Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 22, 2006, 11:45 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,214
Default

I did not have a good experience withTamron, so tend not to have a good impression forSigma's. This impression is unfair to Sigma, Iknow about that, but when investing in equipment, thatimpression stays in my mind.

My impression is thatthe lens maywork well for the first few years, but as time goes by, I have the feeling that the quality of the glasschanges for the worse much faster than major camera manufacturers'. I had two Tamron lenses, the 17mm wide and 90mm macro and both lenses developed a cataract-like white patch in the glass in about 3 years' time.

I have been using the Nikkor for a long time and no such cataract problem has happened so far except for a manual 200 macro in which the coating on the front piece slightly degenerated. I have sold out the lens after switching to digital photography and using D70 and the i-ttl flash system with which the 200 is not that compatible as far as automation in equipment function is concerned.

I think the 300-800 is too wide in range to be able to rule out such problems asinternal reflection and chromatic abberation, or things like that. I am not sure but I think this must be true: 200-400 better than 80-400 and Tamron's 200-500, and in turn, 200-500 better than80-400 and300-800. This is not a justifiable deduction, I have to say.



wk7leung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2006, 1:52 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,214
Default

Here is a photo taken with the Sigma 300-800. This sigmonster seems to be quite good there.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=11


You can also view more shots taken with the Sigmonster in Liquistone's website.
wk7leung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2006, 4:51 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 41
Default

I'm like you in respect of Tamron they always havehad reliability problems andI still think their build quality lets them down. High end Sigma are not the same and are very well built in my experience. The Nikkors you mention are a big spread the only one I have is the 600 so all I can say for sure is that would work for what you want so long as you have a sturdy tripod and head, preferably a Gimble type. You'd need a Monopod too. If you already have 400 reach, the 500 or600 micht give you more options rather than upgrading to the F4.

The Big Sigma would give you everything but just remember tele convertors. You already have up to 400 if you got the 600 a 1.4x gives you an 840 5.6, 1.7 1000 F6.7 and 1200 f8 the first 2 are very usable butwith the 2X Autofocus still works fine but it's a long lens and if you are working at extreme distances it will get a bit soft.
VinnyP! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2006, 10:18 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,214
Default

Would like to refer you to the following shoot out by Liquidstone for the Sigmonster and the Canon prime 500:


http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/ima...79465/original
wk7leung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2006, 12:54 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,214
Default

Morecan be foundofshots taken with the Sigma 300-800at the following websites:

http://www.birdfocus.nl/toevoegingen/index.htm

http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk/
wk7leung is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:53 PM.