Which 300mm?

AdamTudor

AdamTudor

Messages
1,122
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
So after Christmas I'm thinking of buying a 300mm to go on my D7200 to use for a bit of wildlife.

Does anyone have any experience with the sigma 300mm 2.8 ex dg hsm? It has pretty good reviews and Used it can be had for similar money to a new Nikon af-s 300 f4. Both also seem to work really well with all the teleconverters, atleast sharpness wise, does anyone have first hand experience of AF of these with 1.4/1.7 attached?

Or would the flexibility of a 200-500/150-600 be a better choice for now?
 
I've never used the Sigma but I have used the Nikon 300 f2.8 VRll and for my wildlife (which includes small birds) it was never really long enough even with TC's ... I have the Nikon 300 f4 PF VR and it's great but again lacks real reach even on the D7200 or D500 so I'm almost always using my 500 f4.
Depending on what wildlife you seek I would suggest the 150-600 would be a good choice.
 
gramps said:
I've never used the Sigma but I have used the Nikon 300 f2.8 VRll and for my wildlife (which includes small birds) it was never really long enough even with TC's ... I have the Nikon 300 f4 PF VR and it's great but again lacks real reach even on the D7200 or D500 so I'm almost always using my 500 f4.
Depending on what wildlife you seek I would suggest the 150-600 would be a good choice.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your feedback. I did consider the sigma but looking through sample images the primes seemed better IQ as expected which is what is swaying me towards the 300s. Small birds will not be my priority but I will not pass up a chance for a decent opportunity so yeah covering all bases would be ideal. I wonder if AF/IQ would be better with 200-500/150-600 or with a 300+1.7..

do you use the 500 with the 1.4 on the d500 then?
 
haha yeah I know that feeling, I keep buying then something crops up and end up having to sell something! my dog's cost me a fortune!! Hence why I want to get it right this time, I appreciate that focal length is extremely important but I don't want to make any IQ/AF sacrifices to get it
 
If it's a 300 you want then the Sigma 300 is good but the 120-300 is better and more flexible and takes a 1.4tc perfectly. The other good option is the Nikon 300 f2.8 which is slightly faster and possibly even sharper. Find a good 2nd hand example and you will love either.
 
I've used a 300mm f4 afs with a 1.4 teleconverter for the last 4 or 5 years - very good for a lot of wildlife situations, except for small birds (when nothing much ever has enough reach).

I recently bought a 200-500mm and I'm delighted with it - same aperture, longer (and shorter) reach, and the useful addition of VR (I never use a tripod). I find it to be as good as the 300/teleconverter combo, and noticeably sharper at lower shutter speeds. I will likely be selling the 300mm soon as I'm using the 200-500mm more often.

I also borrowed a Tamron 150-600mm from my dealer for a day, but I found it to be a bit too soft at the long end.

Both the long zooms are much heavier than the 300mm f4.
 
its not necessarily a 300 I'm after but I'm just looking for a compromise between IQ and reach without spending a fortune. £1500 inc converters is about my budget unfortunately
 
AdamTudor said:
So after Christmas I'm thinking of buying a 300mm to go on my D7200 to use for a bit of wildlife.

Does anyone have any experience with the sigma 300mm 2.8 ex dg hsm? It has pretty good reviews and Used it can be had for similar money to a new Nikon af-s 300 f4. Both also seem to work really well with all the teleconverters, atleast sharpness wise, does anyone have first hand experience of AF of these with 1.4/1.7 attached?

Or would the flexibility of a 200-500/150-600 be a better choice for now?
Click to expand...
What kind of budget are you thinking of? A prime should always be better than a zoom (depends on technology age too) but the versatility of a zoom can pay off. Are you going to need fast apertures such as f2.8 and f4? In good light I've seen excellent images from the 200-500, it's when the light drops that I was worried about. I was thinking of swapping to one myself but I'm often out in early/late poor light so it was too much of a gamble for me and I would have likely regretted swapping. I've loved my zoom lens recently doing the deer Rut, being able to quickly change focal length has allowed for different compositions. It was one of the reason I changed from a prime to a zoom.
 
I guess it will be around £1500 most likely, it will vary a tad but that's the aim. early/late will more than likely be when I'm out with it so as fast as possible is a plus.
 
The Nikon 200-500mm is a cracking lens, very sharp and good enough to take a 1.4x teleconverter that should AF on your D7200. The only possible negative is that AF could be a bit quicker, especially with the TC. I also use the 300mm F4 PF which will AF with the 1.7x TC and give 510mm at F6.7. Not too far away from the 3rd party zooms and a heck of a lot lighter. It's a great birding combo that you can carry around all day. The negative is cost.
 
Last edited:
well ive got a few months yet till I make a decision, just been looking at the new tamron 150-600 G2. Too much choice for my budget, I need to do some renting!!
 
I've got one and very happy with it, fast and accurate with focusing.I also have the 1.4 converter.
NB I wouldn't contemplate using it without a monopod or some other means of support.
If your ever in Derby your welcome to have a blast on mine.
 
I have been through several telephoto lenses for my D7100

I started off with a 300mm f4 (older non VR lens) and it is incredibly sharp, even with a 1.4x TC attached (which is attached about 90% of the time), but does lack a little reach and convenience of zoom

So i thin bought a Sigma 150-600mm C to compliment the 300mm, and i picked it up nearly 75% of the time i ever needed a telephoto lens due to the extra reach and convenience of zoom, unfortunatly it wasn't as shap as i's like (especially above 500mm, really needs stopping down to f8), so i was never really happy with the Sigma, though at anything under 500mm it was very good, and nice to have the ability to tweak it through the Sigma dock (big plus point)

I recently sold the Sigma and bought a second hand Nikon 200-500mm f5.6, and i have say that i absolutely love it, still not quite as sharp as the 300mm prime (no surprise there though), but still very very good, even wide open at 500mm, plus the ability to zoom, which does come in handy

I love the 200-500mm so much that i am going to sell the 300mm f4 as it just won't get used anymore, so may as well sell it on while it still has some value to it
 
Thanks for the input guys, the 200-500 has been high on the list from the start, I was just kind of hoping the convenience of a zoom would have taken a step back for the IQ of a prime but I guess if I can't get 400mm+ (I can't) then a zoom will be much more useful for me to start with
 
All the Nikon 300mm are good

I have got/had the 70 300mm VR, the 300mm f4 AF-S, the 300mm f2.8 VR and the latest 300mm f4 PF VR

of these if you want a 300mm with the possibility to go to 600mm, (now or eventually), I would go for the 300mm f4 PF

small, light, easy to use, almost pocketable and works great on it's own and with the 1,4TC and 1,7TC and in good light the 2,0TC at f8 ...... the IQ is at least up there with the old f4 and f2.8, if not better under normal shooting conditions because of its ease of use

all these zooms are monsters in comparison
 
BillN_33 said:
All the Nikon 300mm are good

I have got/had the 70 300mm VR, the 300mm f4 AF-S, the 300mm f2.8 VR and the latest 300mm f4 PF VR

of these if you want a 300mm with the possibility to go to 600mm, (now or eventually), I would go for the 300mm f4 PF

small, light, easy to use, almost pocketable and works great on it's own and with the 1,4TC and 1,7TC and in good light the 2,0TC at f8 ...... the IQ is at least up there with the old f4 and f2.8, if not better under normal shooting conditions because of its ease of use

all these zooms are monsters in comparison
Click to expand...

That is true, the 200-500mm is quite large, but it's horses for courses when it comes to primes and TC's vs Zooms

As much as i love my old 300mm f4 + 1.4x TC, it certainly doesn't have the convenience factor of a zoom, and for me, that wins out on the slight loss of IQ, but given that 90% of my work only ever ends up on Flickr/Facebook etc i can afford to take a slight loss in IQ

At the end of the day, it comes down to personal preference
 
£1500 will get you the latest 80-400. Should work as plenty of options there.
 
I had the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 prime with 1.4 and 2.0 TCs for a while, but replaced it with a Canon 100-400 MkII for improved flexibility especially when hiking or travelling long haul. I enjoyed using the Sigma which for me was sharp and quick, though I have seen reviews that say the 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom is better.
 
The Sigma 120-300mm is a good lens (& better than the Sigma 300!) - the Nikon 300mm is quicker focusing & a little sharper but you lose the flexibility.

Both take the 1.4 teleconvertors will no issues - to the point they were constantly bolted onto mine...

On looking at my exif data of the 120-300 - 85% of my shots were at 420mm (+1.4 tele) - which is why I sold it & have kept the Nikon.

The 80-400 is always on my D7100 as its lighter (lol).
 
I have both the old and the new 300f4 Nikon the new one takes 1.7 Tc with no loss of quality at all as far as I can see you have to go F8 but mine is never off the lens on my d500 760mm walkabout awesome wildlife air shows and the IQ amazing the old one great too but can't take 1.7
 
I have owned two 300mm f4 AFS lenses along with the 1.4TC and I wanted the flexibility of a zoom and I was pleasantly surprised how my copy of the Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary is. I have the dock but haven't had the need to use it.
 
Which version of the 120-300 are you guys talking about? I can only find the latest which is way over budget?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top