Sigma 120-400mm or Sigma 150-500mm for Nikon

[Drkranger]

Anyone have experience with these lenses? I'm looking for a new one with some reach. The aperture range is a little slow (4-5.6), but for what I need it for, it's fine. I don't really want the 70/80-200/300. I already use the Sigma 50-150 and if I get the 120-400 I'll shoot with 2 bodies instead of just one. I could go with the 150-500mm, but the aperture range is quite a bit slower and I don't need that kind of reach, but perhaps for $100 it'd be worth it.

Anyway, shooting sports in full sun with the lenses, so while a 2.8 would be great, it's not necessary (and my bank account couldn't take the hit anyway).

So, thoughts on these 2 lenses? Any experience? Thanks,

[OsmosisStudios]

Not to be a TOTAL fanboy: the 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR?

Nikon is also supposedly working on a 100-500 4.5-5.6 VRII in AF-S guise, too, slates for release in early 2010. Might be worth the wait to instead pick that up, or help a dealer clean out of the "old" 80-400s

[Drkranger]

I looked at the Nikon 80-400, but the reviews say the AF speed is really slow and that doesn't help me when shooting sports. I need fast AF.

I do have some time as I don't really "need" a long lens until next Spring.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Drkranger

I looked at the Nikon 80-400, but the reviews say the AF speed is really slow and that doesn't help me when shooting sports. I need fast AF.

I do have some time as I don't really "need" a long lens until next Spring.

Well as I said, the new replacement for it will have AF-S.

Also, if youre doing sports, the f/5.6 max aperture likely wont be fast enough. Have you considered a 300 or 400mm prime, instead?

[Drkranger]

I haven't looked at the primes yet, but if I did, I'd need a longer lens anyway, 70-200/300. However, I only use the long lens in full sun, so the f/5.6 would be fine. If I could afford the long f/2.8, I would, but the price tags just kill me there.

I know I don't want to use the cheaper 70-300 since you do get what you pay for.

Any word on when the new 80-400 will be out? I'd certainly consider that one and I have some time.

Thanks for the info...

[Shokinen]

Originally Posted by Drkranger

I know I don't want to use the cheaper 70-300 since you do get what you pay for.

I'm actually very please with my Nikon 70-300mm.
It's not super fast but like you, I shoot sport mostly in daylight. For 600$ CDN you can't go wrong.

My 2 cents

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Drkranger

I know I don't want to use the cheaper 70-300 since you do get what you pay for.

Depends on which 70-300 youre talking about. The non-VR ones are rubbish and they sell for ~$150. The VR ones are considerably better (as sharp as the 70-200 in the same range/apertures) and are about $600. The big difference between 70-300 VR and 70-200 is the aperture: the latter is a f/2.8 constant whereas the former is a f/4.5-5.6.

[Drkranger]

I have a cheaper 70-300 and it is rubbish, although I guess I should say, that's it's not as good as higher quality 70-200, 70-300 lenses that cost more. I'm really looking at the 120-400 if only because it gives me the extra reach that I haven't had. I'd go with the 80-400 that was suggested if the AF-S version was out, and I could afford it. But for now, I'll wait until I can't wait anymore and then buy what I need.

Anyone have $5000 I can HAVE to buy the big f/2.8 I "need."

[inkista]

I did just want to mention the following text from the lensrentals.com Lens Repair Data 3.5 article:

...The Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is joining the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 (45% failure rate) in the Lensrentals Hall of Shame: lenses we no longer carry because their failure rate is so high we just can’t afford them. Almost half of them have failed, usually after 3 to 6 months in service.

Now, granted, a rental lens probably sees more use/abuse in those 3-6 months than a privately owned lens would in 3-6 years, but still...

[Drkranger]

Thanks for the info inkista. Thankfully, if I do get the Sigma and it dies in 3-6 months, warranty will cover it. AND, the last I heard Sigma was increasing their standard warranty by 2 years, so if it fails in 36 months, it'll be covered. That would be nice.

By the way, nikonrumors.com listed a 100-500 4/5.6 AF-S IF-ED VR Nikon lens due Spring 2010. If it comes in and at a decent price, I'd serious look at that one.

The only issue is if I can wait or not...