Sigma 500 f4 versus Nikon 500 f4?

[ChrisM]

Thanks both, I will look into these. I know the brands but assumed these were the advanced shoulder straps with smart quick releases and such. But perhaps they also have the simple straps like e.g. the one I got with my Canon 400DOII when I was a Canon user. That strap was simple but very well padded and very well made.

 

[DRwyoming]

Thanks both, I will look into these. I know the brands but assumed these were the advanced shoulder straps with smart quick releases and such. But perhaps they also have the simple straps like e.g. the one I got with my Canon 400DOII when I was a Canon user. That strap was simple but very well padded and very well made.

Yeah, my Black Rapid Strap just has a small locking carabiner that can be attached to other things like a quick release system or if your lens has a decent size strap mount the carabiner could connect right there, it didn't come with any real quick release connection of its own.

 

[ChrisM]

After going back and forth between the Nikon 500E and the Sigma 500S, I finally opted for the Sigma 500S, albeit with some apprehension.
The Nikon was too expensive however, and was indeed (temporarily?) discontinued recently, probably to make way for the coming Z400 and Z600 lenses.

I am happy to report that the Sigma is not a second rate lens by any means. You expect something extra from such a lens regarding clarity, color, bokeh, auto focus etc.
I was mostly scared I would not like the overall rendering as much as I like my Nikon 500PF when circumstances and light are optimal. Nikon lenses just look great color wise and contrast wise.
I owned the older Sigma 500mm f4.5 for two years, and always found it lacking in color and contrast, although it was sharp and produced nice detail.
The newer Sigma 500mm f4S is the real stuff however and I don't regret passing on the Nikon on that front. Performance with the 1.4TC is also very good on first glance, lot's of clarity and good AF.

A few things still put it below the Nikon 500E though. There is the extra weight, around 300gr with hood attached.
But using a lens like this, is something you have to like anyway. After using the 500PF for two years, of course it felt big and heavy. But one week on, and my muscles start to like supporting the weight, and it feels so solid and secure on the D500. You work on the fitness of your upper body in the process and I for one like handling the D500/Sigma 500S, all shooting is done handheld. I picked up the 500PF recently, and it felt like a weightless little toy lens, although I know how appearances deceive with the 500PF!
Second is a surprise to find that the Sigma 500S suffers from focus breathing. Why did the big reviewers like Brad Hill not report on this? Comparing FOV with the 500PF, they are identical at infinity, but the 500PF pulls ahead at around 25m enough to notice the difference in FOV. I think the Sigma cannot be much more than 470mm there.
I did not expect this, I know that a lens like the Sony 200-600mm G is a champion focus breathing at "600" mm, but a 500mm f4 prime? If anyone can enlighten me, that would be more than welcome...

The Sigma delivers in spades on detail however, so there certainly is room for a bit of extra cropping.
The big question for me was: will I soon leave the Sigma in its casing, and always reach for the 500PF? Well no, the Sigma wins by a long stretch on image rendering regarding OOF smoothness, éven at identical apertures. The Sigma also wins big on 3D quality in rendering. Images are simply more natural looking, and I don't spend nearly as much time adjusting sharpening to avoid the images looking harsh and unnatural/unattractive as I do with the 500PF. I can simply throw a bucketload of sharpening at the Sigma images, and they still look pleasant. Not that I have to, because the Sigma is also ultra sharp. But I would rather say that the Sigma is "ultra detailed", and the Nikon 500PF is "ultra sharp".

Lastly, the 500PF has super high contrast at close distances but that contrast gets less the further you reach out. The Sigma has more even and consistent contrast, hence beats the 500PF at larger distances.

All in all, to me the Sigma is a totally different lens, and well worth investing the money and effort of using it.
The focus breathing though is unfortunate, Sigma should have gotten that out of the design and have a true 500mm prime across the shooting distance range, like Nikon and Canon. Is that, and the lighter weight worth the price difference with the Nikon 500E though?
:
Nikon 500E: €11.999,-
Sigma 500S: €6499,-
Location: Netherlands, western europe

 

[BLev65]

Thank you for your adv


Your comments are exactly what I've been thinking. From what I've read & heard, the 500 5.6 PF is a fine enough lens, but arguably not much better in IQ and AF than the 200-500 5.6 zoom, which is what I use currently (although it has big advantages in weight savings). What I really want is the 600 f4 E, but can't bring myself to part with $12,300 for it, even if I could find one. This is why I'm eyeing the 500 f4 and, at "only" $6000, the Sigma seems attractive (certainly more affordable than Nikon's equivalent). I would also be using a 1.4 TC with it to get me to 700mm, as I do currently with my 200-500. If my thought process is wrong headed, please be sure to let me know!

Your last comment "From what I've read & heard, the 500 5.6 PF is a fine enough lens, but arguably not much better in IQ and AF than the 200-500 5.6 zoom, which is what I use currently (although it has big advantages in weight savings)." .... is a false statement that has been trotted out by 200-500 owners to justify their use of the lens.
To be very clear, there are good reasons for using a 200-500, or wanting an f/2.8 or f/4 super telephoto lens, but this desire/need should in no way be used to diminish the optical quality of the 500mm f/5.6PF. I have owned three 200-500mm f/5.6 lenses, three 200-400mm f/4 lenses, one 500mm f/4G, and one 500mm f/5.6 PF.
I had all four optics at the same time and did extensive testing with them all. My review of their sharpness is as follows: 200-400 + TC14iii (@500mm) < 200-500 (@500mm) < 500mm f/4 @f/4 < 500mm f/4 @ f/5.6 = 500mm f/5.6PF.
In terms of versatility and use in the field from a tripod,... well I prefer either zoom because I like to be able to use a zoom to compose my work.
In the end, I sold the 500mm f/4G because its bulk and weight were more of a barrier to my photography than was the benefit of the 500mm PF lens. While I sold the 500mm f/4G, I continue to own and shoot the other three lenses.
As for which of the three lenses will be best for you, you need to first decide if you need the f/4 lens, if you want to use it with a converter, and if you are up for the additional bulk and weight that accompanies this type of optic. In the end, I decided to keep the 500PF and use it with a D500. This became a lighter and more flexible set-up than the 500mm f/4G + TC14 that I used to use with my (now retired) D4.

cheers,
bruce

 

[ninog]

[QUOTE = "DRwyoming, publicación: 83968, miembro: 256"]
No creo que el proceso de pensamiento sea correcto o incorrecto, solo un enfoque válido.

Sugeriría preguntarse qué es lo que realmente quiere lograr con una nueva lente. Si el problema es el tamaño del sujeto a partir de las distancias de trabajo típicas, entonces no hay nada que ganar con un TC de 500 mm f / 4 + frente al TC de 200-500 mm +. Seguro que obtendrá una parada de luz adicional y tendrá un mejor control de fondo con la lente más rápida, así como un mejor AF en las DSLR, pero si el tamaño del sujeto en el marco (lo que la gente llama alcance) es el problema principal, entonces realmente no cambiará cualquier cosa al pasar de una lente de 500 mm más TC a una lente diferente de 500 mm más TC.

FWIW, he estado fotografiando el objetivo de 600 mm f / 4 G durante varios años y estoy muy contento con él. Seguro que me encantaría la versión E-FL de esta lente, pero no podría separarme de tanto dinero y, por supuesto, en este momento la lente E-FL es muy difícil de encontrar en los mercados nuevos o usados. Pero hay muchos lentes de 600 mm f / 4 G disponibles en el mercado de segunda mano, incluidos algunos de los minoristas tradicionales con buenas políticas de devolución. Claro que es más pesado que el lente más nuevo, pero la óptica en el lente de 600 mm f / 4 G es de clase mundial y toma un TC 1.4x realmente bien y es bastante decente con un TC 1.7x (probablemente IQ similar al 200-500 mm más 1.4 xTC)

No he revisado todas las publicaciones en este hilo, así que quizás esto ya se haya discutido, pero si realmente desea una lente de 600 mm, la lente de 600 mm f / 4 G es una muy buena opción.
[/ CITA]

The same experience I had. Long time use Nikon 500 f4 afs VR G lens, even previous 500 AFS without VR, great lens, very sharp. A pleasure to use. Then I wanted to try the 600mm because 90% of the time, with the 500mm I had the TC 1.4 attached. The 600mm solved that, it is heavy, but it is a delight to use, and with the Z7 II it works very well, I do not even hesitate to use the TC when necessary. Greetings

 

[joe43]

I cannot comment on the Sigma 500mm f4 as I have never used it. I can comment on the two Nikon 500mm lenses as I own and use both. the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF and the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/4E FL ED VR Lens. Both have great image quality used wide open, and both have good to acceptable IQ when the Nikon 1.4x tc is added. The main advantage of the 500mm f5.6 pf is that you can use it hand held (w/o the tc) and not have to lug a tripod.I find it more difficult to use hand held with a tc added.

If you add a tc, then I would use either lens on a tripod with a gimbal head. And I would stick with an all Nikon lens and Nikon tc.

If you shoot a lot in low light, then the f4 is the lens you need even though it will cost you about $6700 more than the Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf.

If you will add a tc a lot, then you might need the f4 version depending on your willingness to accept more noise in images shot at higher ISOs.

As you can see there are trade offs involved and my decision will likely be different than yours.

If the 500mm f5.6 pf had been available when I bought my 500mm f4, I would not have bought it as F4 v f5.6 ffor me was not worth $6700.

For me a Nikon 200-500mm zoom if used at 500mm is so much longer and harder to hand hold than a Nikon 500mm f5.6 pf.

 

[Wrogu]

Hello,
Could you share how compared to Nikon glass sigma 500 sport performs with ftz adapter ?
Might be an interesting option for mirrorrless.

Cheers
Michał

 

[BLev65]

Hello,
Could you share how compared to Nikon glass sigma 500 sport performs with ftz adapter ?
Might be an interesting option for mirrorrless.

Cheers
Michał

While this might not answer your question, I do know that Brad Hill sold his 500mm Sport after buying and using the 500PF. If you do not know Brad Hill google his name and "500 wars." He did a thorough comparison of the 500mm Sport to the 500mm f/4 FLE and chose the Sigma lens because he found the price to performance ratio did not justify the expense of the Nikon 500mm f/4 FLE.
Upon buying his 500PF, he sold the Sport lens because, from his perspective, PF was as sharp as the Sport. However, it is worth noting that he also has a 180-400mm f/4, and does a lot of his shooting from a boat or zodiac... all of which is handheld.

I know Brad, have been on workshops with him, and continue to keep in touch. His work speaks for itself, and his testing methodology reflects someone who understands a controlled experiment.
Discosure... I own a 500PF and just turned down an offer to trade my lens + $300 for a Sigma 500 Sport + matching Sigma 1.4x... the benefits of quick handheld photography are more important to me than the benefits offered by an f/4 lens.

cheers,
bruce

 

[Wrogu]

Thanks fro response. What really interests me is how well (or bad) sigma performs with FTZ. I have 200-600 and the only direction I would like to move to is a heavy and fast prime lens. Although I love the idea of 500 prime the 500 PF would have to be as good as oridinary prime lens in terms of taking 1.4x TC. And it is known it does not, Nor 200-600 takes TC well enough imho (I have 1.4x one), at least not for me.

 

[ChrisM]

I have had the 500PF for some time and the Sigma 500/4 for a few months now, and use the D500.
If you tend to crop (for reach) or use a 1.4TC, then the Sigma gives better detail and better blending in with the surroundings.
the 500PF is very good if you don't use a TC and don't crop.
As soon as you start to crop (on the D500), detail get's less impressive and blending in with surroundings is not nearly as smooth and pleasing as with the Sigma.
I find the difference too big to ignore.

 

[BLev65]

I have had the 500PF for some time and the Sigma 500/4 for a few months now, and use the D500.
If you tend to crop (for reach) or use a 1.4TC, then the Sigma gives better detail and better blending in with the surroundings.
the 500PF is very good if you don't use a TC and don't crop.
As soon as you start to crop (on the D500), detail get's less impressive and blending in with surroundings is not nearly as smooth and pleasing as with the Sigma.
I find the difference too big to ignore.

I know you've stated these points before Chris, but this just does not match my observations. All of these images have been shot at relatively low light (before 8:00 am in the morning) and represent more than a 50% crop on a D500.
With the exception of the osprey, none of them would have been possible with a 500mm f/4 because the shots are not sets. The birds are taken in their habitat and are completely wild (meaning no feeders). As a result, it would be really hard to use a tripod to make any of these images.
There is very good feather detail despite the high ISO and heavy cropping... jpg compression on BCG may mask the details of the original images. While a 500 f/4 will have better bokeh "out of the box," one it limited by the mass of the lenses.
regards,
bruce

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[DavidT]

My 2 cents buy a Nikon 600F4 G used. Brad Hill has good articles about the Sigma 500f4 but I would question resale value. I would rather have the extra reach of the 600, keep your 200-500 for shorter. A 1.4 gives you more reach then the 500 + 1.4. At some point you might possibly move to a different mount over the F mount and if that day comes the Nikon will be worth more money making a future upgrade more affordable.

 

[ChrisM]

I know you've stated these points before Chris, but this just does not match my observations. All of these images have been shot at relatively low light (before 8:00 am in the morning) and represent more than a 50% crop on a D500.
I just can't with the exception of the osprey, none of them would have been possible with a 500PF because the shots are not sets. The birds are taken in their habitat and are completely wild (meaning no feeders). As a result, it would be really hard to use a tripod to make any of these images.
There is very good feather detail despite the high ISO and heavy cropping... jpg compression on BCG may mask the details of the original images. While a 500 f/4 will have better bokeh "out of the box," one it limited by the mass of the lenses.
regards,
bruce

View attachment 25855View attachment 25856View attachment 25857View attachment 25858

Nice images, and showing the 500PF off favourably! The D500+500PF rekindled my birding spirit after a disappointing adventure with the Canon 7DII+400DOII, and has given me many very nice images.

It's perfectly fine, and means that you are all set with the 500PF. I am not sure whether you have used both lenses side by side though...
I can only relate what I see myself, and for me, cropping the 500PF considerably (to around 3000px wide) or using a 1.4TC with it is not satisfying when using it on a D500.
And to me, the Sigma offers much nicer background separation and does not have the somewhat harsh rendering that the 500PF can exhibit.
The 500PF dóes have better color neutrality and colors are more accurate, but that is something of a known risk with third party glass. Contrast over the whole image is also better, but can work against the 500PF in very bright scenarios.

It is all about personal preference, but objectively I think it is safe to say that the Sigma takes a 1.4TC much better, has much nicer bokeh, and also renders more absolute detail.
The large front element captures a lot of light and detail, and it shows. It will be a completely subjective decision whether it is worth it, and largely depends on shooting style anyhow. BIF eg. does not really need the qualities of the Sigma, there is no background surroundings most of the time, and the extra detail will mostly be lost on fast flying subjects.

For me though, the Sigma is a better allround lens, also allowing good shooting in lesser light.

 

[Wrogu]

What about ftz performance ... If anyone used in on mirrorrless nikons?

 

[ChrisM]

What about ftz performance ... If anyone used in on mirrorrless nikons?

I have heard from someone on FM forums, that it works perfectly well with the FTZ adpter on the Z6II. None of the compatibility issues that the Canon version had on the R5.
I sold my Z7 as I liked the D500 much better, and have no current plans to switch. Only when a Z900 crop comes along.

 

[Darwin]

The sigma is a very good lens for the price new but you have to keep in mind a few things. First, if you want to use a converter, it will have to be a sigma, which won’t work well with your other Nikon lenses.
second, that‘s an older AF design, even for sigma, and I’d be a bit leary about how well it will mate with the FTZ and Z mount long term - I don’t know if anybody has reported about it but you might want to look into it.

but to me the biggest question is that the sigma is really on par with the 500 f:4 G for optical performance, AF and IS, and that lens can be bought used for less than $4k. A used E FL version which is superior to the sigma in every way and will mate well with the FTZ and the Nikon TCs is $7500. So I am not sure why you’d pick the sigma nowadays. I‘d buy a used G version from one of the reputable eBay dealers in Japan and save myself a boatload, or secure a used E FL in good shape and never look back.

This is sound logic.

 

[David Burns]

All good discussion. I own a Sigma 500mm f4 Sport and a Nikon 500mm f5.5 PF. I have owned a Nikon 500mm f4.

Briefly, my conclusions are as follows.

All of them are sharp and focus well but the 500PF is obviously much more portable and hand-holdable. The other two can be hand held but not for long! I did not like the Nikon 500mm f4 that I had when mated with a TC1.4 and consequently used it little in this configuration. After I sold it, I waited a couple of years and bought a Sigma, largely based upon Brad Hill's analysis. I recommend reading this.

I have found the Sigma to be significantly better behaved with its own TC 1.4 in all respects than the Nikkor f4 was and have to say that the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF does not match the Sigma when shot at 700mm with the TC 1.4. Of course, the Nikon is then a f8 lens. The Sigma by contrast, makes an excellent f5.6 700mm lens that is very sharp and focusses well. It is also extremely sharp and fast focussing at 500mm and is tuneable with the Sigma dock. You can buy these second-hand for very little money. Similarly, the Sigma TC1.4 is not expensive. Interestingly, you see very few second hand Sigma 500mm f4 lenses for sale when compared with the Nikon 500mm f4 but I suppose that more Nikons have been sold.

When I bought the 500mm PF, I considered selling the Sigma and am glad that I did not. I now use the Nikon PF as a travelling/hiking lens, sometimes with a monopod but very rarely with a tripod. I use the Sigma as a 'destination' lens, usually on a tripod but rarely walk more than a couple of miles with it or hand-hold it. If possible, I prefer the Sigma because of the f4 maximum aperture and much prefer it when using the TC 1.4. If I could only afford one of these lenses, the PF is obviously the more multi-role capable but they are both excellent. I do think that some people underestimate the significance of the f4 versus f5.6 maximum apertures and personally think that there are several important reasons to prefer the f4.

I have never used any of these lenses on a Nikon Z body and would think it possible that the Nikon PF might focus better at f8 on one of these than it does on a D850/D500.

All my own opinions of course and other opinions are available!

 

[AlfC]

All good discussion. I own a Sigma 500mm f4 Sport and a Nikon 500mm f5.5 PF. I have owned a Nikon 500mm f4.

Briefly, my conclusions are as follows.

All of them are sharp and focus well but the 500PF is obviously much more portable and hand-holdable. The other two can be hand held but not for long! I did not like the Nikon 500mm f4 that I had when mated with a TC1.4 and consequently used it little in this configuration. After I sold it, I waited a couple of years and bought a Sigma, largely based upon Brad Hill's analysis. I recommend reading this.

I have found the Sigma to be significantly better behaved with its own TC 1.4 in all respects than the Nikkor f4 was and have to say that the Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF does not match the Sigma when shot at 700mm with the TC 1.4. Of course, the Nikon is then a f8 lens. The Sigma by contrast, makes an excellent f5.6 700mm lens that is very sharp and focusses well. It is also extremely sharp and fast focussing at 500mm and is tuneable with the Sigma dock. You can buy these second-hand for very little money. Similarly, the Sigma TC1.4 is not expensive. Interestingly, you see very few second hand Sigma 500mm f4 lenses for sale when compared with the Nikon 500mm f4 but I suppose that more Nikons have been sold.

When I bought the 500mm PF, I considered selling the Sigma and am glad that I did not. I now use the Nikon PF as a travelling/hiking lens, sometimes with a monopod but very rarely with a tripod. I use the Sigma as a 'destination' lens, usually on a tripod but rarely walk more than a couple of miles with it or hand-hold it. If possible, I prefer the Sigma because of the f4 maximum aperture and much prefer it when using the TC 1.4. If I could only afford one of these lenses, the PF is obviously the more multi-role capable but they are both excellent. I do think that some people underestimate the significance of the f4 versus f5.6 maximum apertures and personally think that there are several important reasons to prefer the f4.

I have never used any of these lenses on a Nikon Z body and would think it possible that the Nikon PF might focus better at f8 on one of these than it does on a D850/D500.

All my own opinions of course and other opinions are available!

That's amazing. I would have written exactly that post with the exception that I have never used the Nikon F/4.0. Brad Hill's extensive testing led to the conclusion that there was nothing significant between the latest Nikon 500 F/4.0 E and the Sigma except that the Nikon was slightly lighter.