Bigma Vs Nikon 80-400

[Dogsey]

Has anyone used both of these lenses? I've been bought a day photographing big cats for my birthday and want to hire a lens for the day. Lenses for Hire have both of these available when I need them and while I've used the 80-400 before I'm wondering whether the extra reach (at both ends) of the Bigma would be advantageous. Of course the downside is that the Bigma doesn't have VR and isn't as fast at the long end as the 80-400 - although I don't know what speed the Bigma is at 400mm.

The other alternative is to go for something like the 70-200 G f2.8 or 80-200 D f2.8 and a teleconverter, LfH have 1.4x, 1.7x and 2.0x all available. Has anyone done one of the days at WHF? Will 200-300mm get me close enough?

Argh ... too many choices!

TIA, Confused of Essex.

[Nick M]

Focus on the 80-400 isn't that quick apparently, and it can suffer from a little softness.

Given the choice, I'd go for the 70-200 VR lens with either the 1.7 or 2.0 converter. 1.7 is a tad sharper than the 2.0 in general terms.

Assuming you're using a DX sensor then you'll get plenty of 'reach' with that combination, allied to some sharp images.

[Dogsey]

Nick M said:

Focus on the 80-400 isn't that quick apparently, and it can suffer from a little softness.

Given the choice, I'd go for the 70-200 VR lens with either the 1.7 or 2.0 converter. 1.7 is a tad sharper than the 2.0 in general terms.

Assuming you're using a DX sensor then you'll get plenty of 'reach' with that combination, allied to some sharp images.

I've used the 80-400 before and agree it can be a little slow to focus, although I've never really found too much of a problem with it's sharpness.

I am tempted by the 70-200 f2.8, what stop will it go down to when coupled with the 1.7x?

Anyone else got any opinion on the lenses?

[Furyous]

Not used either, but am keeping my fingers crossed for the 80-400 AFS VR next year.

My personal view of the bigma is that its a bit too much of a jack of all trades, and some reviews seem to back that up.

Nikon are a poor in this range currently, lacking a 100-400 L equivalent.

[Nick M]

Dogsey said:

I am tempted by the 70-200 f2.8, what stop will it go down to when coupled with the 1.7x?

f4.8

[Dogsey]

Nick M said:

Dogsey said:

I am tempted by the 70-200 f2.8, what stop will it go down to when coupled with the 1.7x?

f4.8

Hmm, that would then give me 70-200mm at f2.8 which is good, but 200-340mm at f4.8 ... which is worse than either of the big lenses.

[_dobbo_]

I own the 80-400 and have been waiting for a decent answer to this question to see if I should sell it and buy the bigma.

The Sigma outscores the Nikkor over on Fred Miranda for what that is worth.

I'm increasingly leaning towards picking up a Sigma 100-300 F4 and just relying on the better image quality giving me more option for cropping to make up for the lack of length.

Decisions decisions...