At last, ne Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6G

[D.P.]

I haven't seen any reviews of the new Sigma 120-300 yet, but the Sigma seems a much more interesting lens to me due to the faster aperture (as long as it's sharp).
The difference between 300-400mm isn't that much, and I'd rather take the extra aperture latitude, and then if needed just use the lot's of MP's to crop to desired composition.

Beyond the big weight difference you are wrong about 300mm vs 400mm, it is very noticible for wildlife. My wildlife photography made a big jump going from 300mm to 420mm. 300mm on FF is too short for most wildlife, 400mm isn't even that long but very hard to do better without serious money.

Of course the sigma can take TCs so then it a question of IQ of a bare 80-400 vs a 120-300 with 1.4TC. The sigma combo can be stopped down 1 stop to match the slower nikkor and by then is probably similar IQ but at twice the weight.

For sur the sigma is nice but it doesn't compete with the 80-400 except you get more glass for your money which is tempting.

 

[capdegat]

One thing to note is that new d7100 and ff cameras will af at f8 so you can add 1.4tc with not to much degradation .Reasonably light 560mm then, which will help the birders.

 

[Ksanti]

Perhaps, but f/8 autofocus is yet to be tested for speed - it's unlikely to be great, and it's likely to make usable shutter speeds for anything in motion to require pushing ISO quite heavily, even in fairly well lit situations. This will definitely be a very good combo though given how capable even the 7D+100-400L in the right situations has proven.

 

[Energize]

Although pretty slow I find you can autofocus just fine at f/11 using liveview, even in indoor lighting.

 

[D.P.]

From most reports I have seen the new gen Nikon bodies are pretty impressive focussing at f/8, e.g. a d800 can focus an f/8 lens faster than. Lower end bodies can focus at f/5.6.

I looked at the MTF charts and the lens looks impressive, possibly sharper than the 200-400 and 70-200 lenses!

 

[D.P.]

Although pretty slow I find you can autofocus just fine at f/11 using liveview, even in indoor lighting.

You know that the AF module uses the lens wide open to focus and only closes down the entire when about to take the photo.

 

[ianh]

There's the new canon 200-400 out this year but it's very much aimed at Pro's with a 5 figure price tag (in $) mentioned. The 100-400 could do with an update if only for a newer IS although it'd be interesting to see if they kept it as a push/pull zoom, rotating ring or internal zoom as that always seems to be a discussion point with the 100-400.

 

[Amp34]

I haven't seen any reviews of the new Sigma 120-300 yet, but the Sigma seems a much more interesting lens to me due to the faster aperture (as long as it's sharp).
The difference between 300-400mm isn't that much, and I'd rather take the extra aperture latitude, and then if needed just use the lot's of MP's to crop to desired composition.

I haven't either, however it should be stunning, it's basically the "old" OS version with a couple of rubber seals and a focus limiter (same name as the old one, just an "S" at the end). Been playing with my OS version and its stunning sharp at both ends at f/2.8, although it did have a massive back focus issue so I had to send it to Sigma to get it calibrated.

It's a very different beast to the 80/100-400 lenses though, at twice the weight and two stops faster.

 

[Amp34]

Perhaps, but say you're hiking for landscapes and such in wildlife areas - having to lug around a 120-300 that you're going to use for a dozen shots a day might be a real pain compared to just dropping the 80-400 in a bag, which is no bigger than the 70-200 lenses when retracted. The difficulty some people have in fitting a 70-200 into their system makes me think adding even more size to that setup as the 120-300 does would make packing very awkwardd.

I agree totally, I'm still holding on to my 70-300 VR as it's a great little lens to wonder round with at times I'm not solely going out to shoot. I have yet to test the 120-300 with my walking kit, however an extra 1.5kg and slightly wider than my old Canon 300 f/4 is a slightly daunting prospect. I do think a better lens would be a 300 f/4 prime when the 120-300 is too heavy, mainly for the extra stop, however you lose the VR with Nikon and you also lose the flexibility.

Even better would be Sigma release a new 100-300 f/4 OS, that would be a great replacement for the 80/100-400 as it'll give you more light at the shorter ends and with a TC would give you 420 f/5.6.

 

[Amp34]

Beyond the big weight difference you are wrong about 300mm vs 400mm, it is very noticible for wildlife. My wildlife photography made a big jump going from 300mm to 420mm. 300mm on FF is too short for most wildlife, 400mm isn't even that long but very hard to do better without serious money.

Of course the sigma can take TCs so then it a question of IQ of a bare 80-400 vs a 120-300 with 1.4TC. The sigma combo can be stopped down 1 stop to match the slower nikkor and by then is probably similar IQ but at twice the weight.

For sur the sigma is nice but it doesn't compete with the 80-400 except you get more glass for your money which is tempting.

I will be in a position to give a few example shots from the 120-300 with a TC in a few days hopefully... Then we just need the 80-400 to compare it to!

 

[Energize]

You know that the AF module uses the lens wide open to focus and only closes down the entire when about to take the photo.

It doesn't, the closed diaphragm is clearly visible when you enter live view mode stopped down or change the aperture using the ring, try it for yourself.

 

[Ksanti]

Energize that's only true in live view because of video usage and the fact that the sensor can "see" faster than f/2.5 (the OVF can generally only see up to f/2.5). Obviously moving a physical aperture ring changes that, but any electronic aperture will only go from wide open when the shutter fires or when live view is engaged.

 

[Energize]

That's not what I'm contending, I'm saying that in live view the camera does not focus at maximum aperture it focuses at what the aperture is currently set to, so when your aperture is set to f/11 the camera is focusing at f/11 as if you were using a 2x teleconverter with a f/5.6 lens for example. It's not the same as using the OVF where focus is done wide open.

 

[D.P.]

That's not what I'm contending, I'm saying that in live view the camera does not focus at maximum aperture it focuses at what the aperture is currently set to, so when your aperture is set to f/11 the camera is focusing at f/11 as if you were using a 2x teleconverter with a f/5.6 lens for example. It's not the same as using the OVF where focus is done wide open.

That is correct but in live view it is using the sensor to do autofocus using a contrast maximization algorithm.

When not using live view the camera uses the phase detection sensors, these do not function if the lens aperture is above f5.6 to f8 depending on the camera. Tis is what I was commenting on, because you don't use live view for fast focusing tasks.


The d7000 doesn't focus at all well at f8, the newer Nikon camera do focus well at f8.