Which lens? I have a D7000 with a 70-300vr lens. In some cases it just isn't long enough. I have a budget of $1000 max. I've looked at the Nikon 80-400 (first version) and the Sigma...

Hoosier in GA Loc: Milledgeville, GA

I have a D7000 with a 70-300vr lens. In some cases it just isn't long enough. I have a budget of $1000 max. I've looked at the Nikon 80-400 (first version) and the Sigma 120-400. The negative on the Nikon is slow focus. The Sigma is somewhat more expensive, but weighs considerably more. Weight is one of the factors.

I would appreciate comments from members who have had experience with either one. Yes, I'm still doing research.

Thanking you in advance
Hoosier

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Can't speak to either of your choices, but you have considered buying used, haven't you ?.... I get a lot of used lenses from keh.com ... Reputable company that is very conservative in their grading. Most of their "bargain" grade would be sold as "EX" on eBay...Shame they don't have a brick & mortar store though... They are in Symrna, Georgia (I have been to their facility, live about 25 miles from there)

amehta Loc: Boston

I was not thrilled with the Nikon 80-400mm (I) when I had a chance to try it, but I may be more picky than most. It was noticeably softer than the Nikon 70-300mm VR. I don't know how the Sigma compares.

Hoosier in GA Loc: Milledgeville, GA

Screamin Scott wrote:

Can't speak to either of your choices, but you have considered buying used, haven't you ?.... I get a lot of used lenses from keh.com ... Reputable company that is very conservative in their grading. Most of their "bargain" grade would be sold as "EX" on eBay...Shame they don't have a brick & mortar store though... They are in Symrna, Georgia (I have been to their facility, live about 25 miles from there)

Scott...yes, I am considering used as well. I live near Eatonton,Ga, so KEH isn't too far for me. Don't know if they welcome visitors or not.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

I use a Sigma 150-500mm which meets your budget and fast focusing requirements but it's heavy - about 4.5lbs.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

You can't really just stop by. If you buy something online or over the phone, you can arrange a pickup. I was returning a lens that I was not satisfied with when I was there in order to save myself some shipping charges...

Hoosier in GA wrote:

Scott...yes, I am considering used as well. I live near Eatonton,Ga, so KEH isn't too far for me. Don't know if they welcome visitors or not.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Skip the Sigma 120-400mm and go for the Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM lens, you won't regret it and it is available for under your $1000 target price delivered. A fine lens at any price, but especially at its selling price.

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

Not sure of the weight, but Tamron has just introduced a 150-600 and we are all waiting to hear the results from MTShooter on this lens!

ReFlections Loc: From LA to AL

MT Shooter wrote:

Skip the Sigma 120-400mm and go for the Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM lens, you won't regret it and it is available for under your $1000 target price delivered. A fine lens at any price, but especially at its selling price.

Listen to Him....

Hoosier in GA Loc: Milledgeville, GA

MT Shooter wrote:

Skip the Sigma 120-400mm and go for the Sigma 150-500mm OS HSM lens, you won't regret it and it is available for under your $1000 target price delivered. A fine lens at any price, but especially at its selling price.

I believe there is a significant weight diff between the two...one of my considerations, besides $, is weight. But, thanks for pointing it out to me.

amehta Loc: Boston

Hoosier in GA wrote:

I believe there is a significant weight diff between the two...one of my considerations, besides $, is weight. But, thanks for pointing it out to me.

* Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS: $1000, 3.9lbs, 8" long
* Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS: $900, 4.2lbs, 10" long

There is less than 10% difference in weight. The weight distribution might be a bigger factor, since the BigSig is 25% longer.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Hoosier in GA wrote:

I believe there is a significant weight diff between the two...one of my considerations, besides $, is weight. But, thanks for pointing it out to me.

Only 3 ounces, not enough to offset the loss of 100mm on the long end for me.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I use the 80-400 VR original version. I tend to use the "limited focus" setting in the lens to allow me to focus faster when I need to do that. If not photographing action I go with the "full focus" feature.
The lens is sharp and continuous to be my favorite for wildlife photography. It is a bargain compared to the new version.
It is impossible to make a judgment on the lens based on a photograph like this but the original is razor sharp.

(Download)

Hoosier in GA Loc: Milledgeville, GA

Thank you all for your comments. Will probably make decision on which Sigma lens in the near future. One consideration is that the 120-400mm can be purchased used from either B&H or Adorama. $ savings is a consideration.

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

Screamin Scott wrote:

Can't speak to either of your choices, but you have considered buying used, haven't you ?.... I get a lot of used lenses from keh.com ... Reputable company that is very conservative in their grading. Most of their "bargain" grade would be sold as "EX" on eBay...Shame they don't have a brick & mortar store though... They are in Symrna, Georgia (I have been to their facility, live about 25 miles from there)

Got a lens delivered from KEH yesterday, it was rated EX. If it had a Tamron box, manual and packing I would have thought it was new.