Sigma 150-600 Sports or Nikon 80-400?

[stevef1961]

You have not told us what you will use it for.

IQ is important, not the subject.

The fact that Sigma is called Sports is irrelevant to me, as I will not be shooting sports, though I might try BIF, which is somewhat similar. Will even try to use it for landscapes and even casual shooting, or if you wish a walk around lens.

I sold my 70-300VR, that was pretty good upto 200mm, and now want a practical upgrade. Will never go for big guns like the 400/500/600 fixed focus lenses. Neither for the 200-400. They are just to expensive and unjustifiable for what I do.

The Nikon 80-400 would suit me just fine, except for its price. Sigma comes cheaper, so this is why I keep revolving around its IQ. If its a mach for the Nikon's IQ, there is nothing left to talk about.

If you think the 70-300vr was just pretty good up to 200 then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par. If that's the case the 80-400 with be even worse for you, and the 600... forget it. The 70-300 is close to, if not excellent, up to 280 and that's not just on the occasional copy but from most people who I've dealt with who have the lens.

 

[Daniel Lauring]

You have not told us what you will use it for.

IQ is important, not the subject.

The fact that Sigma is called Sports is irrelevant to me, as I will not be shooting sports, though I might try BIF, which is somewhat similar. Will even try to use it for landscapes and even casual shooting, or if you wish a walk around lens.

I sold my 70-300VR, that was pretty good upto 200mm, and now want a practical upgrade. Will never go for big guns like the 400/500/600 fixed focus lenses. Neither for the 200-400. They are just to expensive and unjustifiable for what I do.

The Nikon 80-400 would suit me just fine, except for its price. Sigma comes cheaper, so this is why I keep revolving around its IQ. If its a mach for the Nikon's IQ, there is nothing left to talk about.

If you think the 70-300vr was just pretty good up to 200 then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par. If that's the case the 80-400 with be even worse for you, and the 600... forget it. The 70-300 is close to, if not excellent, up to 280 and that's not just on the occasional copy but from most people who I've dealt with who have the lens.

The biggest problem I had with the 70-300 VR was a crazy amount of CA, especially at the long end. The Tamron 70-300 VC I just picked up is considerably better.

 

[Emil Varadi]

If you think the 70-300vr was just pretty good up to 200 then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par. If that's the case the 80-400 with be even worse for you, and the 600... forget it. The 70-300 is close to, if not excellent, up to 280 and that's not just on the occasional copy but from most people who I've dealt with who have the lens.

That the 70-300VR is pretty good upto 200 and declines towards 300mm is a generally shared view. I believed in it as well as well, as I have myself noted some softening at 300mmm compared with 200. True I did not measure it in 10mm increments where and how fast its IQ is falling back compared to its very good 200mms.

I read it first from you that its close to excellent upto 280mm and obviously declines only from here that I kind of doubt.

Thank you, I am fine with the 80-400G that I consider a great lens, a completely different category than the 70-300VR.

 

[stevef1961]

If you think the 70-300vr was just pretty good up to 200 then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par. If that's the case the 80-400 with be even worse for you, and the 600... forget it. The 70-300 is close to, if not excellent, up to 280 and that's not just on the occasional copy but from most people who I've dealt with who have the lens.

That the 70-300VR is pretty good upto 200 and declines towards 300mm is a generally shared view. I believed in it as well as well, as I have myself noted some softening at 300mmm compared with 200. True I did not measure it in 10mm increments where and how fast its IQ is falling back compared to its very good 200mms.

I read it first from you that its close to excellent upto 280mm and obviously declines only from here that I kind of doubt.

Thank you, I am fine with the 80-400G that I consider a great lens, a completely different category than the 70-300VR.

I no longer have the 70-300vr since i stumbled on a snowy trail and it banged off my head while it was extended. After that it would no longer focus.

I bought the new 80-400 which I really love, but wouldn't say it's head and shoulders above the 70-300 between 80 and 280. As a matter of fact I bought the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4tc and returned it because in decent light there was hardly any difference between it and the 70-300vr.

 

[Emil Varadi]

If you think the 70-300vr was just pretty good up to 200 then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par. If that's the case the 80-400 with be even worse for you, and the 600... forget it. The 70-300 is close to, if not excellent, up to 280 and that's not just on the occasional copy but from most people who I've dealt with who have the lens.

I bought the new 80-400 which I really love, but wouldn't say it's head and shoulders above the 70-300 between 80 and 280.

If that's the case I can reward you with wisecracks like "then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par."

As a matter of fact I bought the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4tc and returned it because in decent light there was hardly any difference between it and the 70-300vr.

I let that one go. ;-)

 

[stevef1961]

If you think the 70-300vr was just pretty good up to 200 then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par. If that's the case the 80-400 with be even worse for you, and the 600... forget it. The 70-300 is close to, if not excellent, up to 280 and that's not just on the occasional copy but from most people who I've dealt with who have the lens.

I bought the new 80-400 which I really love, but wouldn't say it's head and shoulders above the 70-300 between 80 and 280.

If that's the case I can reward you with wisecracks like "then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par."

As a matter of fact I bought the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4tc and returned it because in decent light there was hardly any difference between it and the 70-300vr.

I let that one go. ;-)

Well - I've shown pictures taken with the 70-300 to professionals and they concur that I couldn't have gained much in decent lighting no matter what the lens. Have seen many pics with better lenses and for a fraction of the price ---- to say it's good up to 200, essentially saying it sucks - is off base.





Pretty heavily cropped....................

 

[GlobalGuyUSA]

If you think the 70-300vr was just pretty good up to 200 then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par. If that's the case the 80-400 with be even worse for you, and the 600... forget it. The 70-300 is close to, if not excellent, up to 280 and that's not just on the occasional copy but from most people who I've dealt with who have the lens.

I bought the new 80-400 which I really love, but wouldn't say it's head and shoulders above the 70-300 between 80 and 280.

If that's the case I can reward you with wisecracks like "then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par."

As a matter of fact I bought the 70-200 2.8 with 1.4tc and returned it because in decent light there was hardly any difference between it and the 70-300vr.

I let that one go. ;-)

Well - I've shown pictures taken with the 70-300 to professionals and they concur that I couldn't have gained much in decent lighting no matter what the lens. Have seen many pics with better lenses and for a fraction of the price ---- to say it's good up to 200, essentially saying it sucks - is off base.



Pretty heavily cropped....................

At least you all seem to agree about the 28-300 VR... by not mentioning it at all. :-D

--
Sincerely,

GlobalGuy

 

[giannikrattlicom]

Just in case someone still wants to know which one to buy: Sigma 150-600mm F5-6,3 DG OS HSM Sports vs. Nikon AF-S 80-400mm 1:4,5-5,6 G ED VR vs. Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 G ED VR II

More reviews about the Sigma 150-600mm: http://giannikrattli.com/reviews/



Have a nice day!

 

[GlobalGuyUSA]

Just in case someone still wants to know which one to buy: Sigma 150-600mm F5-6,3 DG OS HSM Sports vs. Nikon AF-S 80-400mm 1:4,5-5,6 G ED VR vs. Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 G ED VR II

What?

No 200-500 VR; 300/4 VR; and Tamron 150-600 VC II (new version)?? :-D

Thanks for these comparisons.

I was surprised how weak the 80-400 VR II was at 200mm.

Maybe that's just my monitor...

 

[jccash]

What you just wrote is we I bought the Nikon 80-400. What I deed was bought a certified factory refurb. Bright the price down under $1800

 

[Wanchese]

I tried two versions of the 80-400 supplied by Nikon when my 200-400 was in the shop. Neither one was satisfactory for my needs, because the zoom ring was too stiff and balky for panning motorsports. Don't know about the Sigma, but for my needs, the 80-400 was a fail.

--
YNWA

 

[Lance B]

Just in case someone still wants to know which one to buy: Sigma 150-600mm F5-6,3 DG OS HSM Sports vs. Nikon AF-S 80-400mm 1:4,5-5,6 G ED VR vs. Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 G ED VR II

What?

No 200-500 VR; 300/4 VR; and Tamron 150-600 VC II (new version)?? :-D

Thanks for these comparisons.

I was surprised how weak the 80-400 VR II was at 200mm.

Maybe that's just my monitor...

--
Sincerely,
GlobalGuy

Hmm. The 80-400 isn't weak at 200mm, that is for sure. I don't think that particular "review" was conducted very well at all. The 80-400 is a fantastic lens, especially great for travel and is sharp at all focal lengths.

D810 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/200s f/8.0 at 210.0mm iso2800

D810 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/200s f/8.0 at 300.0mm iso1600

D810 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/200s f/8.0 at 160.0mm iso720

D810 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/250s f/8.0 at 200.0mm iso2500

D810 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/200s f/8.0 at 260.0mm iso1800

D500 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/1000s f/9.0 at 165.0mm iso220

D500 + 80-400 f4.5-5.6G VR, 1/1000s f/8.0 at 165.0mm iso320

--
Lance B

Galleries by Lance B

www.pbase.com

 

[JeffryZ]

Just in case someone still wants to know which one to buy: Sigma 150-600mm F5-6,3 DG OS HSM Sports vs. Nikon AF-S 80-400mm 1:4,5-5,6 G ED VR vs. Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 G ED VR II

More reviews about the Sigma 150-600mm: http://giannikrattli.com/reviews/

Have a nice day!

Besides the size differences, the weights vary too. How much are you willing to carry? The Sigma Sport is 6.3 pounds while the 80- 400mm is 3.35 pounds.

--
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. Wayne Gretzky.

Galleries by jeffryz

www.pbase.com

 

[nbirkett]

Replying to the 'thread'. Might another option for the 80-400mm be the newly released Sigma 100-400mm? Much cheaper (about one-third of the cost) and lighter (2.6 lbs). No reviews yet. But, if it has good IQ and AF speed, it could be an interesting option.

--
Nick

 

[AikenMooney]

I totally agree. Sharp & great travel lens. Great on the D750 & D500.

 

[RichLI]

You have not told us what you will use it for.

IQ is important, not the subject.

I have owned the Nikon 80-400mm G AF-S and now have the Tamron 150-600mm. The 80-400mm is very sharp, but most birders find 400mm a bit short.

The Tamron 150-600mm is also very sharp, and you do not really give up much, if anything, to get the extra 200mm. But if you occasionally want to take some broader shots, context, scenery, people, etc., 80mm is obviously better than 150mm at the short end, and this matters especially on a crop camera - I presently use the D7100 most of the time for birding.

The Tamron also has even better image stabilization than the Nikon - it really is astonishing.

So the subject is important.

You can see samples from both lenses on my Flickr photostream below. Almost all were hand held.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/30973952@N06/

Beautiful work. Most of my favorite images were shot under 400mm. So this reinforces my choice in buying the Nikon 80-400 afs I like the range of the lens. I found some of the longer shots less interesting - but just my opinion.

I have shot this on both fx and dx bodies and the images have been uniformly crisp ( if MY focus was dead on) clear and color beautiful. I have posted before images from a Tanzania safari as well as other shots. I try to avoid blaming my equipment for my shortcomings.

Of course no-one yet knows if the Sigma will be better than the Tamron. There are some promising indications.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/30973952@N06/

--
Rich
craft>learning>equipment

 

[stevef1961]

If you think the 70-300vr was just pretty good up to 200 then either you had a bad copy or your technique isn't up to par. If that's the case the 80-400 with be even worse for you, and the 600... forget it. The 70-300 is close to, if not excellent, up to 280 and that's not just on the occasional copy but from most people who I've dealt with who have the lens.

That the 70-300VR is pretty good upto 200 and declines towards 300mm is a generally shared view. I believed in it as well as well, as I have myself noted some softening at 300mmm compared with 200. True I did not measure it in 10mm increments where and how fast its IQ is falling back compared to its very good 200mms.

I read it first from you that its close to excellent upto 280mm and obviously declines only from here that I kind of doubt.

Thank you, I am fine with the 80-400G that I consider a great lens, a completely different category than the 70-300VR.

I'll back up my claims that the 70-300 is an amazing value for the money... or for three times the money. I returned at 70-200 vr because the difference wasn't noticeable in good conditions.

These were taken with the excellent 70-300vr