300mm's Nikon vs Sigma

Mike V

Mike V

Messages
483
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

I currently have the Nikkor 70-300mm lens f4. Its fine but I cant help feeling my shots would improve if I had better glass. I cant afford anything too much though. Would a Sigma 70-300 f4 be any better?

Im thinking no because it also has a macro mode which means there is a compromise in the glass, its been designed for two things.

Yet on the other hand maybe it is better because its Sigma which use better glass than the Nikkor lenses.

Can anyone help me out?

Regards Mike
 
I agree with Flash, a 300mm f/4 would be your 'cheapest' option in terms of good quality glass.
 
which lens is you actually have at the moment? Is it this one?

nikon_70-300mm_g_lens.JPG
 
Mike V said:
So you guys think I am fine as I am?
Click to expand...

Your fine not burning your dough on very subtle or non existant upgrades IMO.

If you want better glass then a 300mm f/4 prime like this is the next significant leap, if this kinda price is out of the question then hold onto them pennies until it isn't, it will save you money in the long term :thumbs:
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Your fine not burning your dough on very subtle or non existant upgrades IMO.

If you want better glass then a 300mm f/4 prime like this is the next significant leap, if this kinda price is out of the question then hold onto them pennies until it isn't, it will save you money in the long term :thumbs:
Click to expand...

:agree:

The Nikkor 300mm f4 prime is one superb lens, sharp wide open, will take the TC14EII with ease, and focuses as close as 5 feet, nice size and balance on the camera.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
Your fine not burning your dough on very subtle or non existant upgrades IMO.

If you want better glass then a 300mm f/4 prime like this is the next significant leap, if this kinda price is out of the question then hold onto them pennies until it isn't, it will save you money in the long term :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree in principle, the difference in price between a 70-300, non-VR and a 300mm f/4 prime is a fair old chunk of money.

My choice would be (and in fact, was) the 70-300 VR . It's a pretty good intermediate step, the optics and general build quality are far better than the non-vr version and it won't break the bank.
 
Flash, that is the lens I have. I usually shoot motorsport and I do my best with my equipment. I want to see if my shots will improve with a better lens. I would love the chance to prove to myself that I can shoot better pics with better equipment. Like the 300 2.8 etc faster focusing, cleaner punchier images.
 
Mike V said:
Flash, that is the lens I have. I usually shoot motorsport and I do my best with my equipment. I want to see if my shots will improve with a better lens. I would love the chance to prove to myself that I can shoot better pics with better equipment. Like the 300 2.8 etc faster focusing, cleaner punchier images.
Click to expand...

Which one do you have, the non-vr one?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Whilst I agree in principle, the difference in price between a 70-300, non-VR and a 300mm f/4 prime is a fair old chunk of money.

My choice would be (and in fact, was) the 70-300 VR . It's a pretty good intermediate step, the optics and general build quality are far better than the non-vr version and it won't break the bank.
Click to expand...

Apologies chaps, I actually didn't know there was a difference, I assumed there was only one 70-300 :bonk:
 
Yeah if money is the issue get the VR version its a lot better
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top