Sigma 150-600 Sports or Nikon 80-400?

[nuke12]

Bob, go for it. It doesn't bother me the least. I actually hope you can prove the Sigma is as good as the Nikon 200-400. Maybe I'll buy the Sigma also.

You do understand the way these long lenses (300mm +) generally work? You pay $600 for a lens and then $1,200 for another lens and you will get a big upgrade in IQ. Now spend $2,400 on another lens and you will probably get ~1/4+ of the IQ increase of the first upgrade. Spend $4,800 on the next lens and it's 1/8. Get into $9,600 and it's less still.

It's not a linear scale for IQ based on the money spent. After a certain point it's mainly based on the lens speed vs focal length plus throw in build quality.

Besides all that, your comments were about the Nikon 80-400 vs the Sigma 150-600 and that was where you were challenged. Your goal of challenging the 200-400 is quite ambitious considering you haven't shown it's better then the 80-400 and the "data is all over the internet".

--
I'm a photo hacker. I use my expensive equipment to destroy anything in front of my camera. This is a special skill that can never be realized by low life photographers. A nurtured skill since the 1970's.

 

[Chris De Schepper]

Can't comment on the Sigma but the 80-400g is hard to beat. You know how good the IQ is but to me it is the ease of use. It is light. It can be handheld all day. I have never done sports shooting but 30K of shooting birds says that it will be an excellent lens to handle for hours.

No experience of the sigma. No experience of sports shooting. Maybe you should ignore this post?

 

[Dr Bob]

Can't comment on the Sigma but the 80-400g is hard to beat. You know how good the IQ is but to me it is the ease of use. It is light. It can be handheld all day. I have never done sports shooting but 30K of shooting birds says that it will be an excellent lens to handle for hours.

No experience of the sigma. No experience of sports shooting. Maybe you should ignore this post?

 

[jeminijoseph]

Can't comment on the Sigma but the 80-400g is hard to beat. You know how good the IQ is but to me it is the ease of use. It is light. It can be handheld all day. I have never done sports shooting but 30K of shooting birds says that it will be an excellent lens to handle for hours.

No experience of the sigma. No experience of sports shooting. Maybe you should ignore this post?

 

[Dr Bob]

Can't comment on the Sigma but the 80-400g is hard to beat. You know how good the IQ is but to me it is the ease of use. It is light. It can be handheld all day. I have never done sports shooting but 30K of shooting birds says that it will be an excellent lens to handle for hours.

No experience of the sigma. No experience of sports shooting. Maybe you should ignore this post?

 

[jeminijoseph]

Can't comment on the Sigma but the 80-400g is hard to beat. You know how good the IQ is but to me it is the ease of use. It is light. It can be handheld all day. I have never done sports shooting but 30K of shooting birds says that it will be an excellent lens to handle for hours.

No experience of the sigma. No experience of sports shooting. Maybe you should ignore this post?

 

[kbrkr]

The new 300mm F/4E with VR adds 4.5 stops of image stabilization and new levels of sharpness and compatibility with TC's. Should this lens also be entered into the mix?

I'm in the market for a long zoom and these 3 are all my choices?

 

[Antal I Kozma]

The new 300mm F/4E with VR adds 4.5 stops of image stabilization and new levels of sharpness and compatibility with TC's. Should this lens also be entered into the mix?

I'm in the market for a long zoom and these 3 are all my choices?

I think so too. This lens seems very interesting. I have the 300mm f2.8 VR II but I am going to have a serious look at this lens. It is so light and compact that in certain applications it might come first. Like trekking on a long trail. If image quality with 1.4x and 2x extenders will be sharp and contrasty then I may get one. After all with the high ISO capabilities of present Nikons combined with 4 1/2x VR this lens can be turned into a 600mm f8 without too much trouble. I am curious to learn how this lens will perform on a D810 or a D4s with extenders. That will be the proof of the pudding.

Best regards AIK

 

[mkrause]

I've rented this lens twice for two separate weeks, once for air shows and once for around town. Thus far it has exceeded my expectations! It needs reasonable light as it's not the fastest lens out there. I shot thousands of Air Show shots all hand held and it work out just fine...

Barn Owl- Hawk Watch 2015

Aviation Nation 2014 - Nellis AFB

[ATTACH alt="Izu "King of Beasts" San Diego Zoo Safari Park"]852481[/ATTACH]
Izu "King of Beasts" San Diego Zoo Safari Park

[ATTACH alt="Tomas "Tiger Trail" Exhibit San Diego Zoo Safari Park"]852482[/ATTACH]
Tomas "Tiger Trail" Exhibit San Diego Zoo Safari Park

--
-MKrause...
http://www.pbase.com/kramerkrause
Long time viewer and pbase supporter...

 

[Emil Varadi]

These are lively, full blooded images below, similar in IQ to what I myself am getting from the Nikon 80-400G. Besides practical consideration like being light enough to be carried around, this was the factor why I bought this lens.

The noise by Sigma and Tamron owners make in this forum is simply dizzying, but the way I see it, their images are simply not comparable to the ones the Nikon produces. I do not exclude that those lenses may be able to produce something like this, but I have not seen it yet. Full stop.

I've rented this lens twice for two separate weeks, once for air shows and once for around town. Thus far it has exceeded my expectations! It needs reasonable light as it's not the fastest lens out there. I shot thousands of Air Show shots all hand held and it work out just fine...

Barn Owl- Hawk Watch 2015

Aviation Nation 2014 - Nellis AFB

[ATTACH alt="Izu "King of Beasts" San Diego Zoo Safari Park"]852481[/ATTACH]
Izu "King of Beasts" San Diego Zoo Safari Park

[ATTACH alt="Tomas "Tiger Trail" Exhibit San Diego Zoo Safari Park"]852482[/ATTACH]
Tomas "Tiger Trail" Exhibit San Diego Zoo Safari Park

 

[Daniel Lauring]

These are lively, full blooded images below, similar in IQ to what I myself am getting from the Nikon 80-400G. Besides practical consideration like being light enough to be carried around, this was the factor why I bought this lens.

The noise by Sigma and Tamron owners make in this forum is simply dizzying, but the way I see it, their images are simply not comparable to the ones the Nikon produces. I do not exclude that those lenses may be able to produce something like this, but I have not seen it yet. Full stop.

I've rented this lens twice for two separate weeks, once for air shows and once for around town. Thus far it has exceeded my expectations! It needs reasonable light as it's not the fastest lens out there. I shot thousands of Air Show shots all hand held and it work out just fine...

I don't see anymore "full blood" or detail in these shots than the Tamron 150-600.

 

[Dr Bob]

These are lively, full blooded images below, similar in IQ to what I myself am getting from the Nikon 80-400G. Besides practical consideration like being light enough to be carried around, this was the factor why I bought this lens.

The noise by Sigma and Tamron owners make in this forum is simply dizzying, but the way I see it, their images are simply not comparable to the ones the Nikon produces. I do not exclude that those lenses may be able to produce something like this, but I have not seen it yet. Full stop.

I've rented this lens twice for two separate weeks, once for air shows and once for around town. Thus far it has exceeded my expectations! It needs reasonable light as it's not the fastest lens out there. I shot thousands of Air Show shots all hand held and it work out just fine...

I don't see anymore "full blood" or detail in these shots than the Tamron 150-600.

Daniel,

Personal taste but these 3 look very flat (lack of colour and punch) compared to mkrauses previous shots. Nice shots though!

--
Andy

Loading…

andyburnsphotography.zenfolio.com

 

[nuke12]

I guess that I might as well throw my opinion into the hat. Opinions aren't worth much but we all have them.

I have the Tamron and I like it. It does what I want. It's light enough for me to carry, it produces very good images plus it has that 600mm thing.

The following is only my opinion from reading and looking at images. I think the Nikon 80-400 is slightly better then the Tamron. The Nikon has the weight advantage but loses out on the focal length and price.

The Sigma sport, IMHO is as good or very close to the Nikon. The Sigma has the 600mm thing but is heavy+large. It also wins the price war vs the Nikon.

I think it's just a matter of picking the best weapon for your needs. Choose well but none will be a bad buy.

 

[Daniel Lauring]

These are lively, full blooded images below, similar in IQ to what I myself am getting from the Nikon 80-400G. Besides practical consideration like being light enough to be carried around, this was the factor why I bought this lens.

The noise by Sigma and Tamron owners make in this forum is simply dizzying, but the way I see it, their images are simply not comparable to the ones the Nikon produces. I do not exclude that those lenses may be able to produce something like this, but I have not seen it yet. Full stop.

I've rented this lens twice for two separate weeks, once for air shows and once for around town. Thus far it has exceeded my expectations! It needs reasonable light as it's not the fastest lens out there. I shot thousands of Air Show shots all hand held and it work out just fine...

I don't see anymore "full blood" or detail in these shots than the Tamron 150-600.

Daniel,

Personal taste but these 3 look very flat (lack of colour and punch) compared to mkrauses previous shots. Nice shots though!

--
Andy

http://andyburnsphotography.zenfolio.com/portfolio/h1b6f6169#ha7ab48a

Well they are black and white birds. ;-)

I think most subtle differences, like "punch" come down to colors, contrast, sharpness and processing. I've definitely improved my skills in post processing over the last year but I have a long way to go.

 

[Emil Varadi]

I guess that I might as well throw my opinion into the hat. Opinions aren't worth much but we all have them.

I have the Tamron and I like it. It does what I want. It's light enough for me to carry, it produces very good images plus it has that 600mm thing.

The following is only my opinion from reading and looking at images. I think the Nikon 80-400 is slightly better then the Tamron. The Nikon has the weight advantage but loses out on the focal length and price.

The Sigma sport, IMHO is as good or very close to the Nikon. The Sigma has the 600mm thing but is heavy+large. It also wins the price war vs the Nikon.

In some places yes, in some places no. I bought my Nikon for roughly the same price as a Sigma, or might say somewhat cheaper.

The problem seems to be the "birdshooters myopia", as they tend to consider all long lenses only from the aspect of shooting birds. No, not everyone is shooting birds with long lenses. Other lens caracteristics do come into play, like weight. And weight does pull its weight. While I can use my 80-400 as an urban walkaround lens, no way would I do that with a Sigma.

True, if I were to go after birds, using a good tripod, I would consider the Sigma. Now, if I want to shoot birds, I may use DX on my D800E and have the equivalent of a 600mm lens. But also would feed those damn birds to come close on my terrace (or wherever I may want to shoot them) as feeding and shooting from a hide is the best way of doing this instead of spending fortunes on long and powerful lenses.

 

[nuke12]

In some places yes, in some places no. I bought my Nikon for roughly the same price as a Sigma, or might say somewhat cheaper.

The problem seems to be the "birdshooters myopia", as they tend to consider all long lenses only from the aspect of shooting birds. No, not everyone is shooting birds with long lenses. Other lens caracteristics do come into play, like weight. And weight does pull its weight. While I can use my 80-400 as an urban walkaround lens, no way would I do that with a Sigma.

If I was doing that kind of shooting, I think the 80-400 would be the perfect lens. Couldn't agree more.

True, if I were to go after birds, using a good tripod, I would consider the Sigma. Now, if I want to shoot birds, I may use DX on my D800E and have the equivalent of a 600mm lens. But also would feed those damn birds to come close on my terrace (or wherever I may want to shoot them) as feeding and shooting from a hide is the best way of doing this instead of spending fortunes on long and powerful lenses.

The thing is, most of the people comparing these lenses on this site are "birders" or even people that want longer then 600mm. I fall into to this category. I can't afford the Nikon 800mm so I use my Nikon 1 V2 on the Nikon 200-400 to give me an even narrower field of view then a 600mm. Your type of shooting is kind of a casualty in these type of discussions. I get the feeling your in a minority?

The really nice thing is, we all have more options then a year ago.

 

[Brandon birder]

I guess that I might as well throw my opinion into the hat. Opinions aren't worth much but we all have them.

I have the Tamron and I like it. It does what I want. It's light enough for me to carry, it produces very good images plus it has that 600mm thing.

The following is only my opinion from reading and looking at images. I think the Nikon 80-400 is slightly better then the Tamron. The Nikon has the weight advantage but loses out on the focal length and price.

The Sigma sport, IMHO is as good or very close to the Nikon. The Sigma has the 600mm thing but is heavy+large. It also wins the price war vs the Nikon.

In some places yes, in some places no. I bought my Nikon for roughly the same price as a Sigma, or might say somewhat cheaper.

The problem seems to be the "birdshooters myopia", as they tend to consider all long lenses only from the aspect of shooting birds. No, not everyone is shooting birds with long lenses. Other lens caracteristics do come into play, like weight. And weight does pull its weight. While I can use my 80-400 as an urban walkaround lens, no way would I do that with a Sigma.

True, if I were to go after birds, using a good tripod, I would consider the Sigma. Now, if I want to shoot birds, I may use DX on my D800E and have the equivalent of a 600mm lens. But also would feed those damn birds to come close on my terrace (or wherever I may want to shoot them) as feeding and shooting from a hide is the best way of doing this instead of spending fortunes on long and powerful lenses.

Emil,

good point about using lenses for other than birds. Though as a birder who has a variety of lenses and tested out the new Sigma sport and Tamron I would add that the lighter weight of the 80-400 means that one can get onto any bird quicker than with the other lenses when using handheld.

I think like you that the lower weight of the lens is a huge asset.

 

[Penny123]

Interesting thread to read as I have recently been contemplating the nikon 80-400. Last year I bought a used D700 and as much as I love it I do miss the reach I got with the cropped sensor. I use my 70-200 for action shots of my dog but it really isn't long enough. I also have a 300mm f/4 which I love for portrait shots as I love the way it renders images and the bokeh but at that focal length it can be rather frustrating to use and get the framing right and it isn't great for the action shots. The 80-400 seems like a good compromise as it isn't any heavier than my other two lenses and it is far more flexible and good for some nature shots too. I would be hand holding 90% of shots so I guess I am a little nervous about spending such a large amount of money.

 

[Dr Bob]

Interesting thread to read as I have recently been contemplating the nikon 80-400. Last year I bought a used D700 and as much as I love it I do miss the reach I got with the cropped sensor. I use my 70-200 for action shots of my dog but it really isn't long enough. I also have a 300mm f/4 which I love for portrait shots as I love the way it renders images and the bokeh but at that focal length it can be rather frustrating to use and get the framing right and it isn't great for the action shots. The 80-400 seems like a good compromise as it isn't any heavier than my other two lenses and it is far more flexible and good for some nature shots too. I would be hand holding 90% of shots so I guess I am a little nervous about spending such a large amount of money.

Penny, the 80-400g is a very flexible lens and I hand hold it all the time. Buy youself a black rapid strap and it is a great walkabout lens. Most of my use is the 400mm end but it works very well over the whole range. With FF you get all the way down to 80mm so as well as a good 'birding' lens I have been able to get good portraits of the grandchildren.

The price tag is high but I am a firm believer in 'you get what you pay for' with this lens. The used price is still high so I dont think you can go wrong.

 

[AikenMooney]

+1

To Penny123 If using hand held no reason to replace the foot. I usually use a monopod for wildlife photography & the foot would be "ok". I did replace with the Kirk for my tripod use. RRS also has a good foot. The lens is a pleasure to use & has replaced my 200-400. 4 lbs lighter & I travel with monopod in lieu of tripod, which saves several more lbs. Being able to get down to 80mm is a trade off vs f/4 on the 200-400 but is ok with me. If I need 600mm I switch to a D7100.

Normally I use it on D750 or D3s.

Yes it is $ but think you will like it.

May your next image be your best.