More reach

minnnt

minnnt

Messages
18,233
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
After stupidly selling up to go for a m43 setup, I'm now back with Nikon. Looking to get a little more into wildlife and motorsport this year so looking for a decent telephoto lens. I'd like a fast focusing lens with good reach. Previously had the Tamron 70-300vc which was good, but fancy something longer. How does the Sigma 120-400 stack up? Wild card would be a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 with a TC but I'm not sure if that would kill off any focusing speed or not? Would double up as two lenses though I guess.

Budget of around £600-700 and it's to go on a D7100.

Thankyou please.
 
I have just bought the Nikon 300mm f4 and I have bought a 1.4TC to go with it which hopefully will be delivered tomorrow. The lens is very fast focussing on my D7100 and my initial impressions are positive. I have had the 70-300 in Tamron VC and Nikon VR and in my eyes the focussing is a lot faster, although it was a while when I had the zooms. IQ is also better IMO.

I looked around at the different lenses and reviews and I believe the 300mm prime is the best of the bunch for the money, weight etc............. Although you do loose the flexability of a zoom, but I think the 300mm prime focuses down to 1.5mtrs which is usefull. It also takes a TC well from my research.

You may want to have a look at the guys Flick'r stream who I bought the lens off to show some of it's capabilities with the D7100. (Some of the first pics, the helicopters are with his f2.8 lens which he bought after selling the f4 to me).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/surfr/

Edit: We also have the 1.3 crop with this camera, from my little testing it doesn't seem too bad.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I thought this lens would come up. Although f2.8 would be good, I don't think it would be needed for my needs. I would prefer OS too but at over 2k it's out of my price range.

Although the prime is amazing, it's a bit too limiting for me I think, Simon.
 
Other rated lenses are the Sigma 100-300 f4 and a lens I have owned Tokina ATX 100-300mm f4. I used it as a manual focus lens on my Fuji XT1 and I found the IQ excellent, you can get them on the bay for around £300.00. I also used a TC with it and there was no noticeable drop in IQ.

You can look at the Nikon 80-400, Sigma 50-500 & 150-500mm and the newer equivelant 600mm lenses from Tamron & Sigma, whether they will be fast enough for you, only you can answer.

Also, although supposed to be slowish but good IQ the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 seems like good value @ £499.00 for new from SRS or the newer VC version from HK. Panamoz dont have stock at moment, DR do, but it's £100.00 more.

SRS > http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TAMRON-SP...=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item2c895cb846
 
Last edited:
The sigma 120-400 is an incredible lens, but not the fastest focusing. I actually sold mine to buy a sigma 70-200 and 1.4 TC, so I can say with some certainty that on my d700 body, the TC combo is on par with the 120-400 when it comes to focus speed, but you get a little more light at the full length of the TC combo than you do at the same length on the 120-400.
 
Simon, I haven't seen the Tamron vc at 599 anywhere. The older non vc lens is meant to be a dog for focussing. You mentioned the 1.3x crop of the d7100, do you find it of any use? It justt seems like a bit of a gimmick to me and something you might aswell do in PP. I think I'd find the framing hard as I'd more than likely end up with a wheel or a wing outside the frame line. Interested to know your thoughts.

Tom, good to hear you had both lenses I'm considering the TC would more than likely be the 1.4 also. Is the focusing poor on the 120-400 or just slower than the 70-200? Could I lock onto a moving car ok or a bird in flight if I had to?

Thanks.

Edit: re-read your reply Simon and see you mean DR is £100 more than Panamoz. I get ya. Panamoz seem to have good prices but hardly any stock which is a bit pointless imo.
 
Last edited:
Not poor by any means, just not as snappy as the 70-200. It's faster than the nikon 300mm prime I had previously.

My copy was pin sharp at 400mm wide open, and it's one of those lenses I wish I never sold.
I've never really shot birds in flight so couldn't say how well it would cope, but I did shoot some aircraft with it and it coped well.
 
Panamoz don't sell the tamron 70-200 or 24-70 f2.8 VC anymore. It has been listed on their website as out of stock for months. I asked them of they are getting any more a few months ago and they said they weren't selling them anymore due to quality control issues with these lens
 
Thanks. I thought I'd heard a rumour somewhere like that Mike.

Tom, thanks. Was aircraft your main subject? Would love to see a few sample shots if you don't mind sharing them? I want a 70-200 at some point but I'm just wondering if it would be long enough (1.4 tc would make it 280mm) for what I need? Motorsport perhaps, but I would imagine it would be a little short for wildlife. Would be good for forest rallies though so maybe I should stick with that option. Other option would be to wait a month and get the Nikon vr1 version but not sure if it's worth the extra cash over the Siggy version?
 
Last edited:
David, you could get a good used Nikon VR1 within budget ;)

I've used mine for many a rally and it works brilliantly for that sort of thing. As you say, maybe a little short for wildlife but it depends where your priorities lie. I've never been into wildlife particularly so its not been cause for concern but the wide aperture certainly helps for motorsport particularly on dull days or when light was dropping (was a dream at Le Mans).
 
Ill need to delve Into my Lightroom catalogue and see what I took with it, as I was switching lenses a lot around that period with the 300mm prime and 70-200 all in the space of a month.

Aircraft would have been mostly classic jets at Kemble air show or the usual suspects at RIAT.
 
Already on it ;-)

Thought I'd done aircraft with it, but can only find photos from a wildlife park and a few other random ones.


These are very quickly processed in LR, as my catalogue appears to have lost all the processing data for this far back, so I just quickly went through them. Full size with exif is on flickr.


DSC_4633 by TCR4x4, on Flickr


DSC_4631 by TCR4x4, on Flickr


DSC_4575 by TCR4x4, on Flickr



This is one is a 100% crop just to show the sharpness. 400mm f/5.6 1/400 sec


DSC_3393 by TCR4x4, on Flickr
 
Thanks for the offer Ian. The 150-500 was originally what I wanted but I read that the 120-400 was a bit quicker to focus and offered slightly better iq. Again, no experience so can't back it up personally and I guess you shouldn't believe everything that you read. I think you're a bit far away though.

Tom, awesome pics. On my phone atm but will take a better look later on the computer. Seems like a super lens. Wonder where's best to get one from? Would obviously want to be able to send it back if it's a poor copy. Would prefer second hand but will consider going new aswell.
 
Yep, saw that Dave, I'd be really happy with that price! Although it doesn't seem to have a tripod collar so would need to source one of those.

Are Wex better to deal with than MPB or are they much the same?
 
The olympus 75-300? Fits in your coat pocket and very sharp....equals 150-600......ah! Oh yeah you sold up.....lol
Exit stage left......
 
minnnt said:
Yep, saw that Dave, I'd be really happy with that price! Although it doesn't seem to have a tripod collar so would need to source one of those.

Are Wex better to deal with than MPB or are they much the same?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it does have the collar, even says light marks to it in the description blurb.
 
Photopaque said:
The olympus 75-300? Fits in your coat pocket and very sharp....equals 150-600......ah! Oh yeah you sold up.....lol
Exit stage left......
Click to expand...
I spent an hour trying to photograph my daughters cats with my little m43 camera yesterday. While it may take nice photos I would not choose to even take it out after anything but slow moving wildlife.

It may be dinky but it will not live with a DSLR for focussing on mid to fast moving objects (in my hands anyway)
 
Reason was that when cropped down the IQ of the 70-300 was comparable (assuming you don't want to print big) and given the 150-500 was absolutely massive I could never be bothered to take it anywhere. I will say though that the Sigma has amazing VR (or whatever they call it).

Everyone's milage seems to vary with this lens, I'm not convinced it is down to sample variation either as they all look pretty similar, its just peoples expectations.
 
I have no idea - never used either :thinking:

This is where you get to spend a few days on YouTube and Google ;)

I would also look on Flickr groups to see what other people are getting out of them.

Edit - not seen many people mention the 120-400 but seen a few people mention using the 500
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
Yep, saw that Dave, I'd be really happy with that price! Although it doesn't seem to have a tripod collar so would need to source one of those.

Are Wex better to deal with than MPB or are they much the same?
Click to expand...

The lens seems to have the collar fitted. If you look at the distance window and lens there is a white line in-between window and lens main body. The white lines are used to line the lens up when on tripod or monopod. Looking at Toms pictures it looks a very capable lens.

Edit: I have bought a few things of Wex in the past, I had an issue with a LX7 I bought of them and they were slow to refund money. All my Fuji gear was mainly purchased from them and the service was excellent for new equipment.
 
Last edited:
TCR4x4 said:
Not poor by any means, just not as snappy as the 70-200. It's faster than the nikon 300mm prime I had previously.

My copy was pin sharp at 400mm wide open, and it's one of those lenses I wish I never sold.
I've never really shot birds in flight so couldn't say how well it would cope, but I did shoot some aircraft with it and it coped well.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 300mm prime was it the old Mk1 or Mk2 with AFS? Just asking, as I find mine very fast, in tenths of seconds focussing. It's just instant.
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
Simon, I haven't seen the Tamron vc at 599 anywhere. The older non vc lens is meant to be a dog for focussing. You mentioned the 1.3x crop of the d7100, do you find it of any use? It justt seems like a bit of a gimmick to me and something you might aswell do in PP. I think I'd find the framing hard as I'd more than likely end up with a wheel or a wing outside the frame line. Interested to know your thoughts.

Tom, good to hear you had both lenses I'm considering the TC would more than likely be the 1.4 also. Is the focusing poor on the 120-400 or just slower than the 70-200? Could I lock onto a moving car ok or a bird in flight if I had to?

Thanks.

Edit: re-read your reply Simon and see you mean DR is £100 more than Panamoz. I get ya. Panamoz seem to have good prices but hardly any stock which is a bit pointless imo.
Click to expand...

Nothing scientific and no pixel peeping, I have tried out the 1.3 crop and too me it seems to work ok. Yes you are dropping the MP to 16mp I think, but the tests I have done with static objects shows it maybe usefull. Have a go at a static object you will see the 1.3 frameline and effect of crop on playback.
 
I would think one advantage of applying the crop in camera is that less data has to be buffered and written to the card. This should in theory give you more shots before the buffer fills. So you may see an increase in shots when firing off multiple frames in a row - sometimes very useful in wildlife photography.

The negative is that following erratic wildlife is hard enough without the extra hassle of a reduced view of it. Also an issue if it moves close as you need to open up the view quickly or end up with part of the shot outside the frame.

Dave.
 
Last edited:
I used to have the D7100 and used the 300mm f4 AF-S lens. It was a great combination and gave good IQ with or without the 1.4 TC. I noticed a lot of difference between the 300mm f4 and the nikon 70-300 vr, AF was much faster.

The 1.3 in body crop I feel is bit of a gimmick, I never used it as in post cropping was practically the same. The only benefit is smaller file size so probably faster to clear the buffet. I did a comparison of cropping and using a TC on the d7100 with 300mm f4 on a blog post on my website below.

http://www.robcainphotography.com/blog/2013/9/d7100
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top