Which one , Nikon or Sigma

I have the Nikon D700 and want to get a long focal length lens for it and NOT spend multi. thousand $ for it , at least not at this time. A 500mm f/4.0 or a 200-400mm f/4.0 would be next. So the contenders in my mind are the Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 or either the Sigma 120-400mm DG OS HSM or the 150-500mm DG OS HSM. I know the reputation of the Nikon is being slow to AF and somewhat soft , although a friend gets some very sharp photo`s from his. Was curious in getting some input from some of you out there as to your experiences or thoughts before I buy anything.Thanks Jeff A.

NOW I know the reason I get some blurred shots with my D700 .. my dang Nikon lens are to slow to focus .. sheesh ..... all this time I thought it was me !

I'm no techy, just a hobbyist, and have never even thought of puttin' our 80-400mm on the D700 ( resides almost permanently on a D50 )but I think on a nicely lit day, it would be better than something 150-500 ...

The 80-400mm is a nice chunk of pocket change .. I kindof wanted my friend to buy the 300mm instead - I had rented it for a week once / they say this handles a TC beautifully .. but she opted not to several years ago now and this lens gives her some long distance on a DX that she is happy with.

You may be able to rent those lens cheaply for a week online to see what you like - bring em in over your weekend to give em a run -- or take your D700 to a camera store and check out those lens on it shootin' across the street ....

Good luck with your choice ..

A 300 and a 500 with both TC14 and TC17 makes a very versatile package. Get the 300 first, add the TC's next, then go for the 500. Doesn't really answer your original question but the image quality of all those you mention won't come near what the aforementioned prime will do, even with TC"s.

The Sigma 120-400 and 150-500 will easily out autofocus the Nikon 80-400 as they use an ultrasonic motor however their reputation for sharpness, especially in the long half of the range where they are most used is very poor. The Nikon 80-400 is the sharpest lens in the 80-400 (ish) range but also the poorest performer for AF as it uses the old screw motor.

What's your budget & is the lens for hand-held photography or will it be used with a tripod?
If you plan to shoot from a tripod and can stretch in the $1500-$1800 range, you might consider the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 HSM. My wife and I are big fans of this lens. While I shoot canon gear, the lens is the same and the performance should be as well. We use this and the 300mm IS f2.8L lens. We have matched 1.4x converters for each. While the Sigma is not as contrasty as the Canon, it is close. For a long fast aperture zoom it is surprisingly sharp. Using the focus microadjustment in our bodies, we've dialed in the focus @ the end of the zoom range and now the af is fast and accurate. While the price of a new 120-300 2.8 is $3000, the used price is closer to the price of a new 80-400 Nikkor. I purchased our 120-300 2.8 for my wife prior to going on a Tanzania safari in June 2008 from KEH for $1600. We shot side-by-side and unless you are pixel peeping, you can't see a difference between my images (300mm 2. and her images.

cheers,
bruce

If you don't really need a zoom lens, and will be using the lens at 300 to 400mm most of the time, get the 300 f/4 afs and TC-14E II. Great combo ...... VERY versatile and very affordable! Much sharper than any of the other options you mention. Plus it will still be very useful when you eventually get a 500 prime

If you are looking for a good second hand Sigma 120-400 lens, check KEH. I just sold them one that I used only once. I found a nice Nikon 200-400 and that is the reason I sold the Sigma. As EJ said the Sigmas have a tendency to be soft in the longer focal lengths, however, I still have a Sigma 150-500 that provides adequate results with proper technique. The 120-400 seems a bit heavier than the 150-500 and with a matched tele converter you lose autofocus and the lens is really slow. Good luck.

I'd go with Tim's suggestion, very useful lens particularly with the close focus abilities. Keh.com has a few to choose from in the $750 - $1300 range.

How about the Tamron 200-500 or the Sigma 50-500? - I found both sharper than the 120-400 and 150-500mm

If you need fast AF, I'd suggest start from a Sigma 150-500. If you can get a sharp copy, then that's the best option. If not, you can always fall back to Nikon 80-400.

And I'd 2nd the other suggestion, the Nikon 300 f4 AFS is really a very nice lens. It can be used not only for flying birds, but also close photography like flowers and butterflies. It's a lens worth keeping together with either 200-400 or 150-500.

Eric.

I'm a Canon user, but whenever I used a Sigma, regretted it later.
Jagdeep Rajput

I use the Nikon 300mmf/4 along with Nikon TC-14 teleconvertor. Sharp and fast focusing.

Another vote for the Nikon 300mm f4 which I own and use regularly with my D300, I often add the 1.7 Nikon teleconverter and it works well although it's recommended to use it with lenses which have an aperture of 2.8. Perfect with the 1.4TC. I tried the 1.7 TC before buying it after speaking to a Nikon technician. It's much faster than the 80-400mmm zoom which I now rarely use.
Monique

I had the 80-400 and have the 500mm f4, 200-400 and the 300 f4. As you noticed I had the 80-400 - worked but never liked that lens. It is very weak at collar and can not be bumped hard. I sent this lens to Nikon twice for repair. I tend to be hard on equipment sometimes. The 80-400 is also push/pull lens which makes tripod shooting more difficult due to balance always changing with focal length/ The 300 f4 is an excellent lens and will do for bird photography with 1.4x or 1.7x. I don't remember minimum focus distance on 80-400 but it won't focus as close as 300 f4 or 200-400. I know nothing about Sigma lens, but I would recommend same as several others and go for 300 f4 with tc-14