Question regarding these two lenses

I am looking at acquiring either a Nikon 600mm AFS F4 II or a Sigma 300-800mm F5.6.

As anyone used both of these lenses with the D2X, if so can you provide me with a sense of direction on choice, I am used to the 600mm AFS F4 I so that's a start.

Purpose: Wildlife Photography

Sorry

Usage will be: To use fixed in the vehicle I use as a hide, for feeders, hedgerow birds, Owls at project sites etc & the Beckhams (whoops), Basically just general wildlife whist I patiently abserve Owls boxes during daylight hours

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Vince

I have used both, but not on a D2x, an F5.
The Nikkor was sharper with better contrast and focused better than the 300-800mm but both are pucka lenses for pro's; that said from one fixed position the 300-800mm is much more versitile, especially if you have multiple distance feeders/oportunities.

I think Phil_T has the 300-800mm on a d2x.

T

PS if it where me I would choose the 600mm and buy a 1.4 converter as well. An extra stop in low light can be very handy.


T

Vincent - I use the Sig 300-800 on a D2Xs

The lens does take some serious getting used to and the DoF is paper-thin - 50 feet at f11 gives 6 inches DoF.
On the example I have there is some degree of focus creep between 300 and 800mm, the contrast overall is a bit on the low side and the bokeh is not too nice, and I've also noticed a bit of a tendency for flare especially just lately in the bright sun in between showers: all these nits can be got round but it would be nice if they were not there.

On the plus side it takes a 1.4tc very well, and mounted to my XL2 video camera with an Optex converter it doesn't half have some reach - 6400mm or thereabouts

And funnily enough when used with the video all the above nits seem to vanish - only to be replaced with the scurge of heat-haze - but this will happen with any mega tele.

Never tried the 600mm Nikkor so I can't compare but the variable focal length of the Sig and the considerable cost difference do make it a contender - that's why I got one.

Hi my 800 is actually better than any of the 600's I have had the 600 af-i has better contrast wide-open but once the converter was fitted it seemed to degrade the image quality quite a lot, the latest version of the sigma both the 300-800 & 800 have been slightly redesigned with better coatings improving the contrast greatly whereas the nikkor hasn't the only thing that has changed with the nikkor is the weight of the lens.

The 300-800 is actually better wide-open than the 800 prime which I have but are indistinguishable by f7.1 the biggest drawback with the 300-800 is that it does not have a focus limiter switch whereas the 800 prime does as does the nikkor the 300- 800 is the most versatilelens of all 3.

Phillip.

Ps you can get the sigma to auto focus with the nikkor 1.4tc with great results

Andy you need to get the longer lens hood from the 800 prime which by the way is the same size as the lens hood for a nikkor 400f2.8 and considerably cheaper than the nikkor's hood.

Phillip.

Yes Phillip I was thinking about that but at 250 quid I was thinking of trying to make some sort of hood extension - what is the length of the 800mm prime hood ?

Cheers

Hi Andy 168mm long but 195mm from the protective front glass not the front element the 300-800 doesn't have the protective front element of plain glass.

Phillip.

i use the 300-800 exlcusively on a canon system and when shot in side by side comparisons with a canon 600IS w/1.4x, i'd pick the 300-800. The focus is slow though and it'd be best only for static objects. Flight shots, ure better off with the prime, any of them. Romy Ocon uses it with a 500 f4 and has done superb work with it. Btw, i know someone who might have a 300-800 for sale N mount if u're interested. Drop me an email with an offer and i'll let u 2 get in touch.

Thanks for the above info

After talking to others elsewhere & reading the above, the decision will be the 600mm

Now I need to hunt down a reasonably priced secondhand one

Vince