My 300mm Dilemma...which to keep?

Here is the scenario...
I have this Sigma 300mm f2.8 HSM that I really love (platonic). Its wicked sharp, focuses like lightning, and works better than I could have hoped with both tc's. Sounds great right? Well, I need a backup body (another D200, a D300, or a D3), and the cash has to come from somewhere. I also have a Nikkor 300 f4 AFS plus a tc14 and 17, so I would still have the reach if I sold the Sigma, but I wouldn't have f2.8 anymore (I do have an 80-200AFS that could fill a portion of the void). I shoot wildlife and environmental portraiture with my 300's. I'm weighing the pros and cons of keeping one over the other, and here's what I have concluded thus far:
Keeping the Sigma:
1-Super sharp
2-Great bokeh...I mean GREAT
3-f2.8
4-Outstanding sharpness with the 1.4 down 1/3 and very good with the 2x tc down 1/2-2/3
5-Fast, fast, fast focusing (even with the 1.4 tc and not too shabby with the 2x)
Keeping the Nikkor:
1-Also super sharp...but only f4
2-Also great bokeh
3-Selling the Sigma will provide more cash toward the new body
4-Lighter and great at the beach for birds handheld
5-I utilize the close focusing A LOT
6-Fast to focus although not as fast as the Sigma
7-Works amazingly well with the tc14eII and very good with the 17
8-I can use a 500D diopter...I do a lot of macro
9-Significantly more portable
Its a pretty big decision considering, and I am well aware that it is my decision to make. I would welcome as many perspectives as folks wish to share as it is easy to become myopic when pondering such choices. So...what do you think :)?

Keep both, sell the 1.4x, buy a D80 which is almost exactly the same camera as a D200. Do you rely on either lens for an income, I mean such as being a full time wedding photographer? Sell the lens you don't make $$ with. Alternately, sell the 300mm f4, buy a used Tamron 90mm macro, save money for an eventual Nikon 300mm f4 VR.

--->Myself, I'm trying hard to NOT get caught up in replacing my camera body every time a new one comes out. The difference between the D80 and the D300 seems only incremental to me so far. So, I continue putting money on glass. And, software. That makes a bigger difference now anyway.


Kent in SD

Hi Kent,
Thanks for the input. I do have the Tamron 90 and the MicroNikkor 200AFD (and a few others). I do sell my work, but no...no weddings...I don't care to photograph the human element...strictly nature. Can't use a D80 becuase I use MLU...a lot. I don't need a VR lens in the 300mm range because I'm tripod mounted 99% of the time...and I enjoy that process. I am not in "the race," I just need another body and there are certain features that I do need. The frame rate on the D200 is as low as I would consider and faster is better. I do appreciate your perspective though...thank you.

Joel,

I don't have the Sigma but I do have the Nikkor and TC1.7. It is a great combo. As you point out, the fact that it is "light" certainly means you can go further with it.

Note that from what I have seen from the D3 images and read various reports, it is very good at high ISO so from the perspective of having a fast shutter speed, that partly eliminates the need for a faster lens, discounting bokeh of course and that is something you have to decide.

Before selling either of the lenses, make sure you give them a try on both the D300 and D3. Depending on how they perform, that may make your decision easier.

Good luck with your decision and let us know what you decide in the end.

cheers,

Andre

You're going to have to weigh your own priorities and differences in the way you use the two, as well as how much they mean to you compared to other gear. I've got both a Nikkor 300/f2.8 and the 300/f4 because they're both really useful in their own rights. If you can't choose between them, then maybe you'll have to look elsewhere for the funds.

Easy. Assuming what they say is true about the ISO capabilities of the D300 and D3, why carry the extra weight? Sump the digma.

just curious,,, i read on another forum that the sigma 300 2.8 was actuall much less focal length,, lie 260 or so,, have you seen that?? it may have been an earlier version,, but anyway, just thought i throw that out to see if it was true,, ,, may or may not have any relvevance to your quiestion

Hi Kim,
That's pretty much an I-net myth that was debunked by Sigma a while back. Mine is 300. Its interesting how so much stuff like that gets ingrained in the "knowledge base"...then you find out it isn't fact-based.

I think the term "keyboard photography" applies very nicely in this and similar situations!

I have decided to sell the Sigma. It has been a tough decision, but it comes down to the fact that I shoot so much more often with the AFS f4 that I can't justify keeping the 2.8. I am grateful for all of the excellent and well thought out advice.