sigma 150-500 new OR Nikon 300 F4 plus TC used- UPDATE

Chrisbie

Chrisbie

Messages
2,315
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok I have a quandary here.
My main stuff is motorsport and I currently use Nikon 70-300 with VR.
shutter speeds used generally are around 1/100th and I have found the VR does help me .
I could do with a bit more reach as I find I am using the 70-300 at 300 all the time.
My options are Sigma 150-500 new which is about £700 and has Sigmas version of VR which is OS.
However after researching this I am totally confused. A lot of reccomendations are for Nikon 300 F4 with 1.4 teleconverter.
I could afford a previous model Nikon 300 F4 at about £450 plus a TC at around £200.
However is the old lens worth the risk of buying used.
Will I have problems with no stabilisation at the low shutter speeds.

The Sigma seems a safe bet but what are the chances of me getting a bad one ?
 
Last edited:
I'd take a Nikon 300mm f/4 + TC every time.

I'm seeing lots of very unsharp 150-500 images posted, and while the posters seem pleased with them, the image quality would be WAY better with the above.

As to motorsport, I imagine a zoom will be more flexible - have you thought about a Sigma 100-300 f/4?

The older Sigma 50-500 seems to be a little better than the 150-500 anecdotally.
 
I'd love the 300 f4 af-s but at around £780 used its not cheep and I've seen more go through the classifieds in the last month than the last year.

I currently use the sigma 100-300 f4 plus a 1.4 tc which give the option of f4 without the tc in poor light. The only thing you loose with the prime is fexability which for the general public you can't always get the position you want.
 
following advice from a thread I started on a similar subject,I tried out a 300 f/4 with 1.4tc yesterday and it now sits in my bag. I doubt it very much if you were to regret it.
 
thanks guys
looks like the Nikon combo is favorite, however I just cannot afford it and I am concerned about the lack of image stabilization or vibration reduction.
Perhaps the sensible thing to do is to rent one and see how I get on with it.
 
Last edited:
I have also been looking in to this one as I would like a 300 f4 and 1.4tc for wildlife.

From what I can understand form the likes of KR and Thom Hogan reviews the older 300 f4 is just as good optically as the af-s version however it is a bit slower on the af and has a minimum focus distance of about 10ft wheras the af-s is about 5ft.

The focus distance may not be a problem for you (it is for me as my hide is usually about 7 - 8 ft from the birdies) however I have been put of by the reports of slower focusing.

I am considering the sigma 100-300f4 as a cheaper alternative :shrug:
 
Tractor Boy said:
From what I can understand form the likes of KR and Thom Hogan reviews the older 300 f4 is just as good optically as the af-s version however it is a bit slower on the af and has a minimum focus distance of about 10ft wheras the af-s is about 5ft.
Click to expand...

Ken Rockwell will never have used the lens, and Thom Hogan is an unreliable source for info regarding the 300mm f/4 AF-S as he claims a 70-200 VR with 1.4x TC is just as good as the 300mm f/4 (which is horse plops), so on that basic any comment he makes on the 300mm f/4 AF-S needs to be taken with a dose of salt given the previously mentioned howler.

Having shot both lenses side by side, the lenses are closely matched. However, when you use a TC, the AF-S is sharper and more contrasty - its quite noticeable.
 
puddleduck said:
Ken Rockwell will never have used the lens, and Thom Hogan is an unreliable source for info regarding the 300mm f/4 AF-S as he claims a 70-200 VR with 1.4x TC is just as good as the 300mm f/4 (which is horse plops), so on that basic any comment he makes on the 300mm f/4 AF-S needs to be taken with a dose of salt given the previously mentioned howler.

Having shot both lenses side by side, the lenses are closely matched. However, when you use a TC, the AF-S is sharper and more contrasty - its quite noticeable.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Andy - I usually take the reviews with a large dose of salt so good to hear from someone who has used both. For me it is more a problem with the close focus distance as I mostly shoot birds and am often only a few feet away.
 
brilliant stuff guys
a bit miffed I cant afford the best solution but your comments cheered me up no end.
I have always been a bit concerned over the credibility of Mr Rockwell and Mr Hogan, (my opinion only) you have put things into perspective for me.
Love the reference to horses...
thanks for your comments puddleduck, they are credible as you have used both lenese side by side
 
sorry to resurrect this old thread
BUT
I bought the sigma 150-500 OS
used it for about 3 months and found it unpredictable.
Sometimes shots were brilliant but I missed so many.
It was not technique that was lacking as I really persisted
I experienced some autofocus problems especially when trying to track objects moving away
compared to my Nikon 70-300 VR results were poor
In short, Very Disappointed
I have now got rid of it and may end up going for a used old nikon 300mm F4 with 1.4 TC or may have to just rent one when required as funds are now a bit tight.
The shame of this is Sigma may produce some superb lenses, I just would not take the risk.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear that Chris, I would love the Nikon plus a 1.7 tc but you do loose the flexibilty of a zoom.
 
sorry to resurrect this thread again
BUT
today I got a brand new Nikon AFS 300mm F4
just tried it out and it is fantastic, so well built and the pictures are great.
Doesnt it focus instantly.
Dont know how I will get on without VR BUT I will persist.
Certainly shown me the difference in build quality against the Sigma Lens
 
:clap: really nice combination, at least being Nikon it will be no good to Matt. Look forward to your next meeting with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top