lens opinions
 

Best is to try them out in the shop.

AF-speed, size, handling,... also: by the time you fitted a converter, your subject might be gone. I think in times of digital (and VERY useable 800 ASA), the 80-400 will be the better option. f5.6 don't matter that much, just shoot well-exposed 800 ASA and the grain should be fine.
AF-speed is not to be neglected, especially in the telephoto range of lenses...

Bjorn

My thoughts are "what is the focal length that you are likely to use most?" If you are shooting over 200 then perhaps the Nikkor is best. However, my feeling would be go for the Sigma...

Having said that, IIRR, the issue with teleconverters is that you loose autofocus and 1 or 2 f stops. However, I seem to recall that autofocus was not affected if the lense is fast: perhaps f2.8 would cope...

I mean its great having a 400. I have a 200-400 for my Dynax 7D but, realistically, its not a focal length I use that often unless its for wildlife.

Personally, I think that the f2.8 is more attractive. It really opens up what you lense and camera can achieve. My 400 is a 5.6 and it can make certain shots less likely.

You have narrowed down your choice, but out of interest, why did you reject the Sigma 28-200 lens: they have a very good rep....

f2.8 lens fitted with a 2x teleconverter will be useable on all cameras (though you might be restricted to centre AF point).

I have a f4-5.6/75-300 on my Canon 5D, fitted with a 2x teleconverter. OFFICIALLY, the 5D's center AF point only works up to f5.6. But because I fitted a Kenko teleconverter instead of a Canon one, the camera doesn't realize that the converter is there and AF still works. 9 out of 10 shots are in focus, good enough for me.

On a portrait lens (around 100mm), f2.8 is a nice thing to have for shallow depth of field. Other than that, I don't think it matters too much. As I said before: just set the camera to 400 or 800 ASA and you'll be fine (as long as you nail the exposure).

Also: Image stabilization is very nice on those long focal lenghts as it makes composing, panning & framing much easier. I'd DEFINITELY go for a stabilized lens if it's above 200mm.

Bjorn

My only issue with that is that at those ISO settings digital cameras tend to generate a lot of noise, no? It's certainly the case with compacts, perhaps larger SLR sensors suffer less from this. Nonetheless, digital as with film, the higher the ISO, the grainier the picture.

I do feel that the advantages of f2.8 go beyond DoF as it will give one far more chances of getting good quality shots in low light. Better to have a fast lens than rely wholly on IS, IMO...

Hi guys, thanks for your thought. I have played with both lenses and this actually made it worse. Just for the record though this sigma lens and converter combination is desgined to maintain auto-focus as well as auto-focus speed (Tele Converter matching list - SIGMA CORPORATION). I know that i will lose fstops but the difference between the nikon and ths sigma at 400 is 0 both being 5.6. so now it comes down to sharpness

Wart: I actually dont know about the sigma 28-200 do you mean the 28-300 and if so it does not do what I want. If you mean the 28-200 nikon I have an older version of it, and it is a good lens but it would need to be rechipped to work with my new camera.. (it is for sale btw) :D

ahh the sleepless nights continue.. the good new is that i now have the blessing either way from SWMBO!!!

Wart?!? I know I may be aesthetically challenged, but come on!!:blushing:

The lens I was thinking of may have been the 28-300, now that I think of it, but I did find this:

Not a 2.8, but the 28mm is a nice feature on any trip to new climes!!

I read that the 80-400 is heavy and very slow focussing. Have you considered the last 80-200 2.8 Nikkor? Still heavy (not a travel lens) but very fast focussing and very sharp. Don't know anything about Sigma other than the 10-20mm - plasticky, but fun.

The only other thing I can think of is a Nikon 55-200 VR if you're shooting DX(?). It's light, cheap as chips and more cover at the lower end - less changes. Don't know if it takes TC's - which is no loss in my view.

At the risk of teaching an old dog new tricks, the difference between your 300 and a 200 is not much in real terms - even less between 300 and 400 - unless you really need as much as you can get.

I would go for Sigma 80-200 f:2.8 makes you can shoot also in low light conditions. Especiallay if you have a high ISO film or set on digital camera.

I have one of Nikon and very satisfied though a bit heavy and don't use it quite often.

When the difference between two numbers of focal lenght goes high it means sharpness will be worse.

5.6 means you need more light or more ISO (it means also not clear pics).

Ask yourself how frequent do you use 400 mm?
If it is very rare go for 80-200 and buy a 2 x teleconverter.

:oops2:HEHEHE sorry about:oops2: that it even took me 2 0r 3 times reading it to understand i just called you a Wart.. No offence intended. :oops2:


Well I have gone with the sigma 70-200 2.8, I would have wanted the nikon 70-200 but could not afford the £1500. The 80-400 (the copy i played with) was not slow at all (although not silent wave so a bit noisy), I really liked it. physical size the sigma 70-200 and the 80-400 are very close so that was not a huge deal breaker. In the end i decided that the most of my shots will be under the 200mm range and thus i should maximise performace there...
Thanks again all and I hope i made the right choice..
Xander

None taken: it would take more than that!! Anyway, I often get far worse from my better half!!

Happy Snapping!