DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> nikon 400mmf2.8 vs nikon 500mmf4 vs Sigma 500mmf4.
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 10 of 10, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/13/2010 06:07:30 PM · #1
Please help

I have a once in a life time opportunity to buy a long lens ... but do not know which one.

I will use it for wildlife and birding. I use a full format and will threfore have to use teleconvertors to achieve the desired results. I already have the 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens - the quality is ok but the speed to slow for birds.

Therefore which one is better the 400mm with 2X convertor or the 500mm with 1.4X convertor... will this not make ist slow like my current lens?

The Sigma is a 1/3 cheaper and slightly slower...How does it compare with the Nikon lenses?

Kind regards
Marna
 04/13/2010 06:19:57 PM · #2
400mm f/2.8 with 2x = 800mm f/4

500mm f/4 with 1.4x = 700mm, roughly f/5

So the 400/2X combo is both faster and longer. The faster it is, the better it will focus in marginal situations. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but I don;'t know anything about the relative optical qualities of those two lenses.

R.

BTW, f/4 is FAST for an 800mm lens; I'm not sure there's one out there any faster...

Message edited by author 2010-04-13 18:20:51.
 04/13/2010 06:24:14 PM · #3
Tx

My logic also but maybe I am missing something?

Does the teleconvertor of 2 not maybe affect the image quality?

04/13/2010 06:45:02 PM · #4
Originally posted by tinkie2010:
Tx

My logic also but maybe I am missing something?

Does the teleconvertor of 2 not maybe affect the image quality?


Yeah, to a certain extent it does, there's a tradeoff of reach vs optical degradation. A lot depends on the maker of the TC. Nikon (and Canon) are famous for the quality of their TCs, and you pay a price for that. Other manufacturers, the quality is varied. I have been assuming you're dealing with Nikon's own TC. I'm not sure there's THAT big a difference between 2X and 1.4X, myself; some people say there is, though. IMO the biggest problem you have with 2X is reducing the light transmission so much that AF is didgy; and witht he f/2.8 lens that will not be your problem.

R.
 04/13/2010 06:46:15 PM · #5
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
400mm f/2.8 with 2x = 800mm f/4

500mm f/4 with 1.4x = 700mm, roughly f/5


OOPS...
The 400/2.8 with the 2x converter will be 800mm f/5.6 (two stops of loss)
The 500/4 with the 1.4x converter will be 700mm, f/5.6 (one stop loss)

So in the end there is very little difference in the reach and no difference in speed. The 500/4 with the 1.4x converter will probably be slightly lighter. Which combination yields better image quality depends on the lenses in question. I don't have enough knowledge of Nikon lenses to judge, and I have *no* knowledge of the Sigma choice.
Given the same lens in front of it, a 2x converter will degrade image quality more than a 1.4x, assuming you are talking about like quality converters.
04/13/2010 11:01:48 PM · #6
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
400mm f/2.8 with 2x = 800mm f/4

500mm f/4 with 1.4x = 700mm, roughly f/5


OOPS...
The 400/2.8 with the 2x converter will be 800mm f/5.6 (two stops of loss)
The 500/4 with the 1.4x converter will be 700mm, f/5.6 (one stop loss)


Sigh... I hate dropping the ball on an easy TD pass :-(

R.
 04/14/2010 02:36:50 AM · #7
Tx again

I am talking about nikon teleconvertors - already have the 1.4.

Regards
 04/15/2010 03:24:07 PM · #8
Although I have not used the Sigma I have used other Sigma and Tamron lenses. IMHO none have compared to the quality of an equivalent Nikon lens. The Nikon 500 F4 is one of their highest rated lenses and will likely be faster (AF-S) and have better color than the Sigma. Also, at this level you want to match the lens and tele-converter so Nikon / Nikon is the way to go. Also, if you are into bird photography the more reach the better. With that said you will definitely pay more. But remember the old saying, "you get what you pay for."

Message edited by author 2010-04-15 15:24:51.
 04/15/2010 04:30:25 PM · #9
Tx
In your view how does the 400mm f2.8 compare with the 500mm f4?
 04/16/2010 05:06:29 PM · #10
Originally posted by tinkie2010:
Tx
In your view how does the 400mm f2.8 compare with the 500mm f4?


I have not used it but I'm sure the 400 F2.8 VR is a great lens. It actually costs a bit more and weighs over a pound and and half more than the 500mm F4 VR. If you want reach it seems that the 500mm is the better deal. The 400 with a 1.4 TC gives a bit more reach than the 500 alone, 560mm, but at a cost of adding the TC and slowing it down to F4, same as the 500 and a resulting decrease in sharpness from the TC. The 500 with a 1.4 TC will give you 700mm at F5.6. The 400 wih a 2x TC will give you 800mm at F5.6 but with a likely greater resulting loss of quality and more weight and cost. Since you have a Nikon 1.4 TC the 500 seems like a good match.

With all that said I'm sure you will be very happy with either. Don't forget you will not be able to handhold either as they are over 10 lbs and 8 lbs respectively. You will need a good heavy duty monopod and tripod.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 05:00:07 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 05:00:07 PM EDT.