What Lens to Buy...? (Page 3): Mt. Airy, 30miles west of Balt. what do you shoot Bob. Phil...

Photosmoke

BboH wrote:

I'm Catonsville - how 'bout you?

Mt. Airy, 30miles west of Balt. what do you shoot Bob.

Phil

MtnMan Loc: ID

BigEasy wrote:

I've Researched several lens that I am interested in buying and would like feedback from UHH members...on usage, sharpness, overall Performance ( I also looked at Ken Rockwell, and got his opinion )
1. Nikon 80-400mm VR "D" lens.... or
2. Sigma 150-500mm OS lens

My usage would be for wildlife, landscape, sports

Thanks for any "hands-on" Opinions...!

I use the Sigma 150-500. I and many others here endorse it.

I have the new Nikon 200-500 on order.

BigEasy Loc: Palm Beach

Nice to have the funds...!

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

BigEasy wrote:

I've Researched several lens that I am interested in buying and would like feedback from UHH members...on usage, sharpness, overall Performance ( I also looked at Ken Rockwell, and got his opinion )
1. Nikon 80-400mm VR "D" lens.... or
2. Sigma 150-500mm OS lens

My usage would be for wildlife, landscape, sports

Thanks for any "hands-on" Opinions...!

I was satisfied with the Sigma 150-500mm until I purchased the Tamron 150-600mm. The Tamron is a far better lens. Less cost than the 80-400 as sharp and crisp as the Nikon and more versatile. Is the Tamron sharp at 600mm? See below

Roadrunner at 600mm / handheld

(Download)

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

I have the old style 80-400 and the Sigma 150-500. The 80-400 is a faster lens and it's a higher optical quality in my opinion. The Sigma however does a reasonable job for the money, it represents good value but it won't deliver professional results.

I've tended to use the 80-400 most of the time but once in a while I find the extra 100 mm handy. Add to that I use a 1.4x TC on that lens sometimes whereas I don't on the Nikon.

If you want quality go for the new 80-400 even though it's a lot more expensive. If you're willing to compromise a bit the 150-500 Sigma is a good value. In fact now there's the 150-600 which represents even better value though I'm not lining up to buy one.

Oh yes, and I mount those two lenses on my D3 and D800 though once in a while I've used the Nikon on a D200 as well.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Photosmoke wrote:

Mt. Airy, 30miles west of Balt. what do you shoot Bob.

Phil

My daughter #4 and son-in-law live in Mt Airy on Pommel Dr.
I've shoot Nikon - an 810, 750 and 7100.

How about you?

dhellner Loc: milwaukee wi.

DaveO wrote:

BigEasy, br br I just went through this and bough... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup:

wingate2417 Loc: Quincy, Ca.

Dave, save your pennies.

Photosmoke

BboH wrote:

My daughter #4 and son-in-law live in Mt Airy on Pommel Dr.
I've shoot Nikon - an 810, 750 and 7100.

How about you?

750 & 7100

coj Loc: NJ, USA

Kmgw9v wrote:

Nikon or Sigma---recommendations will be based on the lens that one owns; and most don't own both.
Not the subject, but Rockwell's flavor of the month is Canon over Nikon.

How true. And if you don't shoot with only primes, (Rockwell) you are moron. Screw it. I like my 18 - 300mm all around lens. I shot a lot of bugs & butterflies this year. If I had to change lenses for every shot I would have missed 90% of the shots. He basically said my lens was crap. I love it.

coj Loc: NJ, USA

Just IMHO - Shoot with Nikon, use Nikon glass. Buy a Nikon lens and it has a higher resale value in the future than any other third party lens. In addition, Nikon makes sure that their lenses fit newer model cameras. Tamron & Sigma do not. Plus, Nikon builds their lenses to work with their cameras. Same with Canon. If price is a considerable factor, go with Tamron or Sigma, but remember, you get what you pay for. There is a reason Nikon glass costs more. Same with Canon. They build better products meant to last for many, many years. I recently sold a really old Nikon lens heavily used (received as a gift for a film camera around 2001) for around 50% of the MSRP. Not too shabby.

BigEasy wrote:

I've Researched several lens that I am interested in buying and would like feedback from UHH members...on usage, sharpness, overall Performance ( I also looked at Ken Rockwell, and got his opinion )
1. Nikon 80-400mm VR "D" lens.... or
2. Sigma 150-500mm OS lens

My usage would be for wildlife, landscape, sports

Thanks for any "hands-on" Opinions...!

coj Loc: NJ, USA

MtnMan wrote:

I use the Sigma 150-500. I and many others here endorse it.

I have the new Nikon 200-500 on order.

Please let us know how you like the new Nikon lens. I am thinking hard about that, as it is not much more than the big Tamron or Sigma and on a DX (me) it has a higher equivalent zoom.

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

Bill gomberg wrote:

For best image quality ; a prime and zoom with your feet . The ultimate being Zeiss if you can afford it .

Yes, if you see a beautiful lion at 100 yards and want to take its picture, put on your $2000. Zeiss and foot zoom until you can smell the lions breath.