area as possible, like the west end of the runway in the morning and the east end in the afternoon. Most of the pilots will turn and dip their wings, so you can get some really nice shots of the top of the planes, if you're close enough to their flight pattern turns. Then you just zoom out and pan to follow them through their speed runs for the crowds, if you're at the start turn. The opposite, of course, if you're at the end of their run.

If this is your first show, be patient. Zoom in on the plane, get your focus and don't start shooting until about 2/3's of the frame is filled with the plane. Zoom out while trying to keep the frame filled 2/3's or higher, as the plane approaches you. I wasted a lot of CF card space by shooting too early or too late. The shots "looked" cool in the VF, but not so cool at home on the monitor....

When shooting the hotrod fighter jets, seems like they'll usually do at least 1 or 2 power climbs, at the end of their runs. So, I think you want to be at that end of the runway, if you want to try to catch some shots of the afterburners and stuff.

If I've confused you or you have need to clarify something I've said, please ask for clarification.
I have followed and enjoyed you work here for several years.
Wow. Thanks for the very kind words, Matt!

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
--Jax NAS. The first I had an Oly e10 and a Sony F717 with the oly 1.7 tcon stuck on the end of that magnificent swivel barrel lens.
Tne next one I had the D70 with a 28-200g and a Sigma 70 300 apo II.

This will be my first with the 'big boy' toys of this era.

I appreciate your comments about the D2h vs D200. I have been feeling guilty because I dont use the D2h much anymore and thought the 8fps and its tracking would be just the ticket. Was also thinking it might drive all that glass to focus faster. Just messing with the 80-400 in the house, (dark when it got here, HATE that), it seems to focus pretty quickly, certainly not like even the 18-200 or the old sigma 70-300 apoII though. But you make a good point about the crops. I do recall in past years, I needed to crop quite a bit. The 10 megs will probably prevail.

The last show and probably this one, they got real fussy about camera bags. Would let you bring most anything you could stuff in a clear bag of some sort, so space is kind of at a premium. Maybe I will go with the D200 and have the D2h body in a fanny pak. These shows only happen at this field every other year, so you treat it like a wedding. Lots of back up.
Thanks also for the tips as to shutter speeds.

If Uncle Frank is too cheap to open the tap on some of the JW B, swing on by NE FLA and I will poor you enough to at least get some of that flexibility back. That is what flows in the fountain of youth, isnt it?
Thanks again and safe swing through that trip you mentioned.
MATTinNE_FL
 
--Jax NAS. The first I had an Oly e10 and a Sony F717 with the oly
1.7 tcon stuck on the end of that magnificent swivel barrel lens.
Way cool! I still have my 717 and 1.7 tcon, IR converted though. :-)
This will be my first with the 'big boy' toys of this era.
Oh, you'll love the tracking of the d200 AF, compared to the d70 for the most part. I used to have a trick with the 80-400 and the d70. I'd "bump" the shutter, which means I'd half press, to keep the VR active while tracking, then I'd let go and half press again, to refresh the focus. It worked very well for me, with the d70 and I still catch myself doing it with the d200 once in a while. The d200 doesn't really need that, most of the time, unless the subject is coming directly toward you and is pretty small in the VF.

Now, I generally use AF-C and if I think the tracking isn't keeping up, I just move the AF point around a little and that generally does the trick.
I appreciate your comments about the D2h vs D200. I have been
feeling guilty because I dont use the D2h much anymore and thought
the 8fps and its tracking would be just the ticket.
You probably won't need a high frame rate, for the vast majority of your shots, IMO. Maybe for the real quick stuff from the jets, like the close flybys of 2 planes passing, you know, the trick stuff that the blue angels, etc do in their shows. But that's about all I can think of, ATM. I had mine set for 3fps, not 5 fps. Most of the time, I was usually just shooting quick singles. I also used the long focus lock, which is useful for when someone steps in front of you or the plane flys into the smoke that some of the planes like to stream behind them.
thinking it might drive all that glass to focus faster. Just
messing with the 80-400 in the house, (dark when it got here, HATE
that), it seems to focus pretty quickly, certainly not like even
the 18-200 or the old sigma 70-300 apoII though. But you make a
good point about the crops. I do recall in past years, I needed to
crop quite a bit. The 10 megs will probably prevail.
No doubt that the d2h is better, faster AF and will drive the lens AF better. I needed the crop room though, cuz I want to make some big prints that the planes fill the frame. :-)
The last show and probably this one, they got real fussy about
camera bags.
huh, I wonder why? They were very security conscious, but they just poked through the guy's bags. NBD if you didn't have contraband, like bringing your own hotdogs. :-)
If Uncle Frank is too cheap to open the tap on some of the JW B,
swing on by NE FLA and I will poor you enough to at least get some
of that flexibility back. That is what flows in the fountain of
youth, isnt it?
Very cool, dude! I'd like to make an east coast trip next year too. I'll definitely be happy to swing into NE FLA and shoot the breeze with you.
Thanks again and safe swing through that trip you mentioned.
Thanks, Matt. I do appreciate the kind comments and well wishes. Same goes for you and the airshow, and beyond. You get up to the rustbelt capital, there's plenty of JW B here. :)

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root
 
Hi Kerry.

Congratulations for your gallery!

I actually have a 50 f/1.4 for portraits and a 85 F/1.8 for indoor sports, but it seems short to me for football, so I was thinking in the 50-150 f/2.8. Do you think it would be a good glass for that?

And then there's the Nikkor 70-300 VR. But don't you think it will be slow for football?

By the other hand I agree with you that the Nikkor will be much more versatile. But enough fast?

Thanks for your comments.

Sandro.
 
From the point of view of the focusing speed, of course I presume the 70-300 will be good enough.

But I'm talking in terms of minimum aperture.

I don't really know if a f/4,5 - 5,6 is enough to take children football pictures, even with ISO 400 (is the maximum I use).

Any comment to that?

Thanks again.

Sandro.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top