OK ... almost made up my mind (see previous post D300 or new lens) I probably will upgrade my 75-300 Nikkor. I thought of buying the Sigma 100-300mm F.4.0 EX APO DG + 1.4 TC. Is this a lens worth buying ? Nikon has of course the Nikkor 300mm f4 but I rather go for a zoom lens.Nikon has also the Nikkor AF-D 80-400mm F 4.5-5.6 VR Is it better than the Sigma ?
Thanks people
Posted by Bill Chambers on July 24, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Can't help you on the Sigma, although I believe I read somewhere that it was not a true 300 on the long end. Really a 280 or so I think. May not be a big deal to you. The Nikkor 300 f/4 is an excellent lens. I don't own the 80-400 VR but have used it. It searched a good bit and was slow to focus, and it also does not have the latest generation VR. Optics seemed good though.
You might consider the Nikkor 70-300 VR. I believe this is AF-S and second generation VR, and I've read some good things about it. It is slow however at f/5.6 on the long end.
The Nikkor 70-200 VR f/2.8 is a great lens, and you can add the TC-14E to reach 280mm, but it's quite a bit more expensive. It is also AF-S and 2nd generation VR. It focuses lightning fast and is incredibly sharp.
I have the 100-300 & 1.4x converter, and the Nikkor 70-300VR. The Nikkor is a consumer lens, OK for general use, but in no way competes with the 100-300 Sigma for sharpness or focusing speed (the F4 matters). The general consensus is that the 100-300 is one of Sigma's best lenses and I can see why. You lose a bit of contrast/sharpness with the 1.4x converter.
That lens gets a very enthusiastic review at PhotoZone.
Posted by Basil Greber on July 26, 2008 at 4:15 AM
I've never used the thing, but everything I've heard about it was very positive, with the minor exception that it's soft at 300 and minimum focusing distance. So, if you'd be planning to do Ronnie Gaubert style close ups with a long lens, you might want to go with the 300/4 AF-S Nikkor. The Sigma is said to be excellent at normal distances, though, and photozone.de gave it a glowing review (their reviews match my experience with other lenses very well, they're not the usual popphoto-style reviews where everything is the best thing sine coca cola).
One word about the 70-300 AF-S VR: NO! Ok, couple more words: I have it, and it's really excellent between 70 and 200 mm. But the two copies I've owned (the second one is at Nikon service again) were very soft at 300 mm at all apertures.
Discussion
5 repliesThanks people
You might consider the Nikkor 70-300 VR. I believe this is AF-S and second generation VR, and I've read some good things about it. It is slow however at f/5.6 on the long end.
The Nikkor 70-200 VR f/2.8 is a great lens, and you can add the TC-14E to reach 280mm, but it's quite a bit more expensive. It is also AF-S and 2nd generation VR. It focuses lightning fast and is incredibly sharp.
Here is the link to some of the shots taken with it.
http://www.pbase.com/avibram/beeeaters
You can mail me as well with questions
I have the 100-300 & 1.4x converter, and the Nikkor 70-300VR. The Nikkor is a consumer lens, OK for general use, but in no way competes with the 100-300 Sigma for sharpness or focusing speed (the F4 matters). The general consensus is that the 100-300 is one of Sigma's best lenses and I can see why. You lose a bit of contrast/sharpness with the 1.4x converter.
HTH
Mark
One word about the 70-300 AF-S VR: NO! Ok, couple more words: I have it, and it's really excellent between 70 and 200 mm. But the two copies I've owned (the second one is at Nikon service again) were very soft at 300 mm at all apertures.
Basil