Nikon 80 - 400mm VR or Sigma 50 - 500mm ???

[Manta]

Wow - you can't complain about those Nicole. Beautiful shots. I hope you have plenty of opportunity to add to your portfolio when you're up here in a few weeks.

[kipper]

Granted Nicole these are great shots, and I know you've used this lens for quite some time. However I think we can all agree it's no 70-200VR or a 300VR, or even the renowned Canon 400 F5.6. Out of interest, would you even contemplate trying to take these shots manually?

[birddog114]

I think I'd end up throwing my equipment off the edge of a cliff in frustrating before I got any sharp shots.

Hey! whatever happens, don't throw my D2h!
I shouldn't hand it to Dean if I read this yesterday.

[kipper]

Lol, you know I wouldn't really do it Thanh.

[avkomp]

Wasnt going to say anything further on this thread but couldnt help it.
I never suggested that sharp flight shots werent possible with this lens.
Far from it in fact, I just believe other glass to be more suitable notwithstanding significant extra costs.
these 2 were taken with the d70 and 80-400vr handheld. full frame and moving with a fair amount of radial velocity.
http://www.pixspot.com/albums/userpics/seagull%20034.jpg
http://www.pixspot.com/albums/userpics/seagull%20036.jpg

the lens is able to acquire focus and track. but under some conditions has issues.
on the day of these test shots I tried all sorts of stuff.
These ones were using AFS
I also tried manual focus on the day and had sharp ones too but the method I used for those was to set manual focus then pre focus where I believed the best light was and when I saw a bird coming I began tracking it and fired when I felt it went thru the focus zone.

Steve

[skippy]

I'm one of the people Gary referred to who bought the Bigma then in a few months bought the 80-400VR. Been a while since playing wth the Bigma, but IIRC focus speed wasn't much of a separator; they're fairly similar. Both have their strengths. The big differentiators for this novice photog was the VR on the Nikon and the extra zoom range (long and short) of the Bigma.
The Bigma is heavier, and is more physically imposing.
The Nikon has a slight edge in feel. It feels better made.
The Bigma has a greater zoom range.
The Nikon has VR.
The Bigma has a zoom lock, but only for the 50mm setting.

I'm sure both are capable of great shots in the right hands, but I found the Nikon a little easier to use. In the end, I'm keeping the 80-400, and selling the Bigma. Want it? Going cheap...

I posted some impressions of the Bigma soon after I bought it, and at the end of it stubbsy links to an 80-400VR review.

[Andyt]

Many thanks to one and all who contributed to this thread, since relocating to this part of the world I have been wrestling with the issues and questions asked with these lenses (80-400VR vs 500 Sigma). I have the opportunity to learn and take pics in a new area for me, bird and wild life.

I will be placing an order for the 80-400VR (I hope before Xmass), my decision being based on the "best bang for buck" principle. For the money what else is available? I need the reach and want the best opticle quality I can afford.

I do not expect to master this lense in an afternoon or a year, but rather, like previous gear bought (e.g. SB800) spend my time continuing to learn technique and gain the skills needed to consistantly produce good results. Thats part of my reward with this hobby (passion?) is this type of challenge. While at the end of the day someone looks at a pic I "created" that I like, and says "Geez, I like that". A constructive and rewarding way to pass ones time when not working?:P

Mmmm, I think I have said what I mean, so anyway, thats my 2K's worth

[Big V]

Whew, I have only just seen this thread..Can I say that it is not rocket science, know your equipment and know what you are shooting...then the results will speak for themselves.
Here are some examples to support my statement, all of these photos were taken hand held and as you can see the focus point is spot on..
By the way, 3 of these photos were taken with a sigma 80-400 OS and 2 were taken with a canon 70-200 2.8 IS L lens. The equipment did not take the photo, I did!! I can't stress enough knowing your equipment and your subject

[birddog114]

As skippy said: it's correct.
As avkomp's posts: It's how the lens was built and designed.
As BigV's post: You're on the right track and direction.

Hi folks, 80-400VR vs Bigma 50-500 has been talked on this forum not less than 10 times.
Apart form AF hunting, OOF, fast, slow etc... both are good lenses and value with your hard earned cash, depend on what you really want to achieve and time will help you taking part into the learning curves, all is doable and achievable.
If you want a Bigma, prepare yourself a good tripod & head system, while the 80-400VR can be handholding and compact.

[gstark]

Perhaps all of you should read The Art of Bird Photography.

Darryl,

With all due respect, perhaps it's time you took your head out of all these books, and started to learn how to use your equipment, and stop making excuses.

We now have more than ample evidence within this thread that the things that you've been saying are next to impossible seem to be able to be achieved.

Not by this lens.

But with this lens.

And, by seemingly almost unanimous agreement, it's the photographer and his or her skillset that determines this.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that you're lacking in skills, but I am suggesting that you've not yet taken the time - whatever it takes for you - to learn how to properly use this lens.

You can reject that observation, but your failure to accept this simple fact doesn't alter it from being what it is - a fact.

I know what is possible and what is not, and what you're asking is borderling impossible.

Clearly, you're mistaken on this point. I know what I can do, and have done in the past. We've seen evidence here of what others can do with this, and with other lenses.

And the pages of photographic history are littered with simply excellent photos of the type you're describing as impossible, many of which were made in ye olde dayes before AF.


Try to find another lens with the range, versatility, features, sharpness, and build quality of this lens at anywhere neat the price of this one. You can not, and you will not.

If you want to compare this lens and the potential results one might get with other lenses costing two or three times the price of this one, then please, go right ahead.

But not here.

This thread is closed!