400mm vs 500mm

deeya

I'm at the point where I want to get a longer lens for shooting wildlife (sea birds mostly) and I'm debating between the Sigma 50-500mm (better cost, good reviews, HEAVY lens) and the Nikkor 80-400mm VR (costs more, less range, lighter lens, and of course VR)... So... what I really would like to see is what the difference is between what you will capture with a 400mm versus a 500mm.

Does anyone have a zoom that reaches to 500mm that can take and post some pictures taken of the same thing from the same spot at say 300mm (the most I can reach now), 400mm, and 500mm so I can judge just how much of a difference that extra 100mm is going to make for me. I'm just not sure if the difference is worth the weight of the lens... but I'm tired of having to crop in bird shots.

Any input from anyone that has used both would be greatly appreciated too..

TIA

DJ-S1

It's been posted before but this is a good tool for comparing focal lengths.

In general, I find the difference on the wide end is more significant. That is, the difference between 17mm and 24mm is huge, but the difference between 400mm and 500mm isn't as big. That said, in many wildlife situations you need all the reach you can get.

Good luck with your search -

deeya

Thanks so much

DJ-S1 wrote:

It's been posted before but this is a good tool for comparing focal lengths.

In general, I find the difference on the wide end is more significant. That is, the difference between 17mm and 24mm is huge, but the difference between 400mm and 500mm isn't as big. That said, in many wildlife situations you need all the reach you can get.

Good luck with your search -

That's exactly what I needed... I can see that the diff between 400 and 500 isn't that much.. but the diff between 300 where I can reach now (or even more 200 which I use most of the time) and 500 is HUGE... I guess I'll start weight lifting to get my arms used to carrying that heavy BIGMA. At least with the money savings I can afford to join a gym!

Of course I'm still interested in any shots of birds comparing the diff focal lengths.. and any opinions from anyone that has used both lenses..

Thanks again DJ..

Terrence

For small birds, a 500mm is a big help. A 600mm is a really big help. 400mm is the bottom end of the birding focal lengths IMHO. The really important factor is the quality of the glass and the speed of the lens. For birds, especially in flight, combined with dawn and dusk shooting, the lens speed is crucial.

FWIW, you can see what I've been able to do with a 100-400 at http://terrencej.smugmug.com/gallery/2448675.

The extra 100mm reach I am longing for would allow me to keep a little more distance and lower the chance of spooking the birds and allow me to capture smaller birds with more detail.

The Bigma is a great lens. I don't own it, but I know plenty of people who do and have read great things here and elsewhere. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens, but I'd push you towards the Bigma for the reach. Unless you really want to shoot handheld, I have a gut feeling you will be happier with the extra reach and since you should/need to be tripod mounted, the Nikon VR (or Canon IS for that matter) makes no difference.

tsk1979

Do you have enough light
For keepers at 500mm you will need atleast 1/1000 shutter speed, in tricky situations, of course you can have keepers with 1/500 or 1/640 too, but I have seen that many times 1/FL does not work in action photography.
So better than reach, go for a VR as it will give you 2 stop advantage!

dusty-dog

Denise, have you considered the Tamron 200-500mm? I have never held a Sigma "bigma", but I've heard that the Tamron is much lighter. It's the lens I use for bird shots (and other far way things). I'm just learning to shoot with it, but I love it for the money I paid for it ($500 used). Sometimes, I want to add a 1.4 TC to it, just for that extra reach, but 1) I've been told it degrades the image too dramatically, given that the lens is kind of slow, and 2) I don't have the money to buy it right now, anyway.

I sometimes hand-hold the Tamron 200-500mm but honestly, at the longer reach, I usually get garbage shots. I find that if I cannot set up my tripod, I'll lie on the ground with a bean bag, I'll use trees for support, I'll even use my knees (not successful). One shot I did take hand-held, though, at 500mm can be found here.

I'm not sure how helpful this all is, but I figured I'd just give you an alternative for a smaller, hand-holdable, relatively cheaper long lens. Good luck in whatever you select.

Di