Nikon Zooms.

Which Lens?

  • Nikon 300mm F4

    Votes: 17 60.7%

  • Nikon 80-200 F4.5-5.6

    Votes: 1 3.6%

  • Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" F4.5-6.3

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • Am i missing one?

    Votes: 6 21.4%
  • Total voters
    28
stokes

stokes

Messages
3,113
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
So ive gone full frame and already noticed the loss of length with my 70-200. Im not a birder by any means but like the idea of having a bit of length to play with when taking photos of birds, planes etc.

As far as i can see it, my choices are as follows.

1. Nikon 300mm F4
2. Nikon 80-400 F4.5-5.6
3. Sigma 50-500 "Bigma" F4.5-6.3
4. Am i missing one?

Budget could go to around the £800-£1000 mark (when im ready to buy)

Im thinking that i could also chuck on a 1.4x or 2x Tele converter to any of the above lenses, but didn't get on with a 2x (found it soft)

Ideally i would love a Nikon 200-400 F4, but can keep dreaming!! :) This decision is a while off yet, but want to make a decision just in-case i see a bargain pop up :)

Whos been here? And what have you done? What are your thoughts and experiences with the lenses mentioned
 
Last edited:
I have a 70-300 VR, the results on my D700 are pretty astounding really and better than on my DX bodies and TBH I don't really feel the need for an upgrade. Of course, it doesn't take a TC.

That said, if I had £1k to spend on a telephoto it would be a AF-S 300mm plus 1.4x TC.
 
Take it you mean 80-400mm? Out of the bunch, optically the 300mm f/4 is probably the best option, but it's fixed focal length so has its limitations. Constant f/4 shouldn't worry a D3 in low light with your high ISO options on that body.

80-400mm is okay but it's a bit long in the tooth in the AF dept.

Maybe have a look at a Sigma 300mm f/2.8.... might be able to get a used one for a grand and that would take a TC to go longer.

This is exactly why I keep wishing Nikon would have a D2s - pro body with something like a D7000 sensor......
 
300 f/4 with 1.4 TC all the way!
 
specialman said:
Take it you mean 80-400mm? Out of the bunch, optically the 300mm f/4 is probably the best option, but it's fixed focal length so has its limitations. Constant f/4 shouldn't worry a D3 in low light with your high ISO options on that body.

80-400mm is okay but it's a bit long in the tooth in the AF dept.

Maybe have a look at a Sigma 300mm f/2.8.... might be able to get a used one for a grand and that would take a TC to go longer.

This is exactly why I keep wishing Nikon would have a D2s - pro body with something like a D7000 sensor......
Click to expand...

yes i meant the 80-400 :) having a blonde typing moment! :)

Will look up the Sigma 300mm. Im not planning on buying anything this side of Christmas but wanted to be in the know so that if one popped up i could grab it.... :) Have got to upgrade my 24-70 to a Nikon version first :)
 
Keep saving for the 200-400mm - it is the ultimate.
 
What about buying the 2x TC III and chuck that on the 70-200 vrII. Very little loss in quality, still reasonably fast and might be a good compromise if you don't need that much extra length or very often?
 
Dr_O said:
What about buying the 2x TC III and chuck that on the 70-200 vrII. Very little loss in quality, still reasonably fast and might be a good compromise if you don't need that much extra length or very often?
Click to expand...

The cheapest, most common sense-filled post so far - even f/5.6 with the TC fitted, a Nikon FF won't be fussed about going up a few ISO stops.....
 
specialman said:
The cheapest, most common sense-filled post so far - even f/5.6 with the TC fitted, a Nikon FF won't be fussed about going up a few ISO stops.....
Click to expand...

I have that very setup!!! and on wedesday i'll have my 300mm f2.8 VRII from park cameras
 
I like the idea of the tc, but I really like the idea of the 300mm... Right sold on those two choices! Lol...
 
For the best optical quality the 300 f4 AF-S, with the 1.4TC, and even with the 1.7TC it will give impressive results.
 
Nawty said:
I have a 70-300 VR, the results on my D700 are pretty astounding really and better than on my DX bodies and TBH I don't really feel the need for an upgrade. Of course, it doesn't take a TC.

.
Click to expand...

Nawty, the 70-300 VR doesn't take the Nikon TCs but I used mine with a Kenko Pro 300 TC and the results were great (until I sold the TC). Might be worth a look if you're feeling reach challenged :)
 
Don't rule out the 70-200 2.8 with a MK3 x2 Extender. Still very sharp and gives you a lot of options. Might have to save just a bit longer though.
 
Tom (Stokes)

Do you think 300 is long enough for birds? How close would you have to be to fill the frame? I have just got a 70-300VR and am 20 ft away to get a decent close up at 300 of a blackbird on the feeder. Only just starting so I have probably got something wrong?

Phil
 
Martyn... said:
For the best optical quality the 300 f4 AF-S, with the 1.4TC, and even with the 1.7TC it will give impressive results.
Click to expand...

thats what i would say but i only use the 1.7 if i have to and its very bright


1.4 is ace
 
bornagain said:
Only just starting so I have probably got something wrong?

Phil
Click to expand...

Nope, 300mm is 300mm and a Blackbird is Blackbird sized. You need to be incredibly close to little birds in order to fill the frame which requires a lot of skill and patience, this is why I don't shoot birds :lol:

That said, 300mm is the minimum most people would consider using for birding.
 
quite true look at the size compared to say a red kite you have to be close.
 
thats very true... its a toughie, and i think realistically im going to have to spend alot of money if i want something great...

had a play with a randoms 300 f4 and a 1.7 tc today, seemed fine..... but wont give me super length... hmmmm
 
Dr_O said:
What about buying the 2x TC III and chuck that on the 70-200 vrII. Very little loss in quality, still reasonably fast and might be a good compromise if you don't need that much extra length or very often?
Click to expand...

I'd ...4th?... that advice. Most cost-effective solution for occasional use, as well as the lightest and smallest!

Or you could buy my 28-300 (hey, I got to try...), I hardly go longer than 50mm at the moment on the D700 ...then again I don't shoot birdies apart from ducks, although if I see the goldfish-murderer again I might be tempted to get something with a larger bore...:nuts:

Anyway, if I did photograph birdies, I'd use a DX camera to do it!

p.s.
I assume you've also seen this thread where Straycat posted this excellent real-world review of teleconvertors on various nikon lenses in the wild...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top