Sigma 50-500 vs. Nikon 80-400 VR

[WJPearce]

This is not made to be scientific.

It was a nice, clear night; a full moon and I had an interesting idea. The following are two halves, combined. Both were taken with an S2 @ 1/180, f11, ISO 200, WB auto, std-std-fine, 12mp jpeg, AF Single.

I took the Sigma shot and reduced it to 80% (500 x .8 = 400). The Nikon is 100% crop. So in theory the focal lengths should be close to the same. Everything else is straight from the camera.

On the left is the Sigma; on the right is the Nikon (VR off). It looks to me that the Sigma is warmer, and a bit sharper. The Nikon has more contrast.

Some say the sigma is soft beyond 300mm, especially on the S2. I feel that my sample holds up well. I will post another shot of Mr. Moon taken last night in RAW with the 50-500mm.

The Sigma Moon at 80% is slightly smaller than the Nikon at 100%, but not much. It is claimed that the Sigma only goes to 460mm. I feel this shows that it either goes a bit further than that, or the Nikon goes to about 380mm, or they meet in the middle, say Sigma @ 475mm and Nikon @ 390mm. Or maybe the distance to the subject negates the small variance in the focal length.... whatever.

Limitations: The images were taken about 7 min apart. In that time Mr. Moon moved quite a bit (so did Mrs. Earth). The tripod was moved due to the movement of the subject and the changing of the lenses. White Balance was on Auto, which could (and should) affect color temperature ever so slightly. Really all that shouldn't matter much.

Anyway, I found it interesting.

Bill Pearce

[Swampy]

Now, can you post the other halves together as well? So the Nikon half is on the left and the Sigma is on the right? Reason I ask this (there's always one joker in the crowd, eh?), is that the majority of the moon's visible detail is on the left side of the frame. The right side of the moon inherently doesn't contain much detail. It's just the way it is. If you want a better explaination, find a, uhm, rocket scientist. They'll tell you all about the light bending, the further corner of the moon and the direction of the sun light hitting the moon causing all of this.

Thanks Bill for doing this. Still waiting for MY 50-500mm in the mail, which shipped on the 1st supposedly and I should have it this week. Had to give my long time loaner back to it's owner. hehe

[WJPearce]

Hmm.... (thinks "hard bargin")

Okay, the Nikon is now on the LEFT and the Sigma is on the RIGHT. Maybe I'll even do a top and bottom.

Bill Pearce

[WJPearce]

Nikon on the TOP, Sigma on the BOTTOM.

BP

[bjnicholls]

I had the Sigma and the Nikkor for a while and did some testing. The Sigma performed very well optically, on par with the Nikkor. However, I found the Nikkor a much better package to live with. VR, a much more reasonable size and weight, and 77mm filters with normal threads convinced me to keep the 80-400 and sell the Sigma.

[Tom V]

Originally posted by WJPearce
..... White Balance was on Auto, which could (and should) affect color temperature ever so slightly. Really all that shouldn't matter much.....


I would venture to say the WB should be set on SUNNY. The moon is lit mainly by the Sun, with a little fill light from the Earth.

Very interesting test! Thanks!

How about a side by side comparison of small chunks (100 pixels x 100 pixels) (no downsampling) of the same crater detail showing:

Sigma @ 500mm
Nikkor @ 400mm
Sigma @ 400mm

No sharpening

One could compare sharpness using original pixels.

Do you think f11 is the sharpest apertures on those lenses?

I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the two lenses using max apertures, because I imagine that is how I would be shooting with either most of the time.

:monalisa: :beerchug:

[bjnicholls]

I think the 80-400 is sharper at f/8, it seems to be optimized more for the wider apertures (makes sense with the VR functionality).

[bjnicholls]

Some of my test shots, Sigma on right. The Sigma had considerably warmer color than the Nikkor. Shot on Provia in my film days.

[bjnicholls]

Full res detail (4000 ppi scan) from above.

[NZDoug]

Sigma not so good
Nikkor bag XLNT!

[Tom V]

Originally posted by NZDoug
Sigma not so good
Nikkor bag XLNT!

Looks to me that the Sigma is sharper.

What aperture was the statue test done at?

[Swampy]

Yeah, the Sigma is a tricky little guy. I think they look pretty darn close in sharpness. And after the day is done and you post process both, I bet you won't see a difference when not presented side by side which won't be done in real life. Even side by side, it'd be hard. Plus you've got a lens that's 50-500mm that you've been able to use all day without switching. Hurts the arms a bit, but hey, you can do it!

[WJPearce]

Tom,

I will see if I can post the 100% crops as you suggested. If I ever do the test again I will lock in a WB. I feel that these lenses are best between f8-f13. f11 was kinda in the middle. In hindsite I probably should have used f8 because that would probably be close to real world, althought this was real world.

All:

I have not had the nikon too long. The sigma I used quite a bit in bright sun, iso 200-400, at f 8-13. I find it not a forgiving lens, but you can get grood results. Most of my stuff is for web, and the sigma works well. My main intrest is aviation, so next chance I have I will use the nikon.

If you would like to see more form the sigma you can go to the below. The EXIF is available, they are all crops, and the image names are from the camera:

Dago Red (http://www.pbase.com/wjpearce/dago03)

Thunder Mustang (http://www.pbase.com/wjpearce/john_parkers_thunder_mustang)

Thanks,

Bill Pearce

[Swampy]

Most of my air show pics were done with the Sigma 50-500mm. I've got a few posts in the photos forum. Do a search for Edwards and Miramar and you'll find them. There's Aviation, bright sun and the Sigma lens. Can't beat that. :)

[bjnicholls]

The comparison shots were at f/8. The Sigma was a bit sharper at some focal lengths, but the Nikkor is optimized for wider apertures. The biggest difference I saw was the Sigma's warm color rendition. No need to add a warming filter to that lens.

If optical performance was the only factor, I'd still own the 50-500. The 80-400 is just a lot easier to live with and it's more versatile. I wonder when we'll see some images from Sigma's 80-400 OS lens?