New zoom - choice of 2

[Furyous]

Finally able to replace my Siggy 70-300.

Just about to buy the Nikkor 70-300 VR, but keeping getting my eye drawn to the Siggy 120-400 os hsm.

The Nikkor seems to be regarded as a bit of a gem, but I do fancy a bit more length (!) as I want to do some nature stuff this year.

Only other (dearer) alternative is the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 but I dont think that makes a compelling argument.

So, given that budget is tight, what say you Ph ?

[Simpo Two]

Well if length is the main criterion then 400mm is more than 300mm - and hope the critters don't get too close.

Of course you can also shoot at 300mm and crop a bit; in real life you probably wouldn't notice the difference.

[Furyous]

Should have also said I want fast AF as it will be used for m sport in the main.

[RobDickinson]

Neither lens will have a large max aperture at the long end both have similar af motors.

I know the 70-300vr is a very sweet lens and produces some excelent results even at 300 would be my choice for quality.

Not convinced the sigma at 400 would be any better than a crop of the nikon...

Edit after using a 120-300 most of the weekend 120 is quite long for any random grab a landscape tele shots, 70 is much more useful.

Edited by RobDickinson on Monday 5th April 02:26

[grumpy bear]

Furyous said:

Finally able to replace my Siggy 70-300.

Just about to buy the Nikkor 70-300 VR, but keeping getting my eye drawn to the Siggy 120-400 os hsm.

The Nikkor seems to be regarded as a bit of a gem, but I do fancy a bit more length (!) as I want to do some nature stuff this year.

Only other (dearer) alternative is the Nikkor 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 but I dont think that makes a compelling argument.

So, given that budget is tight, what say you Ph ?

I asked the very same question to the nice man at Grays last year. I had the 70-300 and it was very good but I felt I needed longer, long story short, I didnt follow his advice and wasted loads on the 150-500 Sigma, it was OK up to about 420 but soft as Brie after that and dismal in poor light. I lost over £300 in three months on that lens. Buy cheap buy twice.

His advice by the way was Nikkor 300mm f2.8 prime and Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 with a TC14 converter. He of course was right, it is only when I look back at the stuff taken with the 70-300 VR and the Sigma that you see way good glass costs so much. The difference is HUGE!!

That said the 70-300 is still a very good alternative at the price.

Edited by grumpy bear on Monday 5th April 09:34

[rasputin]

Grumpy - did I misunderstand, or were you surprised that a £700 lens wasn't as good as a £6,000 option?

[grumpy bear]

rasputin said:

Grumpy - did I misunderstand, or were you surprised that a £700 lens wasn't as good as a £6,000 option?

Don't know what you understand or not, what I was trying to get across was that a lot of people spend money on what is often stated as a cracking lens or has great IQ only to be dissapointed with the results. I did a lot of research on the Sigma lens, it came highly reccomended by someone I resepected and I did the usual searches of this forum and many others and pretty much checked out all the reviews. They were all very positive but now I doubt any of the people that gave those opinions have had the oppurtunity to compare their results with the top end of the market. I used the Sigma and the 70-300 at an important motorsport shoot at Mallory last year. I took maybe 600 shots with each lens. I did not keep or send on to my editor a single shot taken with the Sigma they were that bad. If I had only the Sigma I might have well not bothered to go. When I compare the ones I did keep from the 70-300 with those taken in similar poor light last week using a 70-200 and the 300 prime the yield of good results was much higher and the IQ was miles apart. What I had done was to ignore the wrong piece of advice dismissing it because I thought I was being clever and that he just wanted me to spend a lot more money.

You are right to point out that the two lenses I use now cost an awful lot more than the £720 Sigma, but next time you go to an event check out what the pro's use, they dont spend that amount of money just because they can.

The original OP appeared to dismiss the 70-200 + converter option but did not make it clear on what grounds. What I hoped for was that I could direct the OP to seek out professional advice, explain what they are looking for and maybe try the different options. If this isnt possible they could consider getting someone to send them hi res examples of the results from all of the lenses considered. Any images that appear on here will appear OK the truth maybe somewhat different. The opinions on these forums almost always have some bias and therefore can be misleading and costly.

I had hoped that my experience would help, what I didnt expect was for someone to try to score points at my expense.

[rasputin]

Very appropriate user-name

I would agree 100% with your choice of lenses, and if you're a pro then anything that helps gets results is a good investment.

But if the OP is a hobbyist after a £600 lens, I would assume his budget isn't 10 times more...?
If it is, then I would stake a fiver on the Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 being better overall quality than the Sigma 120-400mm, so get that and maybe some other fast primes for shorter lengths

[JustinP1]

I thought I would chip in as although I am a rank amateur, I do really like my Sigma of the same length, and have not had problems with sharpness. Mine is the 50-500mm.

If the OP is doing nature photography I really would recommend it. From the research that I did, without spending what I would call silly money on a top of the range pro lens it does the job pretty well.

Again, I am in no way a professional, and without the advice of people like Simpo on here telling me how the aperture affects the outcome of the shot I would be nowhere. As a novice though, I am really pleased on what can be achieved from a Canon 400D and the Bigma.

Here's a shot from a couple of weeks ago, which I chose as this is the IQ at the full 500mm:

Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 5th April 13:39

[Furyous]

Rasputin, I can confirm I am a poverty stricken hobbyist.

WHich is why I can't really consider and 2.8 stuff.

The Bigma doesn't really do it for me, I don't feel the need for 500 reach tbh.

I think the Nikkor is still the right lens for me, just a shame their 80-400 isn't yet Afs and VR.

[NewNameNeeded]

it sounds like you have discounted the 70-200mm, which is fine. But if not also consider Nikon's 80-200mm AF-S. A cracking lens, and superbly fast auto focus. Can be had for a fraction of the price of a 70-200 (or at least it was when I picked mine up a year or so ago).

[S47]

I have the 150-500 HSM IS Sigma, for what it cost me £720 its a bargain for the 500mm lens alone forget the zoom option. At f8 the IQ rivals my long canon tele primes I have 400F2.8 500 & 600 obviously they can be used at full aperture and still beat the Sigma for IQ and sharpness BUT and here's the crux, the sigma is flyweight in comparison, for cost and weight and simple to use it's images at 500mm & F8 would be acepted by any UK photoagency. ANd its carryabilty would get me to places which I'd struggle to get to with any of the canon primes.
I'm not a big Zoom fan but the Sigma has made me re-consider, after some expensive disasters with Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS & 100-400 IS which were both CRAP. I feel that maybe the lens manufacturers have finally discovered what it takes to amke a good zoom for digitial images.

[Furyous]

Just to update this -

Ive just bought a good used Nikon 70-300VR from a guy on TP, should be with me Monday.

All I need then is some time and some talent to try and take some half decent pics!