Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon AF-S 80-400mm not as good as Sigma 150-500mm?

Go to last post
I suspect the subject and camera settings could be the problem.

AFC 9 point will more often than not mean the camera is focusing somewhere other than you think. Try afc single point..

The pigeons are small in the frame and I doubt the af system could distinguish between the back pigeon and the front of the chimney. The extra 100mm reach of the sigma could reduce this issue as the subject would be larger in the frame.

The lens has not been AF fine tuned. My 80-400 needs around +10 at 400mm over long distance.

VR can also produce odd results at high shutter speeds

In any event, these results are much poorer than with my copy on a D800, so something is wrong. Either AF fine tune, poor test target, poor choice of AF settings, inappropriate use of VR at high shutter speeds or (hopefully this isn't the case) sample variation and poor QC by Nikon.

I'll try to post some crops at similar range, but it won't be for a few days due to work pressure.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
 
Photo Pete said:
Photo Pete wrote:

I suspect the subject and camera settings could be the problem.

AFC 9 point will more often than not mean the camera is focusing somewhere other than you think. Try afc single point..

The pigeons are small in the frame and I doubt the af system could distinguish between the back pigeon and the front of the chimney. The extra 100mm reach of the sigma could reduce this issue as the subject would be larger in the frame.

The lens has not been AF fine tuned. My 80-400 needs around +10 at 400mm over long distance.

VR can also produce odd results at high shutter speeds

In any event, these results are much poorer than with my copy on a D800, so something is wrong. Either AF fine tune, poor test target, poor choice of AF settings, inappropriate use of VR at high shutter speeds or (hopefully this isn't the case) sample variation and poor QC by Nikon.

I'll try to post some crops at similar range, but it won't be for a few days due to work pressure.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
Click to expand...
Thank you for your analysis! I agree with you. In ANY case, the Sigma proved to be good enough to a fraction of the Nikon price. The extra reach and the good IQ of the Sigma didn't make it necessary to go further with more trials of the 80-400. I am impressed by the clearness of images and not soft pictures on long distance on Sigma 150-500, which I think a proper adjustet 80-400 in any case would have problems to exceed.

I didn't even use a tripod. So this was not a scientific, but only a quick user test.

Very good if you could analyse your own shots. As you say: "The extra 100mm reach of the sigma could reduce this issue as the subject would be larger in the frame." means that I will probably be better off with the Sigma in any case, since I mostly only use the longest focal length and always handheld. I have made my decision and won't buy the overexpensive Nikon rip-off lens.

I hope Nikon one day would come up with a prime, lightweight pure 500mm f5,6 or f6,3 lens. With the extremely good sensors nowadays, the bottleneck we had with film is gone and we shouldn't need to wear the big f2,8 or f4 long primelenses all the time. Nikon: Give us more long lens options and lower your insane price on the new 80-400!

 
Last edited:
kk123 said:
kk123 said:
Photo Pete wrote:

I suspect the subject and camera settings could be the problem.

AFC 9 point will more often than not mean the camera is focusing somewhere other than you think. Try afc single point..

The pigeons are small in the frame and I doubt the af system could distinguish between the back pigeon and the front of the chimney. The extra 100mm reach of the sigma could reduce this issue as the subject would be larger in the frame.

The lens has not been AF fine tuned. My 80-400 needs around +10 at 400mm over long distance.

VR can also produce odd results at high shutter speeds

In any event, these results are much poorer than with my copy on a D800, so something is wrong. Either AF fine tune, poor test target, poor choice of AF settings, inappropriate use of VR at high shutter speeds or (hopefully this isn't the case) sample variation and poor QC by Nikon.

I'll try to post some crops at similar range, but it won't be for a few days due to work pressure.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
Click to expand...
Thank you for your analysis! I agree with you. In ANY case, the Sigma proved to be good enough to a fraction of the Nikon price. The extra reach and the good IQ of the Sigma didn't make it necessary to go further with more trials of the 80-400. I am impressed by the clearness of images and not soft pictures on long distance on Sigma 150-500, which I think a proper adjustet 80-400 in any case would have problems to exceed.

I didn't even use a tripod. So this was not a scientific, but only a quick user test.

Very good if you could analyse your own shots. As you say: "The extra 100mm reach of the sigma could reduce this issue as the subject would be larger in the frame." means that I will probably be better off with the Sigma in any case, since I mostly only use the longest focal length and always handheld. I have made my decision and won't buy the overexpensive Nikon rip-off lens.

I hope Nikon one day would come up with a prime, lightweight pure 500mm f5,6 or f6,3 lens. With the extremely good sensors nowadays, the bottleneck we had with film is gone and we shouldn't need to wear the big f2,8 or f4 long primelenses all the time. Nikon: Give us more long lens options and lower your insane price on the new 80-400!

Click to expand...
The price should come down eventually, although personally I'm pretty impressed with the lens for the price it is now. The combination of wide open image quality, focus speed and excellent VR is the best I've come across for anywhere close to the price.

However, If the Sigma does it for you then that is what counts. Go for it and enjoy making images with it.
 
kk123 said:
kk123 wrote:
kk123 said:
Photo Pete wrote:

I suspect the subject and camera settings could be the problem.

AFC 9 point will more often than not mean the camera is focusing somewhere other than you think. Try afc single point..

The pigeons are small in the frame and I doubt the af system could distinguish between the back pigeon and the front of the chimney. The extra 100mm reach of the sigma could reduce this issue as the subject would be larger in the frame.

The lens has not been AF fine tuned. My 80-400 needs around +10 at 400mm over long distance.

VR can also produce odd results at high shutter speeds

In any event, these results are much poorer than with my copy on a D800, so something is wrong. Either AF fine tune, poor test target, poor choice of AF settings, inappropriate use of VR at high shutter speeds or (hopefully this isn't the case) sample variation and poor QC by Nikon.

I'll try to post some crops at similar range, but it won't be for a few days due to work pressure.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
Click to expand...
Thank you for your analysis! I agree with you. In ANY case, the Sigma proved to be good enough to a fraction of the Nikon price. The extra reach and the good IQ of the Sigma didn't make it necessary to go further with more trials of the 80-400. I am impressed by the clearness of images and not soft pictures on long distance on Sigma 150-500, which I think a proper adjustet 80-400 in any case would have problems to exceed.
Click to expand...
Well, I've been told that the Sigma is really good, but that the AF is sluggish at times. For some users that alone will make them buy the Nikon, though I won't.

Do you if the Sigma breathes as badly as the Nikon 80-400 AF-S????

Robert
 
Mine produces pictures just like your. I will give it another try, and it may go back to Amazon.
 
I've not tried the 80-400, but my Sigma 150-500 definitely gives good images, and for the difference in price that is absolutely the lens for me. If they were both the same price, things would be a lot harder to decide...

Anyway, I would tend to think that there is something wrong with your sample shots (either settings or maybe the lens itself is bad), as all reviews I have read on the new lens make it out to be quite good for a variable aperture zoom.

Cheers
 
The Big One said:
The Big One wrote:

I've not tried the 80-400, but my Sigma 150-500 definitely gives good images, and for the difference in price that is absolutely the lens for me. If they were both the same price, things would be a lot harder to decide...

Anyway, I would tend to think that there is something wrong with your sample shots (either settings or maybe the lens itself is bad), as all reviews I have read on the new lens make it out to be quite good for a variable aperture zoom.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Can you give links to the reviews? Was it on long distance and challenging the CA situations? Then you can evaluate the quality of the glass better.

(Remember, settings were in principle the same for both lenses, but note the possibilities for errors noted. The Sigma had no CA visible on any pictures. The Nikon on most.)

http://ketilknudsen.com
 
Last edited:
kk123 said:
kk123 wrote:
kk123 said:
The Big One wrote:

I've not tried the 80-400, but my Sigma 150-500 definitely gives good images, and for the difference in price that is absolutely the lens for me. If they were both the same price, things would be a lot harder to decide...

Anyway, I would tend to think that there is something wrong with your sample shots (either settings or maybe the lens itself is bad), as all reviews I have read on the new lens make it out to be quite good for a variable aperture zoom.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Can you give links to the reviews? Was it on long distance and challenging the CA situations? Then you can evaluate the quality of the glass better.

(Remember, settings were in principle the same for both lenses, but note the possibilities for errors noted. The Sigma had no CA visible on any pictures. The Nikon on most.)

http://ketilknudsen.com
Click to expand...
I don't have any links, I was just looking around a bit after the announcement out of curiosity, and my reply above is just commenting on the general consensus which I seemed to feel from various people. Regardless, even on this forum people seem to generally be happy with that lens.

I didn't really look too deeply at the scientific reviews, as I had no possibility of purchasing, as the Sigma is more than enough for me (and cost more than enough, as well... even at 1/3 the price of Nikon, it was hard on my budget!).
 
Photo Pete said:
Photo Pete wrote:
Photo Pete said:
Photo Pete said:
Photo Pete wrote:

I suspect the subject and camera settings could be the problem.

AFC 9 point will more often than not mean the camera is focusing somewhere other than you think. Try afc single point..

The pigeons are small in the frame and I doubt the af system could distinguish between the back pigeon and the front of the chimney. The extra 100mm reach of the sigma could reduce this issue as the subject would be larger in the frame.

The lens has not been AF fine tuned. My 80-400 needs around +10 at 400mm over long distance.

VR can also produce odd results at high shutter speeds

In any event, these results are much poorer than with my copy on a D800, so something is wrong. Either AF fine tune, poor test target, poor choice of AF settings, inappropriate use of VR at high shutter speeds or (hopefully this isn't the case) sample variation and poor QC by Nikon.

I'll try to post some crops at similar range, but it won't be for a few days due to work pressure.
--
Have Fun
Photo Pete
Click to expand...
Thank you for your analysis! I agree with you. In ANY case, the Sigma proved to be good enough to a fraction of the Nikon price. The extra reach and the good IQ of the Sigma didn't make it necessary to go further with more trials of the 80-400. I am impressed by the clearness of images and not soft pictures on long distance on Sigma 150-500, which I think a proper adjustet 80-400 in any case would have problems to exceed.

I didn't even use a tripod. So this was not a scientific, but only a quick user test.

Very good if you could analyse your own shots. As you say: "The extra 100mm reach of the sigma could reduce this issue as the subject would be larger in the frame." means that I will probably be better off with the Sigma in any case, since I mostly only use the longest focal length and always handheld. I have made my decision and won't buy the overexpensive Nikon rip-off lens.

I hope Nikon one day would come up with a prime, lightweight pure 500mm f5,6 or f6,3 lens. With the extremely good sensors nowadays, the bottleneck we had with film is gone and we shouldn't need to wear the big f2,8 or f4 long primelenses all the time. Nikon: Give us more long lens options and lower your insane price on the new 80-400!

http://ketilknudsen.com
Click to expand...
The price should come down eventually, although personally I'm pretty impressed with the lens for the price it is now. The combination of wide open image quality, focus speed and excellent VR is the best I've come across for anywhere close to the price.

However, If the Sigma does it for you then that is what counts. Go for it and enjoy making images with it.
Click to expand...
 
i have Sigma 150-500

and was planing to buy the new nikon 80-400

if u could see there is review by cameralabs of both the lenses

Loading…

www.cameralabs.com

Loading…

www.cameralabs.com

the Simga stands nowhere

the biggest problem i face with my sigma is in tracking flying birds and similar fast pace action.which is supposed to be no problem with nikon lens.


so has anyone else compared them
 
I had a 50-500mm without OS, as soon as sigma announced the 150-500mm OS, I sold it to buy this OS version (the first for sigma at that time). When I got it I compared against the lens I had sold and was impressed to see that the old 50-500mm was considerably sharper.

I was quite unimpressed by the 150-500mm, and the new 50-500mm OS was so much sharper it wasn't even funny. Sold the 150-500mm quite fast.

In the comparisons I did the 50-500mm OS is not as sharp as the 80-400mm VRII version, quite a bit of difference, as a matter of fact.

Regardless if I have a great copy of the 80-400mm, and a great copy of the 50-500mm, sigma produces great lenses, for the price.
 
kk123 said:
kk123 wrote:

I tried them out on Nikon D7100, and to my surprise the 1/4 in price Sigma did better optically. Test done on silhouette feral pigons far away.. Much CA with the Nikon lens. Better detail and sharper lines on the Sigma. If the Nikon 80-400 doesn't have better glass then this? The price is wild.

8679da01437944da9510b6f21449662a.jpg

http://ketilknudsen.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comparison. A picture is worth a thousand words.
 
wasserball said:
wasserball wrote:
wasserball said:
kk123 wrote:

I tried them out on Nikon D7100, and to my surprise the 1/4 in price Sigma did better optically. Test done on silhouette feral pigons far away.. Much CA with the Nikon lens. Better detail and sharper lines on the Sigma. If the Nikon 80-400 doesn't have better glass then this? The price is wild.

8679da01437944da9510b6f21449662a.jpg

http://ketilknudsen.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comparison. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Click to expand...
What's a worthless picture worth?
 
an eye examination?

From an unbiased opinion, the Sigma won.
 
Last edited:
cover the sigma with a nikon label and you will probably say, I told you so. :)

BTW, I own neither.
 
Last edited:
kk123 said:
kk123 wrote:

I tried them out on Nikon D7100, and to my surprise the 1/4 in price Sigma did better optically. Test done on silhouette feral pigons far away.. Much CA with the Nikon lens. Better detail and sharper lines on the Sigma. If the Nikon 80-400 doesn't have better glass then this? The price is wild.

8679da01437944da9510b6f21449662a.jpg

http://ketilknudsen.com
Click to expand...
And you base your comment on those images.... sorry but lol
 
Leonard Shepherd said:
Leonard Shepherd wrote:
Leonard Shepherd said:
Photo Pete wrote
Click to expand...
Leonard Shepherd said:
Something is wrong with that shot.
Click to expand...
Maybe the "something is wrong" is partly expecting the camera to focus accurately on a pigeon at 200 feet distance :) A lesser detail is the Nikon lens image is cropped a little more being 400 mm to achieve the same size reproduction.

By my standards these two images score nought out of 10 as suitable for comparing lens performance in a normal photographic situation.

--
Leonard Shepherd
Many problems turn out to be a lack of intimate knowledge of complex modern camera equipment.
Click to expand...
You are being kind and generous

Those images are a bad joke and mean nothing except they both suck
 
wasserball said:
wasserball wrote:
wasserball said:
kk123 wrote:

I tried them out on Nikon D7100, and to my surprise the 1/4 in price Sigma did better optically. Test done on silhouette feral pigons far away.. Much CA with the Nikon lens. Better detail and sharper lines on the Sigma. If the Nikon 80-400 doesn't have better glass then this? The price is wild.

8679da01437944da9510b6f21449662a.jpg

http://ketilknudsen.com
Click to expand...
Thanks for the comparison. A picture is worth a thousand words.
Click to expand...
1 word will do here: Lol, wait thats 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top