Hi all...thought I'd solicit some opinions on the above lenses.
Jenaya and her siblings usually shoot with our Nikkor 200-400mm or the (newer) 300mm f/4 AF-S lens, but I've got more shooters in the family than lenses (or bodies, for that matter!) and we've been thinking of adding a more compact (than the 200-400) telephoto zoom lens to our arsenal.
I've generally always stuck with Nikon lenses and have not been terribly impressed by my few trials with Sigma in the past, but I have constantly heard the now-discontinued 100-300mm f/4 is an exceptional lens on all fronts. It's certainly much bigger and heavier than the Nikkor 70-300mm and does NOT have VR (or equivalent), but it has a fixed aperture and apparently stellar optics. Do any of you have any experience with this lens that you could share?
I had originally discounted the Nikkor 70-300mm just because I've never been a fan of variable-aperture lenses (for the most part anyway) and was concerned about the f/5.6 limitation on the long end and the reported drop in quality past 200mm. BUT, I've also seen some great images taken with this lens and the VR on the 200-400mm has certainly sold me on its benefits as often as not.
We would be looking at this mostly as a lighter, more compact telephoto zoom for general wildlife (most often in the Cdn Rockies) and as opportunity provides, birds (yes, I know we're mighty thin on focal length at 300mm). Not really a replacement of either of our other telephotos but an addition to the stable, so to speak. For use on various Nikon DX bodies but mostly the D300 and D7000.
Oh - and if any of you with the Sigma also have feedback on their 1.4x TC, I'd love to hear your thoughts on that end as well.
John, I generally share your thinking on thethird party lenses. Being a learn the hard way kind of guy, I have owned several Sigma, Tokina and Tamron lenses. Of all of them, only two have held up againstneven the cheapest of Nikkors (Tokina f2.8 300mm fixed and Sigma 18 mm f2.8 fixed). All the zooms have been dissappointing.
I owned the Nikkor 70-300 VR briefly (sold it after buyIng a 70-200 f2.8 pro lens). The 70-300 is a great lens. Very sharp. Fast accurate AF. Priced right. Hard to go wrong with it. Lots of used cpoies out there too.
Posted by Dan Roberts on July 11, 2012 at 12:43 AM
I shot a Sigma 100-300 for several years. I even kept it when I bought, used, and ultimately sold a Nikon 80-400 VR. My main reason for keeping the 100-300 was focusing speed. It is an HSM (high speed motor) as compared to the mechanical drive 80-400 and I do a lot of BIF images. I only sold the Siggy after I got a 200-400 and let's face it, are you really going to leave that one home? I would say if your primary interest is mammals, I would choose a VR lens and can highly recommend the 80-400 if you camera has old mechanical AF drive. But if you are mainly interested in BIF shooting, the 100-300 is a better lens hands down. Also if you're shooting BIF the VR is a moot point due to shutter speed.
Regarding the 1.4x on the 100-300, first, the Nikon version won't work without modifying the mount. I had the Sigma 1.4x and can not recommend it on that lens. Definate degradation of IQ and it does some really funny things to bokeh if there is any kind of pattern in the background (like ripples on water).
Here are some links to bald eagles shot with the 100-300:
Posted by Nick Baldwin on July 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM
I recently gave away my D--80+70-300VR lens, to my brother who had none.
I will replace it with.........not sure.
But it was my kayaking lens/camera combo and i loved it. Steady enough for the kayak and "long" enough to work on our pristine rivers.
On land I have been using a D-300+70-200 f/2.8 VR+2.0 TC, for many years.
I have not used any long Sigma lens BUT am saving up my money for the new VR 120-300mm f/2.8. I have used it on a trial basis and it is a great lens for my needs-nature photography, hand-held or on mono-pod. quick to focus, sharp through, and fast!
Discussion
3 repliesJenaya and her siblings usually shoot with our Nikkor 200-400mm or the (newer) 300mm f/4 AF-S lens, but I've got more shooters in the family than lenses (or bodies, for that matter!) and we've been thinking of adding a more compact (than the 200-400) telephoto zoom lens to our arsenal.
I've generally always stuck with Nikon lenses and have not been terribly impressed by my few trials with Sigma in the past, but I have constantly heard the now-discontinued 100-300mm f/4 is an exceptional lens on all fronts. It's certainly much bigger and heavier than the Nikkor 70-300mm and does NOT have VR (or equivalent), but it has a fixed aperture and apparently stellar optics. Do any of you have any experience with this lens that you could share?
I had originally discounted the Nikkor 70-300mm just because I've never been a fan of variable-aperture lenses (for the most part anyway) and was concerned about the f/5.6 limitation on the long end and the reported drop in quality past 200mm. BUT, I've also seen some great images taken with this lens and the VR on the 200-400mm has certainly sold me on its benefits as often as not.
We would be looking at this mostly as a lighter, more compact telephoto zoom for general wildlife (most often in the Cdn Rockies) and as opportunity provides, birds (yes, I know we're mighty thin on focal length at 300mm). Not really a replacement of either of our other telephotos but an addition to the stable, so to speak. For use on various Nikon DX bodies but mostly the D300 and D7000.
Oh - and if any of you with the Sigma also have feedback on their 1.4x TC, I'd love to hear your thoughts on that end as well.
Many thanks in advance!
John
I owned the Nikkor 70-300 VR briefly (sold it after buyIng a 70-200 f2.8 pro lens). The 70-300 is a great lens. Very sharp. Fast accurate AF. Priced right. Hard to go wrong with it. Lots of used cpoies out there too.
Regarding the 1.4x on the 100-300, first, the Nikon version won't work without modifying the mount. I had the Sigma 1.4x and can not recommend it on that lens. Definate degradation of IQ and it does some really funny things to bokeh if there is any kind of pattern in the background (like ripples on water).
Here are some links to bald eagles shot with the 100-300:
http://www.pbase.com/drr1531/image/98687366
http://www.pbase.com/drr1531/image/99451992
http://www.pbase.com/drr1531/image/107462904
I will replace it with.........not sure.
But it was my kayaking lens/camera combo and i loved it. Steady enough for the kayak and "long" enough to work on our pristine rivers.
On land I have been using a D-300+70-200 f/2.8 VR+2.0 TC, for many years.
I have not used any long Sigma lens BUT am saving up my money for the new VR 120-300mm f/2.8. I have used it on a trial basis and it is a great lens for my needs-nature photography, hand-held or on mono-pod. quick to focus, sharp through, and fast!