| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2006 01:00:04 AM · #1 |
Nikon Autofocus 80-400/4.5-5.6D ED VR or the Sigma 50-500?
I've got cheap Sigma zooms right now covering 28-300. I've got and love the Nikon 50mm 1.8. I plan to get either the 60 or 105 micro as well. Right now, i'm mostly interested in nature shots, plants and animals, and i don't think i'll ever be "into" portrait type work, unless it's pet portraits.
I'd like the length of the Sigma, but don't really need the shorter end of the range. I've heard good things about the quality of this lens, so my question is - which lens really has the better quality glass?
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 03:13:10 AM · #2 |
| According to photozone.de, the Nikon has a rating of 4.2, while the Sigma has a rating of only 2.73 (both on a scale from 1-5). For reference, the Nikon 50mm f1.8 is rated 4.28. So far, the ratings on that site have been quite consistent with my own impression. Good luck choosing! |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 03:40:52 AM · #3 |
I own the 80-400 VR AF Nikkor and its a very sharp lens its a bit slow on the AF but the VR is really handy, A friend has the Sigi 50-500 and I was not totally impressed with it, I have the Sigi 170-500 APO and that is as good as the 50-500 I think. The Nikkor is leagues ahead go for it you wont be sorry.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2006 04:43:02 AM · #4 |
I have the sigma 170-500 and a friend has the Nikon 80-400VR. We went to the zoo (yes for the wildlife challenge LOL). I used mine on a heavy tripod with the remote release (the only way I can get really sharp images), while he only needed to hand-hold!
I've seen some reviews comparing the 170-500 and the 50-500 with the 50-500 winning for contrast due to the 4 SLD elements. The AF is also much faster. I'm happy with my 170-500 for what I paid for it, but I'm sure the 50-500 will be better.
Also the Nikon comes in the standard 77mm diameter, while the sigma is 86mm (I think). This makes a big difference when you start looking at the price and availability of filters.
You may need to investigate the tripod mount - I've seen some reviews stating that the Nikon tripod mount is not as good as it could be. |
|
|
|
02/09/2006 06:07:44 AM · #5 |
I've owned both lenses, and IMO the Nikkor is a much more usable lens. Besides the filter diameter the physcial size difference will have you carrying the Nikkor more. Sharpness I'd give the edge to the Nikkor. I never considered the AF speed of the Nikkor to be noticably slow, but I'm not into sports. One negative with the Nikkor is the flimsy tripod mount, but this can solved by getting the Kirk or RRS replacement foot.
edit:
Also if you really don't need the shorter end of the zoom range, another option would be a used Tamron AF IF 200-400 f5.6. Over the years I've owned three of these lenses and was never disappointed. Its a very sharp lens and a steal on the used market. I've seen them go as low as $200 for one in excellent condition on eBay (I think I paid abot $800 for my first a decade ago). It has 77mm filter threads also.
Message edited by author 2006-02-09 14:19:30. |
|
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: 09/22/2025 11:49:20 PM EDT.
