Sub £1000 lens that will a/f on my D3100

*gold*

*gold*

Messages
796
Name
Cliff
Edit My Images
Yes
I am getting in knots on this one, I need the reach for bird shots and £1000 really is the top of my budget.
What are my best options please.
Many thanks
Cliff
 
300mm AF-S F/4 ? (You can always add a 1.4TC later too)

Sigma 50-500 and 150-500mm options, which are a little cheaper.

On the budget side of things there's also the 70-300mm VR.
 
all the above what james has said will af on the d3000, the 300mm f4 is a great lens and will produce the best images being a prime, with a 1.4x will lose a tiny bit of image quality but has nice fast af, but does not have vr(only downside and the fact its not as flexible as the other zooms)the sigma 150-500mm os is a lovely lens and bang for buck is a bargain(£800ish) has fast af good image quality and awsome (optical stabilisation) but is heavy,
then you get the 50-500mm(non os) but second hand(as they only do the os model now which is £1300) but the non os is sharper at 500mm wide open(better image quality) then the 150-500mm, af is fast but its heavy,can be had 2nd hand for about £400/500 but its finding one,
and then theres the nikon 70-300mm vr which has fast af, very good image quality, vr is good (about £300/400)
but if using it for birds 300mm is not long enough unless you can get really close so my advice is go for a 500mm if you can stretch the budget more get the 50-500mm os, but my main advice is go try the sigmas first and make sure you get a decent copy,
i traveld 20 miles to get my 50-500mm os just to make sure a got a good copy,
 
Last edited:
You might pick up a used Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 for about a grand. The Nikon 300mm f/4 is a good call.

80-400mm Nikon can be had for well under £1000 (about £700 in reality on the used market).

Sigma does a 120-400mm f/4-5.6 that is about £700 new that might be worth a look.

Not sure if all of these lenses will AF on a D3100 body due to the lack of in-body motor :)
 
My son uses the 28-300 Nikkor, not cheap but a superb lens,
 
Thank you for all the suggestions so far, VR would be a massive advantage so how would the NIKON 70-300vr be with a 1.4tc on ?
Does the NIKON 70-400 come with vr ?
Many thanks
Cliff
 
*gold* said:
Thank you for all the suggestions so far, VR would be a massive advantage so how would the NIKON 70-300vr be with a 1.4tc on ?
Does the NIKON 70-400 come with vr ?
Many thanks
Cliff
Click to expand...

1. Rubbish (well not quite) like most lenses with converters, and no auto focus. I have the good Kenro, and have used Sigma and Canon converters "when I have really had to".

as for 2. Look on Nikons website, or google it.
 
*gold* said:
Thank you for all the suggestions so far, VR would be a massive advantage so how would the NIKON 70-300vr be with a 1.4tc on ?
Does the NIKON 70-400 come with vr ?
Many thanks
Cliff
Click to expand...

Probably wouldn't even autofocus. You really need to be working with f/2.8 and f./4 lenses for teleconverter use.

The 80-400mm has VR and it's pretty good, especially at the used price of about £700-£800, although it's a lens that many of us moan about because it is a sound idea, just not quite as good as the Canon version. I've rented one quite a few times for event stuff when shooting across a river and it's okay optically. The AF isn't lightning but neither is it snail-like. The VR is good. It's a big old lens too, especially when at full extension...
 
Sigma 120-400 OS. Cracking lens. I used mine on my D3100 and D700, and atlhough the lens is massively bigger than the d3100 body, It was a really good wildlife combo.

Mine was pin sharp, and the OS really worked well. I was getting tack sharp pictures at 400mm at 1/40 sec.
 
casts_by_fly said:
I'm pretty sure the 80-400 is only AF, not AF-s, so no autofocus on the D3100.

Thanks
Rick
Click to expand...

Yep. Until Nikon come up with a genuine rival for Canon's 100-400 or even the 70-200 F4, it seems that Sigma are the obvious choice for this budget.
 
I've been along this 'birdng' route too, with a D90 ;).

I started out with the 70-300mm VR (FX), but found it to be very soft when used long and wide open (the only way to use it for bird shots, in less than total daylight, IME :() and it was very reluctant to AF under the cover of the forest, where I was taking all of my shots.

I eventually splashed out (950GBP new) on the 300mm f/4 AF-s lens and that was an instant improvement :). It AF's a lot better, is tack sharp (even wide open :eek:) and can easily handle a 1.4x TC to extend the reach to 630mm (rough equivalent FOV) on a DX sensor. In the fairly unlikely event that you find yourself needing a wider angle for birds (could happen with emus I suppose :thinking:), you'd be forced to retreat a little, but personally, I still find that I need more than 300mm for everything and am still cropping nearly every shot that I get :'(.

As an aside, I fully expect this lens to be targetted by Nikon for a facelift in the not too distant future, as it's the 'oldest' looking of their current 'pro' primes and would absolutley rock if only it had VR as an option as well :naughty:. Of course, any VR (gelded :'() version of the 300mm f/4 is likely to well over a grand, so even if it existed (outside of my feverish imagination :D) it wouldn't be within your budget anyway.

Good luck with finding something suitable :thumbs:.
 
Many thanks for all the advice, I must say the Sigmas are looking favourite now, especially the 100-400 and 150-500, it does worry me though finding a 'good copy' whether buying new or used,
Best wishes
Cliff
 
*gold* said:
Many thanks for all the advice, I must say the Sigmas are looking favourite now, especially the 100-400 and 150-500, it does worry me though finding a 'good copy' whether buying new or used,
Best wishes
Cliff
Click to expand...

Have you personally known an owner with a poor Sigma lens, I have known POOR Nikon and Canon lenses, they exist, I have the 100-400 Sigma and it is a superb lens which I can not fault, you could buy a used Mini today and it may last a lifetime with no problems, I have seen a new Rolls on an RAC recovery.

Remember if you are not happy Sigma have a full 3 year guarantee.
 
JSER said:
Have you personally known an owner with a poor Sigma lens, I have known POOR Nikon and Canon lenses, they exist, I have the 100-400 Sigma and it is a superb lens which I can not fault, you could buy a used Mini today and it may last a lifetime with no problems, I have seen a new Rolls on an RAC recovery.

Remember if you are not happy Sigma have a full 3 year guarantee.
Click to expand...

I wonder why so many people rave about the Sigma 50-500mm? A friend of mine who owns an A900 had two Bigmas; the first one broke after less than a week. Neither was much to write home about optically, needing to be stopped down from an already dim f6.3 at maximum zoom. He got the Sony 70-400mm G, which had far superior performance, albeit at a higher price.
I'm not sure what posters are meaning when talking about the Sigma 100-400mm as it doesn't exist. Do you mean the 120-400mm? Photozone.de tested one of these and it wasn't exactly stellar. One can only conclude that either people accept indifferent performance, or more likely, there is considerable sample variation. Unfortunately for the OP, Photozone's tested Nikon 80-400mm didn't do too well either.

There is however one lens that Sigma makes, the 100-300mm F4, that is rather good. I have one. It's pretty good for tracking birds in flight and is sharp wide open. It'll take a matched 1.4x EX TC giving 420mm F5.6.
Possibly its main drawback is that at the minimum focus distance of about 5 feet and 300mm focal length there is a sharp drop in IQ so it's not particularly good for use as a telemacro. The combo would be within your £1000 budget.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear yes 120-400, we all make occasional mistakes. Please may I also say again I am dyslexic so the occasional mistake does come along, sorry which is why I don't correct others, you never know.

If the only complaint is a 120-400 close focus being 5' I don't use a 120-400 to shoot closer.

Personally I don't know why people rave on about Sony, Canon, Nikon, perhaps it is because we all talk, not rave, about the equipment we know best.

Being an open forum we are encouraged (or I was) to offer "advice", and as I have owned or used a Canon 100-400, Sigma 120-400, Tamron 200-500, I prefer the Sigma.

Also in three magazines in the past six months, AP, Photo Plus and another all rated the Sigmas as top and better value than the Canon.

I appreciate no one should accept all they read but some of us who own the Sigmas are happy thank you.

THIS is a very good review

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/...sigma-120-400-4-5-5-6-apo-hsm-telephoto-zoom/
 
Last edited:
eccles said:
I wonder why so many people rave about the Sigma 50-500mm? A friend of mine who owns an A900 had two Bigmas; the first one broke after less than a week. Neither was much to write home about optically, needing to be stopped down from an already dim f6.3 at maximum zoom. He got the Sony 70-400mm G, which had far superior performance, albeit at a higher price.
I'm not sure what posters are meaning when talking about the Sigma 100-400mm as it doesn't exist. Do you mean the 120-400mm? Photozone.de tested one of these and it wasn't exactly stellar. One can only conclude that either people accept indifferent performance, or more likely, there is considerable sample variation. Unfortunately for the OP, Photozone's tested Nikon 80-400mm didn't do too well either.

There is however one lens that Sigma makes, the 100-300mm F4, that is rather good. I have one. It's pretty good for tracking birds in flight and is sharp wide open. It'll take a matched 1.4x EX TC giving 420mm F5.6.
Possibly its main drawback is that at the minimum focus distance of about 5 feet and 300mm focal length there is a sharp drop in IQ so it's not particularly good for use as a telemacro. The combo would be within your £1000 budget.
Click to expand...
alot of people use the 50-500mm and rate it, i have the 50-500mm os and it is an awsome lens and sharp wide open. and has done very well for what ever i have chucked at it,
and all reviews need to be taken with a pinch of salt, at the end alot of it comes down to the user.
500mm f6.3 through dg window.
SB1_0140.jpg

500mm f8
SJB_8422.jpg
 
I am willing to bet anything that the above photograph taken on a Sigma with an identical one on a Canon placed side by side no one would know which took which in the real world. Or Tamron tokina or any other known decent make.

I considered the 120-400 and 50-500 but as I already had my lovely Canon 28-135 I went for the lighter shorter 120-400, the 50-500 I used over a weekend wasw a nice lens.
 
Last edited:
These are nice images but to be honest it doesn't take much to produce a websize photo provided they're not cropped very much. From personal first hand experience I can tell you that the Sony 70-400mm G walks all over the two Bigma samples that I've experienced. I've also seem 100% crops from a Canon 100-400mm taken at the same time, of the same subject that I took with my 70-400mm Sony, and they were comparable. So I can safely conclude that the Canon outperforms the Bigma as well.
Of course it could have been an unfortunate fluke that both Bigmas were at the bottom end of the sample range. I don't know; I can only judge from my own experience.
Regards,
Mike.
 
No one said that Canon did not out perform the Sigma in a lab, what test reports do is weigh up what you get overall for the cost, and it is that they base the results on, here Sigma win.

On a personal note, I have yet to see a pro use a Sony, against Nikon or Canon, though their TVs are ok, though not the best.

So there you are STH and everyone, we can all produce good images as long as they are not cropped, why worry about the lens.

In fact good photos were taken with all manual gear 40 years ago.
 
Last edited:
I have yet to see a pro use a Sony, againstNikon or Canon
Click to expand...
Totally irrelevant even if it were true since we were discussing the merits or otherwise of Sigma lenses and not the cameras they're mounted on. As I already said I have personally experienced two Bigmas and wasn't overly impressed with either of them but they were 'alright'. I also have a Sigma 100-300mm F4 and think it's quite good. These conclusions have been made from personal experience, not reviews, and are based on the fact that I do indeed often crop and can still get decent results when doing so.
You obviously come to different conclusions and I respect that. It's up to the OP to make up his own mind, but I would urge him to try before he buys.
Regards,
Mike.
 
*gold* said:
I am getting in knots on this one, I need the reach for bird shots and £1000 really is the top of my budget.
What are my best options please.
Many thanks
Cliff
Click to expand...

Best option is the Nikkor 300 f4 AF-S, then adding the 1.4 and later the 1.7TC, optically one of the best there is.

There are cheaper options, as has been pointed out, the decision that you need to make is how much of your hard earned that you want to spend, balanced to how much you are going to use it, and what your expectations are.

On a budget Sigma will give you the reach and acceptable results when weighed against the outlay.

The one thing that no one has mentioned is that optics hold their value really well, so if the worse came to the worse you could always sell it and recover a fair chunk of your initial outlay, more so with the Nikkor than the Sigma.
 
eccles said:
These are nice images but to be honest it doesn't take much to produce a websize photo provided they're not cropped very much. From personal first hand experience I can tell you that the Sony 70-400mm G walks all over the two Bigma samples that I've experienced. I've also seem 100% crops from a Canon 100-400mm taken at the same time, of the same subject that I took with my 70-400mm Sony, and they were comparable. So I can safely conclude that the Canon outperforms the Bigma as well.
Of course it could have been an unfortunate fluke that both Bigmas were at the bottom end of the sample range. I don't know; I can only judge from my own experience.
Regards,
Mike.
Click to expand...
funny that i can say that my friend has a 7d and a 100-400mm and my sigma is defo sharper not only that when i have been out and people with 100-400mm and other lenses to nikon 80-400mm are always gob smaked at how crisp the images are, and i have also printed 20x30" canvas from images taken and they look stunning, i went and made sure i tried a couple in the shop and got the sharpest version,
also i would like to see the canon and sony out perform the sigma at 50 and 500mm.
 
Last edited:
eccles said:
Totally irrelevant even if it were true since we were discussing the merits or otherwise of Sigma lenses and not the cameras they're mounted on. As I already said I have personally experienced two Bigmas and wasn't overly impressed with either of them but they were 'alright'. I also have a Sigma 100-300mm F4 and think it's quite good. These conclusions have been made from personal experience, not reviews, and are based on the fact that I do indeed often crop and can still get decent results when doing so.
You obviously come to different conclusions and I respect that. It's up to the OP to make up his own mind, but I would urge him to try before he buys.
Regards,
Mike.
Click to expand...
you have personal experiance of them on a sonywith sss or on another body nikon or canon.
 
scottthehat said:
you have personal experience of them on a sonywith sss or on another body nikon or canon.
Click to expand...
Yes, on a Sony. It's entirely possible that Sigma has sufficient sample variation between different mounts, even within the same mount, to reflect our different experiences. You said yourself that you tested more than one lens and selected the sharpest, which bears that out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top