What lens to get? Airshows & General. 120-300, 200-600, 300 prime??

cambsno

cambsno

Messages
21,115
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I am having a think about my lens lineup, and seeing if I would be better off changing what I have.

I currently have a 70-200 2.8 VR1 which I like but dont use that much. This caters for general longer stuff when i need it and for airshows for things like red arrows and formations. Also have a nikon 300mm f4 which is very nice, light and great IQ but sometimes its too long (on the d300 at Old Warden) or not long enough.

So, having been tempted by a recent Sigma 120-300 2.8 on the forum I thought I would canvas opinion. If I sell both the above, I can look to spend approx. £1k-£1.5k on something else. Possible ideas are:

- Keep what I have. the 300mm is a lovely lens with great IQ and not heavy, while the VR1 also has great IQ.
- Get a Sigma 120-300 2.8 to replace both, BUT this is a heavy old lens, would I really want it for woodland shots, or out at the park/beach (no tripod)
- Look at the new Tamron 200-600, but will IQ be any good as this range of zoom is quite big and generally IQ suffers
- Sigma 100-300 f4, get one of these to replace both and have cash left over for ther stuff!!! Maybe add a 1.4 or 1.7 TC but will this affect IQ too much?
- Anything else I have missed?

I am not too keen on the Sigma 150-500, as I dont believe the IQ is that great especially 400mm+ and is this too big for a woodland/beach/park lens?

Used on a D700 mainly but also a D300 too.
 
The Sigma 100-300 f4 is a cracker of a lens I used to have on with a Sony A77 and love it, it is a beast though probably not all that different to the Sigma 120-300 in weight and size.
However they seem to go for around £400-£500 used which in my eyes in an utter bargain.
As for TC's I never used them myself but I had read good things about the lens being combined with the 1.4 and 1.7 TC - I personally am looking at a longer lens for Motorsport and maybe plane spotting this year, something to go with my D800 and I'm certainly very interested in looking for another Sigma 100-300 (Nikon fit this time!) but also quite interested in the Nikon 300mm f4 which like you say appears to be a cracking lens.
 
Another vote for the Sigma 100-300mm f/4, stunning IQ which is as good as the Nikon 300mm f/4, would be my everyday long lens if i didn't need f/2.8
 
Cheers guys, is the siggy really that good? Was just a wee bit concerned about getting that and ditching both lenses... As good as the 300mmf4 you say!!
 
A mate of mine who's more into birds than me but also shoots bikes has recently succumbed to his GAS and bought himself a Nikkor 80-400. Not had a play with it myself yet but he's raving. About the lens as well (hi, C! [he's a lurker!!!])!!! Since his usual lenses of choice are fast long primes, it must be pretty good to keep him happy.
 
Have you discounted your 70-200 with a TC1.4?
You would hardly notice a difference and it would work well with your 300 f4 as well.

Incidentally have you seen some of the images from Lez325 with his Sigma 150-500 ... no way that it a bad lens :)
 
gramps said:
Have you discounted your 70-200 with a TC1.4?
You would hardly notice a difference and it would work well with your 300 f4 as well.

Incidentally have you seen some of the images from Lez325 with his Sigma 150-500 ... no way that it a bad lens :)
Click to expand...

I guess what I am looking for is a Canon 100-400 f4 lens!!!

I need someone to sell me the idea of a 150-500. As I have said, the 70-200 is a general use lens, taken to the park or beach with kids say... and they dont call it the Bigma for nothing! With planes I often shoot at f8-f13 so IQ should not be an issue, but I do shoot at f4 a lot for general stuff.
 
I have both the 70-200 vr2 & the 120-300 (non os). I love them both but they are different tools. I DONT like putting a TC (only have the 1.7) on the Nikon, but the Sig works well with both the 1.4 & 2.
The 70-200 (i love) but feels like a toy after using the 120-300 - damm sight lighter.
 
Keep the 300!
Old Warden is unusual in the the display is reasonably close. In any case, 300MM is perfectly usable there.especially if at the left of the display line, when some fantastic climbing shots are on offer.

Other places, Duxford, Fairford and Farnborough for example, the displays are far further away, and even with 600, which the biggest I can go, a lot of the display is too far off for anything worthwhile.

Canon could do with a 100-400 F4, but canon being canon it would cost....A lot!
 
The new Nikon 80-400 is probably going to be my next long lens. Found myself using TCs all the time with my 300 2.8 on the D800 so I'm going for the versatility of a zoom without compromising IQ. Rented one last year and was impressed with the sharpness, AF speed etc. At £1609 from Hdew I'm very tempted.
 
I would keep what you have or sell them both to me for a ridiculously low price ! I've just about decided on an f4 300 for my needs and partly due to my budget, but may hang on a bit longer and see if the above mentioned 80-400 is worth saving the extra pennies for.
 
Bernie174 said:
Keep the 300!
Old Warden is unusual in the the display is reasonably close. In any case, 300MM is perfectly usable there.especially if at the left of the display line, when some fantastic climbing shots are on offer.

Other places, Duxford, Fairford and Farnborough for example, the displays are far further away, and even with 600, which the biggest I can go, a lot of the display is too far off for anything worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Agree about Old Warden, 300mm at Duxford is ok but often would like longer, like 400-500

john_e said:
The new Nikon 80-400 is probably going to be my next long lens. Found myself using TCs all the time with my 300 2.8 on the D800 so I'm going for the versatility of a zoom without compromising IQ. Rented one last year and was impressed with the sharpness, AF speed etc. At £1609 from Hdew I'm very tempted.
Click to expand...

I know that the VR1 was not supposed to be that good, hence why I have not considered this.

RichardtheSane said:
So are us canon users ;)
Click to expand...

I thought Canon did do one!!! But then I checked!
 
I recently went through the same choice, I had a 70-200 vr1 and 300 f4 but used on a d7100. I've found both of these to be great and the pair works nicely together. I thought about the sigma 120-300 f2.8 but thought against as it would need all new teleconverters and I would be selling both to get that lens. The size and weight was my main issue as if it was my only lens it could a bit big for a trip to the zoo, BWC etc. I discounted the 80-400 due to the f5.6 aperture, sometimes I need as wide as possible for wildlife.

I've ended up keeping the 70-200 f2.8 and replacing the 300 f4 with a 300 f2.8. This gives me a wider aperture of f2.8 and the possibility of 600mm f5.6 with a 2x teleconverter. Also keeping the 70-200 gives me a lighter choice when I want it too (if you can call a 70-200 f2.8 light!)

I found the 70-200 ideal at old warden on a crop sensor. I was shooting at 200mm most of the time so maybe a little short on a full frame body.
 
Hmmm, thinking a TC is needed as that would allow me the extra reach when required.

Was thinking of 1.4 or 1.7 as heard that the older TCII 2.0 are not that great?
 
I've been using the Sigma 150-500 OS for the last couple of years and don't have any problems with it. I can hand hold it all day, it did take a bit of getting used to, and use it on my 5D3 for nearly all my aviation and bird shots. These shots are SOOC with no other PP apart from maybe a crop and are from f6.3 (Saab Viggen) and f8 (F16). The F16 shot was taken in poor weather and bad light but I managed to get it just at lift off.


SAAB Viggen 1 by modchild, on Flickr


F/A 18C coming in to land. by modchild, on Flickr


F-16AM Fighting Falcon by modchild, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top