In some ways a bit of a stupind question perhaps, but I have rececently upgraded back to full SLR on a semi-pro basic. I bought a Nikon D80 with Nikkor 18-135mmD and then bought the Sigma 10-20mmD. I am now am looking at the Nikkor 80-400 which would ideally compliement the two lenses. Yes it has VR on it and that must be taken into consideration.
However, looking around I see that Sigma (for example) offer a 135-400 and also a 50-500 at obviously considerably lesser price. Now on an absolute level there will obviously be no comparision in quality but in relative terms is there really a great deal of difference?
I am often out in the country (on Exmoor for example) and having a good tele lens would be good for grab shots of wildlife.
What comments or suggestions does anyone else have please?
Nikkor Or Sigma
Started by MapMan, Oct 29 2006 10:05 AM
3 replies to this topic
#2
fdinaro
-
- Advanced Members 50
-
- 1,879 posts
Super Member
- Location:3rd Rock from the Sun in a small town called New York.
- Interests:Photography,baseball , Ham radio.
Posted 15 December 2006 - 06:45 PM
I have the Sigma 50-500 I use it on my D2x. Great lens very heavy,sharper and cheaper then the Nikon 80-400 vr. You might want to try the new Nikon 70-300 vr. it looks to be a winner 
"Leave the gun. Take the canolies." ...Frank
#3
Photography by Nelson
-
- Members
-
- 87 posts
Advanced Member
- Location:Cayuga lake in Finger Lakes Region of New York State, USA
- Interests:Photography and fishing. I love film and shot with Nikons and my field camera which is a Pentax 6x7. Favorite lenses are my Nikons 24-120, 24-50, 50mm 1.4, I also have 90-300mm and a 1.4 matched multiplier. The Pentax 6x7 is a fantastic medium format with 50mm, 150mm and a 105mm. Lots of filters, 2 Bogan tripods. I use a Minolta IVF light meter for the Pentax.
Posted 26 May 2007 - 04:34 PM
QUOTE (MapMan @ Oct 29 2006, 05:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In some ways a bit of a stupind question perhaps, but I have rececently upgraded back to full SLR on a semi-pro basic. I bought a Nikon D80 with Nikkor 18-135mmD and then bought the Sigma 10-20mmD. I am now am looking at the Nikkor 80-400 which would ideally compliement the two lenses. Yes it has VR on it and that must be taken into consideration.
However, looking around I see that Sigma (for example) offer a 135-400 and also a 50-500 at obviously considerably lesser price. Now on an absolute level there will obviously be no comparision in quality but in relative terms is there really a great deal of difference?
I am often out in the country (on Exmoor for example) and having a good tele lens would be good for grab shots of wildlife.
What comments or suggestions does anyone else have please?
However, looking around I see that Sigma (for example) offer a 135-400 and also a 50-500 at obviously considerably lesser price. Now on an absolute level there will obviously be no comparision in quality but in relative terms is there really a great deal of difference?
I am often out in the country (on Exmoor for example) and having a good tele lens would be good for grab shots of wildlife.
What comments or suggestions does anyone else have please?
I have been into photography a good number of years and if I've learned nothing else "you get what you pay for."
#4
FiZZ
-
- Members
-
- 37 posts
Member
Posted 15 September 2007 - 09:39 PM
QUOTE (MapMan @ Oct 29 2006, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In some ways a bit of a stupind question perhaps, but I have rececently upgraded back to full SLR on a semi-pro basic. I bought a Nikon D80 with Nikkor 18-135mmD and then bought the Sigma 10-20mmD. I am now am looking at the Nikkor 80-400 which would ideally compliement the two lenses. Yes it has VR on it and that must be taken into consideration.
However, looking around I see that Sigma (for example) offer a 135-400 and also a 50-500 at obviously considerably lesser price. Now on an absolute level there will obviously be no comparision in quality but in relative terms is there really a great deal of difference?
I am often out in the country (on Exmoor for example) and having a good tele lens would be good for grab shots of wildlife.
What comments or suggestions does anyone else have please?
However, looking around I see that Sigma (for example) offer a 135-400 and also a 50-500 at obviously considerably lesser price. Now on an absolute level there will obviously be no comparision in quality but in relative terms is there really a great deal of difference?
I am often out in the country (on Exmoor for example) and having a good tele lens would be good for grab shots of wildlife.
What comments or suggestions does anyone else have please?
I've had limited experience with Sigma (a total of three lenses from super wide to wide to telephoto), and I was disappointed with most. I found their telephoto range to be quite decent and cheaper than Nikon.
However, on the long run I suggest Nikon, since they are made specifically for the lens by the camera manufacturer, so you can't go wrong in terms of compatibility.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
