400mm lens? which one?

Wanting to buy a good land lens for birding pics. Nikon 400mm or sigma 400? Is there a big difference between the two besides the price? Thanks, Scott

Sigma doesn't make a 400mm prime.

The Nikon is a 2.8 lens with more elements than the Sigma offerings. The Sigma 300mm is a 2.8 lens. The Sigma 500mm is a 4.5 lens. The Nikon has VR II.

There really isn't an apples to apples comparison. The 300mm Sigma with a 1.4x TC equals a 420mm f4 lens. You will lose some performance, but gain some cash. Well, a lot of cash.

The question becomes; is a 300mm good enough for birding? If not, is a 420mm f4 long and fast enough for birding? I have no answer. I only eat birds.

You're going to have to be more specific with which lenses you are considering?

If you're looking at the nikon 400 2.8, it's about $8k if I remember correctly. If you can afford that, then look no further. Unless you are birding in low light, I don't think you need the 2.8. You may want to check out the 200-400 VR which is an excellent lens as well.

opps, meant to say Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED Autofocus VR Zoom Nikkor Lens, it's around 1200.00....5-8 grand is out of the question...thanks, scott

You might also consider a Nikon Fieldscope ... I believe the 82mm ED is the equivalent of a 1500mm f11 on a DX body.

Not nearly as fast as the fancy primes ... but a heck of a lot of reach for a decent price.

I've seen some AMAZING images created by simply putting a P&S up to the eyepiece on one of these bad boys ... but if you use a Nikon Fieldscope and a Nikon SLR body, you can attach it directly to the lens mount and use it more or less like a really big lens as I understand.

Been considering this myself for moon shots and birding ...

I USED THE NIKON 80-400 FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND YOU CAN HAVE DECENT RESULTS IF THERE IS ENOUGH LIGHT . I LIKED BECAUSE IS NOT HEAVY AND YOU CAN USED HANDHELD WHEN THE LIGHT IS ENOUGH FOR HIGH SPEED.

FOR BIRDING YOU WILL NEED TO ADD A 1.4 X OR 2 X TELECONVERTER AND THAT WILL PUT YOU ON THE TRIPOD TERRAIN ALSO YOU WILL NEED TO FORGET ABOUT THE AUTOFOCUS .

IF YOU WANT SOME EXAMPLES OF THIS LENS ON BIRDING , I CAN SEND YOU LATER SOME LINKS OF MY GALLERIES ON FLICKR ( I DON'T HAVE IT AVAILABLE AT THIS MOMENT )

scott, I have the nikon 80-400mm and I'm very happy with it.

The sigma 80-400mm OS looks comparable, but most people seem to go with the nikon. After reading the reviews I chose the Nikon. I'd carefully research the reviews if you're thinking of the sigma to save some money. I personally haven't tried the sigma so I can't comment.

most of the wildlife & bird photos in my nature photography section on my personal web site are with the nikon 80-400mm.

good luck!

Scott

I checked out the Sigma 80-400 when my 100-400 was drowned. OS was not as good as the Canon IS (Gen 1, which is better than VR Gen 2). Optically it was ok but I got my 100-400 fixed instead. I like the Sigma 50-500 just for the fact you have 10x in one lens. Great for boat/bike/foot safaris. I understand the 120-400 and 150-500 sigmas are pretty good and they now have OS.

Sigmas have some stellar lenses once you check out a few copies to find the good ones. Good luck.

scott, I have the nikon 80-400mm and I'm very happy with it.

 

The sigma 80-400mm OS looks comparable, but most people seem to go with the nikon. After reading the reviews I chose the Nikon. I'd carefully research the reviews if you're thinking of the sigma to save some money. I personally haven't tried the sigma so I can't comment.

 

most of the wildlife & bird photos in my nature photography section on my personal web site are with the nikon 80-400mm.

 

good luck!

Scott

Hi Scott, great shots in your gallery, especially liked the baby roseate spoonbills. Where was that shot taken? Are you able to use auto focus? Hand held or all tripod. Thanks for the help. I'm thinking about attending a birding festival in st. augustine soon. Scott

Hi Scott, great shots in your gallery, especially liked the baby roseate spoonbills. Where was that shot taken? Are you able to use auto focus? Hand held or all tripod. Thanks for the help. I'm thinking about attending a birding festival in st. augustine soon. Scott

thanks alot, the spoonbill shot was taken deep in the Pantanal, in Brazil.

All shots are hand-held.

Yes, I use auto-focus most of the time, it works fine, but of course not as good as a prime lens or an AF-S lens. I'll manually focus for something sitting in a tree with lots of leaves around it.

photozone has tested both the Sigma and Nikon lenses. in general, Sigma lenses have more lens-lens variation than equivalent Canon and Nikon lenses (Canon and Nikon can have noticeable variation as well) and some have proven to be less reliable in the experience of lensrentals.com. I don't think there's enough savings to justify the Sigma 80-400 over Nikon (or Canon).

i've used my Canon 100-400 for bird photos (i'm not a birder), but mostly large birds (the zoom is great for birds in flight) - some small birds have happened to sit still close enough long enough - with good results. If you're really interested in high quality images of small birds the 80-400 is really not enough lens even on a crop-frame camera.

If in doubt i recommend renting one first.

Wanting to buy a good land lens for birding pics. Nikon 400mm or sigma 400? Is there a big difference between the two besides the price? Thanks, Scott

Scott,

Check out www.Nikoncafe.com and scrool down to the Picture Galleries,click on Birds and other animals to view some great work with various Nikon Telephotos , also try typing nikon 80-400 in search.

Bernie

Scott,

If you want to photograph baby spoonbills come on out to TX in April. There are a LOT of them at the Smith Oaks Audobon sanctuary at High Island about 90 mins from here.

Cheers

James

thanks all and thanks james, this looks like an awesome place. Rookery

Scott

I think that you can't go wrong with the Nikon 80-400 mm VR , as said on previous posts is a lens light enough to use it handheld so is very useful for bird in flight and to carry around the bush or jungle . The zoom make it a very versatil lens , i have used it for trips to the jungle , to land photos at Galapagos also to shoot humpbacks from a boat and even hummingbirds in a garden .

The autofocus is not the fastest one and you will need to push the ISO if you want to use it with a teleconverter but in that price range i think is the best option for a Nikon camera .

Here you can see some bird pics taken with that lens http://flickr.com/gp/jaalvarez/K78oPR

Good luck

Jose Alejandro

Scott

 

I think that you can't go wrong with the Nikon 80-400 mm VR , as said on previous posts is a lens light enough to use it handheld so is very useful for bird in flight and to carry around the bush or jungle . The zoom make it a very versatil lens , i have used it for trips to the jungle , to land photos at Galapagos also to shoot humpbacks from a boat and even hummingbirds in a garden .

 

The auto focus is not the fastest one and you will need to push the ISO if you want to use it with a teleconverter but in that price range i think is the best option for a Nikon camera .

 

Here you can see some bird pics taken with that lens http://flickr.com/gp/jaalvarez/K78oPR

 

Good luck

 

Jose Alejandro

thanks so much, your pics are great. Of course, it's the photographer not the lens??? I'm leaning towards the nikon...might as well. Scott

Of course the Nikon, after all its only money right Scott? I gotta stop telling myself that!

I have the Nikkor 80-400mm lens. It is a great birding lens. With VR, it is possible to handhold much of the time. I usually put the ISO up to 400 - 800 though. Also, it hunts alot in AF at 400mm, so mostly use manual focus.

Anyone have any experience with the Kenko 420-800?

I ended up ordering the sigma, hope it works out ok...I'll let you know later