DSLRUsers.com

Yes really - I'm seriously looking at buying a Sigma lens to take on my forthcoming Antarctic trip. My current (all Nikon) range goes from 17 to 200 (340 if I add my 1.7 teleconverter to my 70-200VR). One thing that's becoming apparent is that while I have wide covered I need more reach.

I want to go to at least 400 and when I look at the Nikon lenses in that range the prices are just too high for me. So I'm setting my sights lower (and accepting there will be a tradeoff in image quality).

I've done lots of reading and narrowed things down to a single lens - the Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3. This lens has been around about 18 months and seems to cost around $1,200 which is within budget for me. It will become a permanent part of my kit.

• Has anyone here used one and if so would you care to comment on your experiences.
  
• I understand Sigma can be a bit of a lucky dip quality wise too, but I don't have a really good handle on that either so I'd be interested in comments in that regard as well given trying out multiple copies of the lens may be a challenge (no decent photo stores in Newcastle).
  
• Finally if someone has any affordable Nikon compatible alternatives they think I may have missed I'd be interested to hear that as well. The closest I've seen is the Nikon 300 f4, but it's just not enough reach IMHO.

*BANG*

I cant say that I have used this lens much, but there is a EOS mount one in the shop at the moment. This will not really be that much help for you though.

As for the other points you raise.....I will take the example of the 30mm f/1.4, I have seen a fairly large number of these lenses (in both Nikon and Canon mount) and have seen some wide variation, with the loss of the EX matte coating on some, rough feeling manual focus on some (the degree of roughness varies quite greatly), optically most have been pretty good, but there have been one or two that dont seem right to me (and this is from short term usage). I cant really comment on sample variation on the 150-500 though.

Have you tried to hunt (or borrow) a Nikkor 80-400VR? Or tried a copy of the new TC20E III??

aim54x wrote:Have you tried to hunt (or borrow) a Nikkor 80-400VR?

The 80-400 is notoriously slow to focus. Not only does the 150-500 have HSM focussing for speed, but that also gives you full-time manual/auto-focus.
One of the D300 users on my January gannet workshop was using one of these and it seemed OK to me.

But as has been pointed out, you need to be prepared to return/refuse a few copies of any Sigma lens before you get a great one. The quality control of some of their lenses (e.g. macros) seems great, while some of their other lenses are all over the place.

Keep in mind that it is a big (long) lens even with the hood reversed. It's about 5cm longer than my EF 100-400mm for example. This will have an effect on the way you lay out your camera bag for quick access (I don't think it would fit in a SlingShot 300AW attached to a body for example). The optical and handling qualities of a lens are primary, but you do need to be able to get it into the field and safely back again too.

Peter,

No. I wouldn't even recommend this lens to my enemies. it's a dog. That's lame. With arthritis.

And cataracts on its eyes.

Look for the Nikkor 80-400.

Peter,
As I said in another thread, I tested one at ECS. It felt OK, It also was ok for sharpness, focus fast, VR a little slow. All in all it is good value for money when considering the alternative. I ended up buying a Sigma but a 180 macro, again excellent value compared to a Nikon 200. As I sold my 70-200 I am contemplating buying the neww 50-500 Bigma.

Peter,

I am sure you have considered this but in case you haven't

Since this is presumably a once in a lifetime oportunity, how about buying the nikon 500 f4 or whatever and selling it once you get back. You'd get almost all your money back?

Taking this thread very slightly off course, there is nothing wrong with Sigma glass or many of the other third party lens makers. Nearly all my glass, and indeed most of my fast glass, is Sigma. They produce sharp images that you'd expect. They also have the habit (for want of a better word) of filling the gaps left by Canon/Nikon. For instance my 120-300 2.8 is an exceptional lens for sport, and fitting a 1.4TC (Sigma) give me a 420mm f4 which is super sharp.

Another nice thing about Sigma is they will match (including delivery costs) any grey importer price you care to throw at them. Lets see Nikon or Canon do that!

I don't know about the particular lens in question though, so wont comment on it.

Just my opinion.

Peter
Will you need that sort of reach? What about a 3X Nikkor convertor (I'm sure they make one), for your 70-210? That would give you image quality better than the Sigma and keep your luggage manageable.

I have Sigma glass.

I have borrowed the Nikkor equivalents and without doubt I'd prefer the Nikkor. But I have budgetary issues and I'm happy with the Sigma stuff. Particularly since I worked out the front focussing issues with my 24-70mm f/2.8 and my back focus problem with the 70-200mm f/2.8. Fortunately the AF fine tuning on the D300 fixes these things for me. I need to remember to disable the AF fine tuning when I borrow a friends Nikkor lenses, they do not require AF fine tuning. Nor does my Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro nor the 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3

Yes, there do seem to be quality control variations, but if you take the time, experiment, find out what you've got - you'll end up with some very useable glass at a lowish price.

I couldn't really recommend the Nikkor 80-400 VR for nature photography.

I took one to Africa and the auto-focus hunting drove me mad. I should think that characteristic would be even worse in the snow and ice conditions of the Antarctic.

I can't offer a comment about the Sigma.

As an alternative, is it worthwhile thinking about buying a lens more suitable (ie faster, and good auto-focus) and selling it after your trip. A 200-400mm or a 400mm prime would be sought after on the SH market, I'm sure.

Just a thought.

Matt. K wrote:What about a 3X Nikkor convertor (I'm sure they make one), for your 70-210? That would give you image quality better than the Sigma

Wow. You must have a really low opinion of Sigma quality if you think that a 3x TC from any manufacturer would give better quality images.

DaveB wrote:

Matt. K wrote:What about a 3X Nikkor convertor (I'm sure they make one), for your 70-210? That would give you image quality better than the Sigma

Wow. You must have a really low opinion of Sigma quality if you think that a 3x TC from any manufacturer would give better quality images.

Dave,

Matt did say a Nikkor convertor.

I think my Coke bottle would give sharper images than the longer Stigmas. They truly fail to impress.

Trevor,

Did you have the focus limiter in place?

Wow this is a coincidence, a friend of mine is going to Africa in August and also wants a 150-500 Sigma.

The thing for her is she already owns the 80-400VR and wants to sell it to fund the Sigma purchase. She said she is unhappy with the 80-400 .She couldn't really convey why though.

So hers is for sale if you are interested? I can give you her email address She is chasing around $1200 but would be open to offers.

I tried to talk her out of it but she is adamant on changing. Stock on the Sigma is a problem but I have found her a Nikon mount one but need to move on Nikon quickly.

Regards
MATT

Peter - have you though about hiring a Nikkor 400mm f/2.8 along with a TC-14EII, heaven

MATT wrote:The thing for her is she already owns the 80-400VR and wants to sell it to fund the Sigma purchase.

If she has any interest at all in image quality, she will regret this decision. Far better to spend some time and learn how to use the lens.

why dont you switch your system to a pentax? I joke i joke.. LOL

I agree to disagree. Nikkor 80-400. 150-500 is great for a budget, but quality is the 80-400. Sorry guys, as much as I love/hate sigma glass, I think original is better in this range, even though sigma is famous for this Bigma variation.

Thank you all for the comments so far. The Nikon 80-400 VR is off my list because, as Trevor has said, it sucks for nature photography. I have played extensively with this lens in the past and while it DOES produce great images it's autofocus sucks (big time) - end of story. I'm guessing Nikon will soon replace this with a lens that is better in that regard. but it won't happen before November when I leave.

Buying a lens then selling it on my return? - has anyone looked at the longer Nikkor's? They make the heavy 150-500 Sigma seem light as a feather. Even if I could find the $ they'd blow my weight limits .

The only other strong contender I've considered is the Nikon 300 f4, but I effectively have that with my 70-200 + 1.7 TC - it's essentially the 340-500 range of the Sigma that appeals.

And for those who've questioned the need for the extra reach, this is from DaveB summarising his images from his last Antarctic trip:

5DmkII:
* 17-40mm/4: 451 frames
* 24-105mm/4: 3675 frames
* 100-400mm: 2096 frames

40D:
* 24-105mm/4: 459 frames
* 100-400mm: 2761 frames

As you can see a fair amount is in his 100-400 range and he says there is "a big peak at 400mm (admittedly some of those photos even 400mm wasn't enough)"

So that Sigma is still on my list (yes Gary ). I gues I need to find some time to get to Sydney (ECS I'm thinking) and play with some samples.

Actually Peter, in the forum where I posted that I also said that whatever zoom you have at times it won't be long enough. It's like distant bird photography (sometimes it IS distant bird photography). But that's just the way the world works.
Sure there was a peak in activity at 400mm, but 100mm was the next "busiest" and then there was an even spread across the zoom range (with ~250mm being a slight "hump" in the graph).

Those numbers were what's left of my take (extracted from LR) but not all of those are great photos. Filtering down to the 3+ ratings the numbers came down a LOT. The spread of focal lengths is similar, but the peak at 400mm is relatively smaller (lots of those "desperation" shots get ignored).

If you had a lens that went out to 300mm (especially an f/4-ish one) I suspect you'd be happy. Have a think about how much difference there actually is in the extra focal lengths. Not that the 150-500mm lens might not work well for you, but don't get too hung up on this. In fact I occasionally toy with the idea of taking a 70-200mm with 1.4x instead of my 100-400mm.


Photomarcs, the Sigma 150-500 is NOT the "Bigma". That is the 50-500mm, which personally I would not touch with the proverbial barge-pole. Well OK, maybe I'm being a bit strong. But the 50-500 Bigma is NOT the same as the 150-500 (although they do LOOK similar from the outside).

Peter,

I really think that either of the Stigmas would be a mistake. I echo and amplify David's feelings on the Bigma, but I also have no respect for the 150-500; there are just too many compromises involved in designing and building such a lens.

What do Tamron have in that realm? Any possibilities?

In all honesty, if you're seriously looking at the Stigma. you may as well go and grab Olga from Glen; you'll hardly notice much difference.

And which bodies are you taking? I know you have the D700, but I'm thinking that with the crop factor and higher resolution of a D300, perhaps the need for the extra reach is somewhat mitigated?

Dave - Thanks for the clarification. Maybe I should settle for 70-200 + 1.7 TC. Still like to check out the 150-500 though

Gary - Olga No way the Sigma could be as bad.

As for bodies I'm taking both D300 and D700. In fact the main reason for buying the D700 at this late point in it's release cycle was to give me a second body for this trip.

Peter,

stubbsy wrote:Maybe I should settle for 70-200 + 1.7 TC.

I don't know that that's "settling"; it's a bloody good combo, and with the D300's crop and higher resolution, I think you're good to go.

Yes, you'll be a little frustrated and you'll want more reach, but nothing short of a 600 or 800 will actually resolve that particular issue for you.

gstark wrote:What do Tamron have in that realm? Any possibilities?

Well now I've looked - there is a Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3. It's about 700 gms lighter, lacks vibration reduction and is $300 dearer than the Sigma (Sigma is $1200), but is otherwise a similar lens to the Sigma from the reviews.

Sent you a pm Peter...

I'm surprised at the number of negative comments on the 80-400mm VR? I've been using one for a number of years now and have always been pleased with its performance. It focusses accurately and quickly on my D300 and my previous D200 and the image quality is excellent. The VR works beautifully. It does slow down a little in poor light but any lens with a maximum aperture smaller than F4.5 -f5.6 will do that. Its Manual focus is very fast and reliable for when the light is just too low for AF. (How fast can a penguin move anyway?) Bjørn Rørslett gives it a thumbs up and calls it a fine optical performer....I whole heartedly agree with him. It's a lot of lens for the money. I think you've written it off too quickly Peter.

Matt. K wrote:I'm surprised at the number of negative comments on the 80-400mm VR?

Actually, the 80-400 has only been bagged by two Canon shooters, Trevor and Peter himself, whereas it has been recommended and equal amount of times, so I dont actually call that a lot of negative comments.

stubbsy wrote:

gstark wrote:What do Tamron have in that realm? Any possibilities?

Well now I've looked - there is a Tamron 200-500 f5-6.3. It's about 700 gms lighter, lacks vibration reduction and is $300 dearer than the Sigma (Sigma is $1200), but is otherwise a similar lens to the Sigma from the reviews.

I have used that lens once or twice....needs image stabiliser, and it no longer is as attractive as the Shitma's have taken a nice price cut.

gstark wrote:

stubbsy wrote:Maybe I should settle for 70-200 + 1.7 TC.

I don't know that that's "settling"; it's a bloody good combo, and with the D300's crop and higher resolution, I think you're good to go.

A qualification that I have just realised;

My comments about the 80-400mm Nikon zoom relate to my experience when I was shooting with a D70!
I didn't keep the lens long enough to use with my D300 - might be a totally different experience.

I also was not happy with the bokeh. A lot of my images seem to have OOF swirls in the background - not pleasing at all.

the foto fanatic wrote:............
I also was not happy with the bokeh. A lot of my images seem to have OOF swirls in the background - ............

I've seen a lot of bokeh streaks like this attributed to filters on long lenses, a quick google will turn up plenty of examples:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Wa6d and

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readf ... angemode=1

Cheers

the foto fanatic wrote:My comments about the 80-400,, Nikon zoom relate to my experience when I was shooting with a D70!
I didn't keep the lens long enough to use with my D300 - might be a totally different experience.

It is. Even with the D200 it's a very much more responsive lens.

Or, to be more accurate, the in-body motor in the later bodies is much faster.

digitor wrote:
I've seen a lot of bokeh streaks like this attributed to filters on long lenses, a quick google will turn up plenty of examples:

Yes, that is so. I don't usually have filters on my lenses unless for a special effect.

However, I did buy the 80-400mm second-hand, and I can't recall now whether it came with a filter or not. It is possible that there may have been a UV filter on the lens.

Well I must confess I last used the 80-400 VR 3 or so years ago on my D70. It was a dog then (I spent some hours trying to get focus lock on birds in the local wetlands), but I've not tried it on either my D300 or D700.

Random but related question to add to this thread.

Can you use any of the Nikon TCs with the AFS 300 f/4 ED-IF lens ?

Alpha_7 wrote:Random but related question to add to this thread.

Can you use any of the Nikon TCs with the AFS 300 f/4 ED-IF lens ?

According to Thom YES
http://www.bythom.com/300afslens.htm

Send your 300mm and a TC-14E, TC-17E or TC-20E and I will happily give you a more definitive answer

aim54x wrote:Send your 300mm and a TC-14E, TC-17E or TC-20E and I will happily give you a more definitive answer

Thanks Cam. Maybe I will, once I've I've taken out a loan to afford a 300mm

Alpha_7 wrote:Random but related question to add to this thread.

Can you use any of the Nikon TCs with the AFS 300 f/4 ED-IF lens ?

Yes you can. I have used the 1.7 TC with that lens, works great. In low light, it will start to hunt more. It would likely have even less troubles with the 1.4TC but I haven't tried that combo.

As for Peter's question, I remember Nicole, who used to be an active member here, doing all kinds of great bird photography with the 80-400 VR. I'm pretty sure she had it one year in Africa and got some great photos. And if memory serves me right, that was with a D70 as well.

cheers,

André

Thanks Cam. Maybe I will, once I've I've taken out a loan to afford a 300mm

if you wanna try one out I have a 300 mm f4, but no converters as of yet (excluding an old manual 2x which dont count), just PM me if your keen.

Chris (Rooz) had the 300 f4 and has both converters and plenty of experience with them.

biggerry wrote:

Thanks Cam. Maybe I will, once I've I've taken out a loan to afford a 300mm

if you wanna try one out I have a 300 mm f4, but no converters as of yet (excluding an old manual 2x which dont count), just PM me if your keen.

Chris (Rooz) had the 300 f4 and has both converters and plenty of experience with them.

Good point....quiz Rooz, he may already be able to answer the question with some more first hand experience

I have a 300mm f4 and a TC14E II which work very well together.

Murray Foote wrote:I have a 300mm f4 and a TC14E II which work very well together.

Murray have you tried it with the 1.7 TC ? I'd be interested if know if 1.4 is as far as you want to push it.

I have the older Nikon 300mm F4`ED...It works well with the Kenko 1.5 converter, with the x2 it has a bad case of C A

Alpha_7 wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:I have a 300mm f4 and a TC14E II which work very well together.

Murray have you tried it with the 1.7 TC ? I'd be interested if know if 1.4 is as far as you want to push it.

Hi Craig

No, I don't have a TC17. I have an old TC200 but haven't bothered to try it because my expectations are not high with that. I may get a TC20 III though. I have seen a post somewhere that that works OK and even focuses.

Alpha_7 wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:I have a 300mm f4 and a TC14E II which work very well together.

Murray have you tried it with the 1.7 TC ? I'd be interested if know if 1.4 is as far as you want to push it.

craig, sorry for late reply. i used my 300/4 regularly with the tc17 and it was outstanding as long as the light was good. it is a tad softer than the 1.4 but certianly sharper than the bigma i ran it up against.

the foto fanatic wrote:A qualification that I have just realised;

My comments about the 80-400mm Nikon zoom relate to my experience when I was shooting with a D70!
I didn't keep the lens long enough to use with my D300 - might be a totally different experience.

I also was not happy with the bokeh. A lot of my images seem to have OOF swirls in the background - not pleasing at all.
http://www.thefotofanatic.com/Portfolio/Nature/Fauna/girafe-1Edit/222242260_ErK9L-X2.jpg

As the new owner, I've found it the few times I've used it fine on the D200. Focus limit is the major issue, to keep things happening.

And it would probably have had a filter - it currently has a Hoya 1B skylight filter on it - which I didn't buy. And I don't think that filter is off any other 77mm lens I've bought 2nd hand.

hi peter

if your not going away that long exactly how long are you going?

you can borrow my 200-400 f4

i'm only going to use it this year in the month of september this year

I dont really use it

mob: <number removed by stubbsy so Wendell doesn't get spammed on his mobile >

wendellt wrote:you can borrow my 200-400 f4

you have an $8000 lens?! what else have you been hiding!? LOL

Wendell, This is the most generous offer of equipment I have seen ever!

wendellt wrote:you can borrow my 200-400 f4

This would go rather nicely with the D700 me thinks. Would be nice and long on the d300!

wendellt wrote:you can borrow my 200-400 f4

i'm only going to use it this year in the month of september this year

Wendell

As already said that is an exceedingly generous offer, but one which I must decline. At 3.2Kg as seductive as the idea is it would break my weight limits in Argentina. At around the 2kg mark even the Sigma is stretching things.

Hi Peter
Weight is not an issue I've travelled enough to know all the loopholes with excess baggage

I carry both my cameras on my shoulder during checking

My backpack is over limit at 25kg but when I check in I take off my backpack as I approach the desk
And place it out of sight of the counter person a smile and an anecdote distracts them from asking to weigh my carry on luggage

Usually I put my 200 400 on one of my cameras and place it on the floor with the backpack so the counter person dismisses it

At security checking they consider cameras like a laptop bag they tolerate it and don't count it as excess baggage
In London they are most strict especially if you travel British airways
But I've had no problems the security staff are more interested in starting conversation about the huge lens then they are interested in flagging it

I'm assuming you only have 1 body and 1 backpack as carry on which is much less than what I have one me
So you will be fine

Also I wouldn't let you put the lens in checking no matter how well packed it is
So exess weight in checking shouldn't be an issue

On the plane just store the lens in the overhead luggage compartment

I've carried much more in brazil and vie had no problems

Anyway ATP any checkpoint carrying cameras on you are ignored theynjust consider you a photojournalist

Thanks for the tips Wendell. My gear is all going on board as carry on - like you I'd not trust it in checked in. In Argentina for our domestic flights we have the strictest limits (5kg carry on and 15kg checked in), but my solution to that is I'm wearing a Scottevest that I can JUST carry 4.5kg lenses on my person. Even then I'll be overlimit, but I also use your backpack on the floor trick and I'm hoping that sees me through

The advice I've had is it can be a bit of a lucky dip in South America. So I'm going to be extra nice (plus trying to learn a bit of Spanish so I can at least say hello)

Oh and I'm taking 2 bodies D300 and D700 - don't want to be in Antarctica and my only camera dies

Yeah my mum made me a custom vest that doesn't look like a photog vest
I usually Carr the stuff I can't loose if my luggage were stolen
Like the d3 battery charger and laptop charger

It's funny when I go through security I have 6 trays that have to go through the scanner
1 for jacket and vest
2 laptop
3 backpack
4 camera
5 camera

No one cares once you get past the checking desk

Also go to a line with a young attractive girl at the desk
While checking in give her a compliment
And usuallybthey dismiss overweight bags

Just my cents

wendellt wrote:Also go to a line with a young attractive girl at the desk
While checking in give her a compliment
And usuallybthey dismiss overweight bags

Only works for chic magnets like you! Thanks for these tips though. Dude, you should post these on your blog!