Canon v Nikon Lenses
 

I am about to invest in a 500mm lens for bird photography. I have a Nikon D80 + Nikon 300mm f4. Why is the difference in price between the Nikon 500 f4 non VR and the Canon 500 f4 IS so great (£750 in warehouseexpress). I could buy a new Canon 500 f4 + Canon 40D for the price of a Nikon 500 and I'd get IS. I am actually contemplating this even though all my other equipment in Nikon and putting up with all the hassle that will entail. Is the difference down to lens build quality and IQ quality or are Nikon just overcharging us. I had not planned to buy a new Nikon lens but again secondhand Canon lenses look more common on ebay.

Any thought

Michael

I can't comment on the Nikon lens but both the build quality and the results from the Canon 500 f4 L IS are superb from what I have seen and read. I just wish I could justify and afford one.

Is the Sigma 500 f4.5 far behind both the Nikon and Canon or would a beginner like me not notice the difference. I have noticed a hell of a difference between the Tamron 200-500 and the Nikon 300 f4 that I replaced it with

I'd go along with this - for any serious birder the Canon 500 f4 is the business IMO. Like you Mike I am trying to justify one.

The Canon lens and several of its stable-mates have not had their specification changed for a number of years so all of the development costs must be well covered by now allowing them to reduce the price. Nikon are just bringing in a new IS version of their lens so it'll be interesting to see where they fix the price level

A few opinions for you about the Sigma
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=38&page=2

Hope that helps.

I see that I've commented on the lens in that link... I used a Sigma 500 f4.5 on my Canon for ~3 years and loved it. It is an excellent lens, sharp wide open, fast focusing, great IQ - for the money it's unbeatable. However I recently upgraded to a Canon 500 f4 IS and am glad that I did. The Canon seems to edge out the Sigma in all respects - it's a bit faster, a bit sharper and there is just something special about the images out of the big Canon primes. I have no experience of the Nikon so cannot comment on that but do know that I am already finding the IS to be very useful. The percentage fo shots that are pin sharp out of the 500 f4 is amazing. If you have the cash for a Canon/Nikon prime it's probably not worth going for the Sigma, you'll end up upgrading in time.

I cannot imagine that any lens could have better build quality and image quality than the Canon 500/4. It's a safe bet that Nikon are just overcharging. Of course, Nikon's costs will be higher, as Nikon only sell a handful of super-tele lenses (look at the press pit for any major sporting event and count the white lenses) where Canon sell heaps and gain economy of scale. So maybe it's not just greed. Still, it's your hard-earned at stake here.

Sorry to all Nikophillic friends here on the forum, but you seems to have seen the light:). Now Michael are you asking a question or giving a wonderful solution?



Michael be very very beware of ebay on high end, expensive price items. I am personally right now in a legal battle and would never ever buy any thing that is very expensive and I cannot make a personal physical contact with the buyer i.e. one form my neighborhood only. I have bought several cars from ebay too but all with in my geographic area and could make the transaction in person. These lenses and high end camera bodies are the usual lures for the very many scams on ebay and once you get trapped, you will realize how dangerous ebay is and how unsecured you are with absolutely no support from ebay that is here to make money for themselves.


I could be wrong, but always thought Canon's 200mm F/1.8 has that title. Off course since being discontinued for a while one couldn't be sure of but rumor state that Canon is releasing a new substitute, 200mm F/2 hopefully late this year or early next, along with the magnificent new super duper tele prime, Canon's 800mm IS F/5.6

LINK

BTW going to your first line, I still think that the closest and definitely better lens in todays market is EF600mm F/4 IS.

Sigma also needs a shoulder padding for their giant 300-800mm F/5.6 zoom (Not as sharp as Canon of course but the provided range at the fixed F stop is commendable).

I thought I'd post a couple of shots - one image is taken with the Sigma 500 f4.5 and the other with the Canon 500 f4 (full and 100% crop for each image). Both shots were taken with a 400D and personally I'm very happy with both. I do think that the Canon has a few advantages over the Sigma, but the Sigma can delivery very good image quality.