Anyone try the D800 with a 3rd party long telephoto, such as the Sigma 50-500?

Gator Bob in Gainesville FL
D700 & SB800 * D800 on order
Nikkors: *14-24 * 28-300 * PC-E 85mm *50mm 1.8
Tamron 90mm Macro

How about the Sigma 150-500 and the Nikkor 80-400 VR?

Chuck

D3s, D300, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VRI and VRIIx2, 80-400 VR, Sigma 150-500.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I plan to - if my D800 ever shows up!!! I have the Sigma 50-500 OS. I don't see why there would be an issue.

Best regards,

Victor Chelf (vchelf)
Houston, TX

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Visit my SmugMug gallery.

Tripod shots that show the resolving power and IQ of the popular Sigma 50-500 with the D800 would be much appreciated. Nikon and some critics like Ken (The Mouth) Rockwell have suggested that D800 users stay away from anything other than premium quality (mostly Nikon) lenses. I hope that is an overstated concern.

Gator Bob in Gainesville FL
D700 & SB800 * D800 on order
Nikkors: *14-24 * 28-300 * PC-E 85mm *50mm 1.8
Tamron 90mm Macro

Gator Bob in Gainesville FL
D700 & SB800 * D800 on order
Nikkors: *14-24 * 28-300 * PC-E 85mm *50mm 1.8
Tamron 90mm Macro

I for one am very interested in this thread as although I have not ordered a D800, I may have my mind changed if the results with a Sigma 50-500 OS (which I have) fitted on a D800 are positive.

I have used the lens with both my D700 and D7000 with remarkable results. Like many I await results of cropped wildlife images to assess ISO noise quality especially with the D800 in DX mode. The ISO noise, or rather lack of it, is excellent with the D700 (in FX mode), but as we all know, with APS-C sensor cameras like my D7000 this is not so good due to the higher pixel density. I would say however, that I have used the D700 in DX mode and I did find the results marginally better than from my D7000, it's just the small file size that is the hiccup.

If the D800 can deliver acceptable results in DX mode for wildlife and linked with long lenses such as the Sigma I may be drawn to it. Otherwise I'll await the D300s replacement. I look forward to seeing D800 images linked to long lenses in both FX and DX modes

Richard.

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I would suspect it would work very well. This is of course based on whether the processor in the lens is compatible with the AF system of the camera but this question comes up with every body introduction. Sigma soon after introduction of new bodies makes the chip upgrade available.
All the reports I have seen report that all lenses, when viewing at normal viewing distances and sizes, reveal better performance in image quality as resolution increases. Pixel peepers will likely find some fault with 100 blow ups however that are not seen at human scales.
There were several posts on other forums about how much better the 50 1.4/1.8G's or 85 1.4G or D perform compared to prior cameras. we have seen enough 24-70 and 70-200vr1 and vrII images posted on this forum to know new owners are thrilled with the "new" lens performance ranging from slow zooms to fast primes.
There are a number of people on DPR who are claiming the D800 is useless and can't focus wide angles but that forum is the one that also claimed the D90 needed mechanical adjustment of the mirror to focus right or lots of other nonsense. That is primarily due to the high number of non-Nikon owners posting on the Nikon forum, who obviously feel threatened by new excellent Nikon releases. By all accounts, the D800 is threatening a lot of people who do not own the brand or manufacture something else.
One by one, the rumors and pre-release naysayers have had their bits of wisdom proven wrong: need to toss out all non-top quality lenses, can't be shot hand held, can't be used for sports or action, will not work without extra sturdy tripod and no one breathing within 15 feet of the camera, having much higher noise than x name of their current camera), gigantic files will choke and kill any computer or software and lots of other serious warnings. People going out and shooting using normal attention to photographic fundamentals are coming back giddy with praise for their results.
Nikon released the technical tips as a way of heading off the expectation of point and shoot simplicity that a large number of hobbyists expect and caused so many PR and support problems with the D7000. They listed lenses that would make the camera shine with best results but many assumed that meant those top lenses were required for good results. Great results are being achieved with more run of the mill lenses, but those results should only be judged in comparison with what the same lens was generating on whatever old camera they were using. The top glass listed would also have been required for top performance of their old camera.
One of the changes in use seems to be the common comment that owners are taking less photos, and getting better results. I suspect that would be true with any camera if shots were thought about beforehand before triggering the shutter. Maybe it is the big files or maybe the fact that good composition and attention to detail gives such obviously better results than before, but whatever it is, fewer, better images is not a bad result.
Other than some people desiring fast frame rates, few cameras, ever, have hit so many most desired features and performance attributes. It must be getting harder and harder to make up reasons why it is not as good as claimed.
So back to the question: If the AF is functional at all at first, the BigMa should do very well on the D800. If the AF does not work, Sigma will update the lens to be compatible.


Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I agree with most of what you say and I even have eaten humble pie with my posts regarding my D7000 second body 18 months ago. As I said technique is the vital part of mastering the advanced dSLR's and blame is often wrongly apportioned due to assumptions about new cameras and lens pairings which prove incorrect. That said, I still stand by my take that e.g. the 80-400mm Nikon was a terrific lens to me, but failed to impress on the D7000. The Sigma being a more technologically modern lens did the opposite which I expected.

<<There were several posts on other forums about how much better the 50 1.4/1.8G's or 85 1.4G or D perform compared to prior cameras. we have seen enough 24-70 and 70-200vr1 and vrII images posted on this forum to know new owners are thrilled with the "new" lens performance ranging from slow zooms to fast primes>>

I don't doubt that, but I have purposely held off swopping my 70-200mm VRI for the VRII because of what Thom Hogan said in his VRII review. That being that the VRII in his view would not give better results on the APS-C body and any improvement would be marginal compared to the VRI. However, here this discussion post relates to the D800 so perhaps my comments re: 70-200mm VRI on APS-C are somewhat irrelevant.

I have absolutely no doubt that the D800/E is a superb camera which is currently blowing away the opposition. However, on the basis that I cannot see what advantages the D800/E brings to the table over my D700 at this early stage as my requirement is never to print above 20x16 inch prints I will need to see far more examples of D800 images in wildlife photography. For the D700 in FX mode for landscapes it is more than satisfactory, but I await D800 examples of it's credibilty in DX mode cropped images related to ISO noise. By that I don't mean massive crops as no camera will ever provide for that in my opinion and long lens users are deluding themselves if they think otherwise. One just has to learn to get closer and hope for good light to enable faster shutter speeds without very high ISO settings.

So far what I have seen regarding the D800 have been very positive overall and if I didn't have a D700 I would have without doubt ordered one. The one thing I have learned since I joined Nikonians is that my prior dSLR knowledge was frail at best, technologically poor at worst. I now have learned that each new dSLR should be treated as a brand new learning curve, that will save any disappointment in the early days of ownership.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I would expect that you can achieve great quality with non-Nikon lenses, just as you can achieve less than satisfactory quality with some Nikon glass.

That said, I have given up on buying non-Nikon glass for compatibility reasons. I've been burned too many times when upgrading bodies and finding my non-Nikon glass has become an expensive paperweight.

I know that Sigma and others offer upgrades in some cases. But it really isn't worth the hassle.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>I would expect that you can achieve great quality with
>non-Nikon lenses, just as you can achieve less than
>satisfactory quality with some Nikon glass.
>
>That said, I have given up on buying non-Nikon glass for
>compatibility reasons. I've been burned too many times when
>upgrading bodies and finding my non-Nikon glass has become an
>expensive paperweight.
>
>I know that Sigma and others offer upgrades in some cases. But
>it really isn't worth the hassle.
>
>
I agree with you to a point. In this case Nikon does not make a lens comparable to the 50-500 or 150-500 Sigma glass. My 80-400 VR is slower focusing and the image quality just isn't as good. My 150-500 is as sharp or sharper at 500 as the 80-400 is at 400. In a case such as this I will bite the bullet and purchase non-Nikon glass. It is my only non-Nikon lens btw.

When/if Nikon introduces something comparable (at least an upgraded 80-400) I will jump on it and very probably sell the Sigma. Until then ......

Chuck

D3s, D300, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VRI and VRIIx2, 80-400 VR, Sigma 150-500.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I agree. And I'm being a little hard nosed. I can't tell you how many times I nearly clicked "buy" on a bigma in anticipation of an upcoming air show or other event. In the end, the reminder of having to have other Sigmas repaired (two lenses twice each) stopped me and drove me to rent the Nikon 200-400 f/4. In the end I saved my pennies over the years and bought the 200-400. I'm glad I did, but I realize the price differential makes them pretty apples and oranges.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

<<That said, I have given up on buying non-Nikon glass for compatibility reasons. I've been burned too many times when upgrading bodies and finding my non-Nikon glass has become an expensive paperweight.>>

Can you elaborate on the actual Sigma lenses you are referring too please? Although I have a modern 50-500mm OS my friend has the older Sigma 170-500 Mm F5-6.3 Lens Apo lens. The lens was bought in 2006 (launch date 2005)and he has used that lens on his D100/200/300s and D700 with absolutely no difference in IQ noted.

My take on 3rd Party lenses is of course they have been "tweeked" to fit the various cameras, but probably designed to be fitted on a Sigma. I could be wrong as it's likely more lenses are sold to non Sigma owners than Sigma owners. I feel that modern Sigma glass and lens design is just about an optical match for Nikon glass, the OS v VR system is equivilent or better and the focus system at least equal (my 50-500mm OS beat my old 80-400mm Nikon by mile and beats my Nikon 300mm F4 too). The biggest problem I feel Sigma have is that it's badged "Sigma" and even the vast cost reductions in equivilent Nikon lens won't make some folks even consider buying one

I think a lot of the earlier problems have been build quality and the paint issues which devalue the lenses. They seem to have sorted this out now.

These are just my opinions of course and as I have only one Sigma lens I may be way off in my conclusions.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

Sigma 105 Macro and 24-70 f/2.8. And the issue was communicant with the body. My guess is that they are forced to reverse engineer the electronics based on current gen bodies and then a new body comes out that does something (in protocol) the 3rd party didn't anticipate.

Since there is no published lens API, it's always a risk.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks, that's interesting. For example my 50-500mm OS could potentially have a problem on e.g. a D800/E and even greater potential for problems on a future D300s replacement. It may be worthwhile, when all the D800 forum posts settle down, asking the question of anyone who's got the 50-500 and a D800. In truth I think there will be few, as it's liable not to be a lens of choice for D800 users, although I've used mine on my D700 successfully. However, it may be now the DX mode gives a greater pixel dimension.

Richard

Visit my Nikonians gallery

I am just now testing my Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3 AF HSM (non OS)
and I am happy with what I see. Here's just one example:
I shot a Qantas 747 at 500mm hand-held (photo atttached - 33.33%).
A different day with similar conditions,with my 28-300mm, I shot a similar 747. Photo attached (53.33%) Far from scientific, but it gives me some satisfaction with the lens. Focus was fast and stable.
500mm photo was just saved as a smaller JPEG than the previous one.
Since I normally use a tripod with the 50-500 and this was hand-held,
I'm confident of nice photos from this lens...

Glenn - Nikonian in North Texas - USA


my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)