Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro vs Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR

I have come in to some money (not a lot) and I am looking to "upgrade" from my current telephoto lens (Nikon 70-300mm VR). I am looking at less than $1,000.00 and primarily photograph wildlife and landscape and would like some advice on these two lenses (in comparison to each other).

I have a Nikon D80 and a 1.4TC and 2.0TC.

Pro's and Con's for the Sigma are... Pro's - Very good in low light, ability to use the TC's and still be able to AF. Cons - No OS/VR and short telephoto range/distance.

Pro's and Con's for the Nikon... Pro's - VR for better handheld photo's, double the zoom length. Con's - Not as good at low light.

I have never shot with either of these, so cannot compare sharpness. I have held the Nikon 70-200 VR and Sigma 80-400 OS so the weight and sizes are not a concern.

We spend a week, every year, in the Black Hills, Custer State Park and Wind Cave NP and planning a Yellowstone trip.

While being relatively new to photography, I really believe what Lon Sharp told me last year while visiting Custer, South Dakota... "Invest in good glass".

With that in mind and the type of photography I enjoy what would you phenomenal photographers recommend?

I would like to spend more, but I am purchasing a Sigma 10-20mm for my wife for our anniversary, so my limit takes me to these two choices.

Thanks,
Troy
openspacesphotography.com

Hi Troy, I have never shot the Sigma 70-200 but used to own the Nikon 80-400 which I sold. I tried to use it for wildlife but found that the focusing was too slow and it hunted a lot. I now have the Nikon 70-200 and use it with a TC and just love the combination.

I own both the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR and the Nikon 80-400mm VR. I live in South Dakota, and know the southwest corner backwards & forwards. Here's my thoughts. I see the two lenses are for different purposes. The 200mm lens is for low light or general photography that requires fast AF, such as softball games played at night and etc. The 80-400mm lens is better for travel and better for wildlife. I have the TC-17e and it works OK on the 70-200mm. The 2x does not give good image quality. No TC gives good image quality on the 80-400mm. The AF on the 80-400mm is slow, almost painful. However, it is sharper than the 70-200mm with a TC on it. In Custer, you can get quite close to critters (but do stay away from buffalo herd bulls.) Antelope are more skittish. Either lens will work, but if you like to shoot tight, the 80-400mm will be the better choice. I used to use a Nikon 500mm f4P. It's manual focus, of course. Also much more money. If I were going today, I'd just take my 80-400mm. Get a Kirk collar for it--that makes a huge difference. One other thought for a lens would be a Nikon 300mm f4 AFS with either a TC-14 or TC-17, plus a good tripod & head. That might be the best option, really. Other than a park where aniamls are used to people, a 200mm lens is generally going to be WAY to short.


Kent in SD

I owned the 80-400. It produced fine IQ. As mentioned, AF is slow. Not a problem with mammals but very frustrating with small, quick birds or bird in flight images. With large birds it's OK for lateral in flight shots but if the bird is coming toward you, well forget it. If you plan on a lot of handheld use, the VR works very good on that lens. Don't forget that buys you a couple of equivalent stops when handheld as well.

In the base case it's best to get the range you expect to be shooting. Buying a set up with up front plans to routinely use a TC is not a good plan IMO. I own and use them, but only when it's the only way to get a shot.

One last thing. The 80-400 is the old mechanical drive AF. I don't recall whether the D80 is even compatible with the older AF drives.