Posted by Bill Maile on August 22, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Besides a good Photoshop lesson, I am desperately in need of a new lens. I currently rely on my D90, and an 18-55 kit Nikon lens, and an OLD Nikon 75-300mm.
I started out five years ago just shooting landscapes, etc. The past two years I've really gotten into avian/wildlife stuff as well. I'm suffering from lack of reach (and talent! lol) but am tempted by two choices as I will be getting one of the following new pieces of glass.
1-- Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR II Lens--I've got to do some more research, but all I have heard is good things about this. Will it improve my photos at the 300mm level?? Will it accept a 1.4 or 2.0 TC?? Great range, in a single lens. Very tempting.
2--Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO OS (Optical Stabilizer) HSM AutoFocus Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF Cameras--Obviously, with this, I'll increase my reach, which is often SOOOO frustrating. And I know this will accept a TC, just don't know how good the results would be. F-5.6, hmmmmm. ??
Any thoughts or opinions?? I know it's hard as you are all not familiar with my photos or my situation.
Just looking for opinions in this pre-buy stage.
Thanks all!!
Posted by Nate Chappell on August 22, 2012 at 3:27 PM
Hi Bill,
I shoot the Sigma 150-500 fairly often with the Nikon D7000 and get excellent results as long as there is enough light available. I find these Sigma zoom lenses you have to stop down a fair amount to get sharp results. I usually shoot this lens at F8-F11 and am very happy with the results assuming I have enough light to work with. It's not sharp wide open at F5.6-6.3 On sunny days and in open areas it's great. For example I had excellent results with it in the Galapagos. However, in the Amazonian rainforest it didn't do very well at all. I recommend this lens on a regular basis to my students and I think it's a better lens than the Nikon 80-400, certainly the autofocus is much faster. I am not familiar with the Nikon 18-300 so I won't speak to that. I wouldn't recommend using a teleconverter with that Sigma lens, just too much loss of light and quality. I have read some reviews where people have said that they are unhappy with the sharpness of this Sigma lens. A lot of people think there is a range of quality, some of them are sharp and some not very sharp and it's luck whether you get a good copy or not. That maybe true but it may also be in some instances that they aren't stopping down a bit like they need to. In any event, if you purchase this lens make sure you can return and exchange it, if you do. Knowing your work, I do think that for the price, the Sigma 150-500 would be a good choice for you.
If you want to see a gallery of shots that I took with it they are at http://www.trogontours.net/galleries/galapagos. These are all handheld, and while it's certainly not as sharp as my Canon 500F4 it gives me pretty good results. Edit: The wide angle tortoise and iguana shots were taken with a different lens but that's only 2 or 3 of the shots, the rest were taken with the Sigma 150-500
Posted by Luke Ormand on August 22, 2012 at 7:52 PM
Bill,
The 18-300 is a decent lens but it won't take a TC (a good rule of thumb is to never put a TC on a zoom lens) as it won't be able to autofocus (@ f8) and the quality will be heavily degraded. Additionally, the difference between 200mm and 300mm is hardly noticeable when talking about photography, especially when using a camera with a cropped sensor. Save a bit of money and get the 18-200mm which is an excellent walk around lens. I took this image with it: Humpback Whale
Can't comment on the sigma but what Nate says is worth its weight (the lenses weight... which is a LOT)
Posted by John Neukirch on August 22, 2012 at 8:52 PM
Bill,
It appears that you are at about the same point in your photography hobby/career that I am. I've been using a 70-300 for a couple of years now and really need something with a longer reach. But my photography is not generating alot of income currently so it's hard to justify 5-6K for a great prime lens. I have been doing alot of research lately on this and I'm leaning toward the 300mm F/4 lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=NI3004DAFS&N=0 and add a 1.4 TC when I need a little more. Nasim Mansurov has a very good piece where he reviews Nikons telephoto options, here's the link. http://mansurovs.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-wildlife-photography Seems everybody I hear from are very impressed with this lens (for the price). Check it out and let me know what your think. I can swing 2k (lens & TC) at this point but 5-7k for the 200-400mm zoom or 300mm or 400mm prime just ain't in the cards for me right now.
John
Posted by Richard Ditch on August 22, 2012 at 8:56 PM
You obviously need all the focal length you can get, and that is especially true for avian.
The 18-300 may be good be itself, but any lens with such a wide range makes compromises. None of Nikon's non-pro zooms will work with Nikon converters - they are designed so that they physically will not mate. You wouldn't like the results even if you could attach them.
The Sigma 50-500 and now the 150-500 have been staples for lots of avian shooters who can't afford premium pro lenses. As Nate mentions, though, you need to use them with some thought and care. You also ought to plan on using such a lens on a good tripod as much as possible. I'm convinced that a lot of claims we read of bad telephoto lenses comes from people who don't know the proper technique for using them.
If I was faced with this choice I'd go with the Sigma.
Posted by Bill Maile on August 22, 2012 at 11:47 PM
Thank you all. Mostly Richard and Nate! And Luke. I guess my mind is made up!
Posted by Peter Hudson on August 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Bill - do consider the prime lenses. I love the challenge and quality you get with a prime ... I have a "walk around" 300 I can slap an extender on and really love it.
Posted by Bill Maile on August 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM
OK, so I've tossed out the idea of the 18-300mm. But now John (thank you!!) has me really confused--the http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=NI3004DAFS&N=0 or the Sigma 150-500mm????!!!! They are both "doable" and that Nikon 300mm looks sweet with awesome reviews. Nate, Richard, anyone... help???!
Arghhhhhhhh!
Posted by Nate Chappell on August 23, 2012 at 1:42 PM
That's a tough call. With the Nikon 300F4 you will also want to buy the 1.4x teleconverter which will make it about $500 more expensive than the Sigma 150-500. The Sigma 150-500 has image stabilization and the 300F4 does not. The zoom ability of the 150-500 is very nice to have for wildlife and landscape type shots as well as birds, it gives you a lot of flexibility. The Nikon with the 1.4 attached is probably a little bit sharper on average. You can shoot it more wide open but since it doesn't have IS they are probably a push when it comes to low light situations. They are both good options.
Posted by Richard Ditch on August 23, 2012 at 5:52 PM
I've had at least three of the older manual focus Nikkor 300mm lenses; I still have the MF 300/4.5 EDIF that was the last MF version Nikon made (I rarely use it these days). They have all been very nice lenses with excellent image quality.
I've heard nothing but good reports on the 300/4 AF-S lens and if I had the money I'd get one for a walk-about lens with AF. And I'd use it with the TC14E converter I already have for a 420/5.6 AF lens.
Luke Ormand does nice work with the 300/4 and the TC17E.
I don't consider the lack of VR (IS) to be a negative in any way on this lens (I have a VR 70-300 and I don't like having to wait for the VR to lock in before I can take a shot). Besides, that's what tripods are for!
But based on your avian posts to date I still think you'd benefit from the longer reach of the 150-500.
Posted by John Neukirch on August 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM
Bill,
I feel your pain, in a perfect world we'd whip out the AMEX card and not worry that it might cost us our marriage. Just trying to find the most bang for the buck. As for me I'm really thinking I want to find a lens that's compatible with a good TC so it doesn't cost me to much speed. Also figuring the cost of a stable tripod and head. Can anyone tell me if the 80-400mm is compatible with Nikon TCs? That is the other lens I might consider.
I think the key for you in choosing Bill, is how critical you are about framing and comp for your wildlife shots. It's a very big deal for me and in my experience has a bigger impact on sales than how large the critter is in the frame. For strictly wildlife shooting I carry a 500 f/4 and 300 f/4 along with a 80-200 f/2.8, along with a selection of extenders. Best sales almost always come from that 80-200 with or without a short extender, to the point that I keep it mounted on a second body and mount a ballhead on a Bogen Superclamp to the tripod along with the larger lens on its full Wimberly. Or in some settings I simply leave the camera with 80-200 hanging around my neck and rest it on the top pivot of the Wimberly as needed. If I was to do more wildlife I'd dump the 500 and 300 completely and go with the 200-400 f/4.
Bottom line for your long term happiness if you want that variable framing latitude is image sharpness. I haven't managed results that meet my specs from the less expensive zooms, even without an extender. In my shooting with the 80-400, it's marginal to poor in low light and wider apertures. Great results at f11 and smaller, but not when you're struggling for more light. None of them "make it" for me at their longest extension. Can't say about the Sigma first-hand, but a shooter I respect very much is delighted with his, and the results I see in his shots back him up.
In your boots I'd either go for the Sigma, the 300 f4 with an extender, or the 70-210 f2.8 and extender or an older 80-200 f/2.8 and extender.
You've got some great responses here so there's not much I can add except personal testimonial.
When I was shooting full-time as a commercial and fine-art photographer in the 90's, I told all my friends that the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AFd was THE sleeper in the entire Nikon lens lineup. I thought the sharpness, colour and contrast and even bokeh were exceptional. So when it came time to get the first quality lens for Jenaya (and the rest of us crazy Launstein wildlife fanatics) to shoot through, you would have thought I'd know exactly where to turn. I did, but got intrigued with the zoom feature and VR of the 80-400mm.
Oh. My. Word. That lens nearly singlehandedly took 25 years of loyalty to Nikon and threw it out the window. That was THE worst lens I have ever, bar none, personally used. Poor contrast, horrific fidelity...just plain unsharp the VAST majority of the time whether handheld or beanbag or tripod or... For me, I never realized anything close to even the mixed reviews on the lens UNLESS the subject was quite close. It's possible an AF Fine Tune would have helped some, but on the D2X that was not an option, and so the lens left my collection and left me with a very, very bad taste in my mouth.
I went to where I should have gone all along, the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 IF-ED. It is an extraordinary performer. It produces wonderful sharpness and very pleasing bokeh (when not attached to a TC), but it is strongest in pure sharpness and acuity. We've since added the 200-400mm to our lineup, but I can honestly tell you shooting side by side with Jenaya that whoever has the 300mm f/4 mounted to their camera will almost always have the sharpest images. Frankly, the 300mm with the TC-14EII may be sharper (when stopped down 2/3+ stops) than our copy of the 200-400mm. Now when combined with the TC it doesn't produce the colour and contrast the 200-400mm does, and is abysmal in comparison in the bokeh department, but it is one SHARP combination.
We do find the convenience and precision of the 200-400mm to be a wonderful asset. There's many times it allows us to get shots we wouldn't be able to get with the 300mm, and it's always preferrable (IMO) to frame it right the first time in camera instead of in PP. But, MOST times we can get a great, quality shot with the 300mm, even if we would have framed it SLIGHTLY differently if we had the zoom. It has helped us get creative and stronger in comp as well.
Anyway, three thumbs up for the newer 300mm f/4, and personally, three thumbs down for the 80-400mm. I'm sorry I can't speak specifically to the two lenses you initially inquired about.
One (two?) other thought(s): Have you considered a lightly used Sigma 100-300mm f/4 or if you can swing it, a 120-300mm f/2.8? By all accounts both are excellent lens that represent Sigma's very best offerings.
All the best in your quests for the right glass for your needs!
Posted by Richard Ditch on August 26, 2012 at 10:15 PM
I think the replies to Bill's original question have drifted a bit off the mark. IMO Bill's biggest need is for more focal length, so any suggestion that doesn't get Bill beyond the 300mm he already uses completely miss the mark.
Posted by John Neukirch on August 27, 2012 at 8:19 AM
John,
Thanks for your insight on the 80-400mm, I'll scratch that one off my list.
He listed the 18-300 as one of his options, so I don't think extra reach is such a big deal with him Richard. Certainly image quality is huge for his decision.
Hey John- From the poor comments and results of friends with the 80-400, you just made a very wise decision.
Posted by Bill Maile on August 27, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Wow, thanks for all of the terrific responses!!! Hank, good info and I always respect your opins. Everyone, very helpful.
But it comes down to cost, and despite my initially listing the 18-300mm as a possible, it also comes down to reach and what Richard said--he knows my avian images well!!! Huge crops, and to a somewhat lesser extent lousy processing, equal soft and noisy--and have made for reach and cost being my most important factors.
Done deal, I'm ordering the Sigma 150-500 tomorrow. I've used the 50-500 Bigma before, but not this one. As luck would have it, my Canon shooting buddy yesterday had the Sigma 150-500 on! It wasn't nearly as heavy as I recalled the Bigma being... and well, I've read A LOT of reviews and seems what I need at this point given my budget.
I've been selling quite a few prints lately!! And calendar season is coming up which always helps.
I'm doing my normal personal calendar. And by marketing myself, I am also producing a 2013 calendar for a big, local employer and they are getting 2,000 copies to start--totally separate from my personal one.
So maybe by year's end, I can address the lower end of the mm spectrum. Thanks again all!!!!!
Congats on the sales Bill! In our experience it has a lot to do with momentum, as opposed to the "visibility" so many folks preach. You can be as visible as a politician at a baby kissing contest, but if you're not selling, all your visibility doesn't mean poop. But sales lead to more sales, and you're clearly launched.
Discussion
17 repliesI started out five years ago just shooting landscapes, etc. The past two years I've really gotten into avian/wildlife stuff as well. I'm suffering from lack of reach (and talent! lol) but am tempted by two choices as I will be getting one of the following new pieces of glass.
1-- Nikon 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR II Lens--I've got to do some more research, but all I have heard is good things about this. Will it improve my photos at the 300mm level?? Will it accept a 1.4 or 2.0 TC?? Great range, in a single lens. Very tempting.
2--Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG APO OS (Optical Stabilizer) HSM AutoFocus Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF Cameras--Obviously, with this, I'll increase my reach, which is often SOOOO frustrating. And I know this will accept a TC, just don't know how good the results would be. F-5.6, hmmmmm. ??
Any thoughts or opinions?? I know it's hard as you are all not familiar with my photos or my situation.
Just looking for opinions in this pre-buy stage.
Thanks all!!
I shoot the Sigma 150-500 fairly often with the Nikon D7000 and get excellent results as long as there is enough light available. I find these Sigma zoom lenses you have to stop down a fair amount to get sharp results. I usually shoot this lens at F8-F11 and am very happy with the results assuming I have enough light to work with. It's not sharp wide open at F5.6-6.3 On sunny days and in open areas it's great. For example I had excellent results with it in the Galapagos. However, in the Amazonian rainforest it didn't do very well at all. I recommend this lens on a regular basis to my students and I think it's a better lens than the Nikon 80-400, certainly the autofocus is much faster. I am not familiar with the Nikon 18-300 so I won't speak to that. I wouldn't recommend using a teleconverter with that Sigma lens, just too much loss of light and quality. I have read some reviews where people have said that they are unhappy with the sharpness of this Sigma lens. A lot of people think there is a range of quality, some of them are sharp and some not very sharp and it's luck whether you get a good copy or not. That maybe true but it may also be in some instances that they aren't stopping down a bit like they need to. In any event, if you purchase this lens make sure you can return and exchange it, if you do. Knowing your work, I do think that for the price, the Sigma 150-500 would be a good choice for you.
If you want to see a gallery of shots that I took with it they are at http://www.trogontours.net/galleries/galapagos. These are all handheld, and while it's certainly not as sharp as my Canon 500F4 it gives me pretty good results. Edit: The wide angle tortoise and iguana shots were taken with a different lens but that's only 2 or 3 of the shots, the rest were taken with the Sigma 150-500
The 18-300 is a decent lens but it won't take a TC (a good rule of thumb is to never put a TC on a zoom lens) as it won't be able to autofocus (@ f8) and the quality will be heavily degraded. Additionally, the difference between 200mm and 300mm is hardly noticeable when talking about photography, especially when using a camera with a cropped sensor. Save a bit of money and get the 18-200mm which is an excellent walk around lens. I took this image with it: Humpback Whale
Can't comment on the sigma but what Nate says is worth its weight (the lenses weight... which is a LOT)
It appears that you are at about the same point in your photography hobby/career that I am. I've been using a 70-300 for a couple of years now and really need something with a longer reach. But my photography is not generating alot of income currently so it's hard to justify 5-6K for a great prime lens. I have been doing alot of research lately on this and I'm leaning toward the 300mm F/4 lens http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=NI3004DAFS&N=0 and add a 1.4 TC when I need a little more. Nasim Mansurov has a very good piece where he reviews Nikons telephoto options, here's the link. http://mansurovs.com/best-nikon-lenses-for-wildlife-photography Seems everybody I hear from are very impressed with this lens (for the price). Check it out and let me know what your think. I can swing 2k (lens & TC) at this point but 5-7k for the 200-400mm zoom or 300mm or 400mm prime just ain't in the cards for me right now.
John
The 18-300 may be good be itself, but any lens with such a wide range makes compromises. None of Nikon's non-pro zooms will work with Nikon converters - they are designed so that they physically will not mate. You wouldn't like the results even if you could attach them.
The Sigma 50-500 and now the 150-500 have been staples for lots of avian shooters who can't afford premium pro lenses. As Nate mentions, though, you need to use them with some thought and care. You also ought to plan on using such a lens on a good tripod as much as possible. I'm convinced that a lot of claims we read of bad telephoto lenses comes from people who don't know the proper technique for using them.
If I was faced with this choice I'd go with the Sigma.
Arghhhhhhhh!
I've heard nothing but good reports on the 300/4 AF-S lens and if I had the money I'd get one for a walk-about lens with AF. And I'd use it with the TC14E converter I already have for a 420/5.6 AF lens.
Luke Ormand does nice work with the 300/4 and the TC17E.
I don't consider the lack of VR (IS) to be a negative in any way on this lens (I have a VR 70-300 and I don't like having to wait for the VR to lock in before I can take a shot). Besides, that's what tripods are for!
But based on your avian posts to date I still think you'd benefit from the longer reach of the 150-500.
I feel your pain, in a perfect world we'd whip out the AMEX card and not worry that it might cost us our marriage. Just trying to find the most bang for the buck. As for me I'm really thinking I want to find a lens that's compatible with a good TC so it doesn't cost me to much speed. Also figuring the cost of a stable tripod and head. Can anyone tell me if the 80-400mm is compatible with Nikon TCs? That is the other lens I might consider.
John
Bottom line for your long term happiness if you want that variable framing latitude is image sharpness. I haven't managed results that meet my specs from the less expensive zooms, even without an extender. In my shooting with the 80-400, it's marginal to poor in low light and wider apertures. Great results at f11 and smaller, but not when you're struggling for more light. None of them "make it" for me at their longest extension. Can't say about the Sigma first-hand, but a shooter I respect very much is delighted with his, and the results I see in his shots back him up.
In your boots I'd either go for the Sigma, the 300 f4 with an extender, or the 70-210 f2.8 and extender or an older 80-200 f/2.8 and extender.
You've got some great responses here so there's not much I can add except personal testimonial.
When I was shooting full-time as a commercial and fine-art photographer in the 90's, I told all my friends that the Nikkor 300mm f/4 AFd was THE sleeper in the entire Nikon lens lineup. I thought the sharpness, colour and contrast and even bokeh were exceptional. So when it came time to get the first quality lens for Jenaya (and the rest of us crazy Launstein wildlife fanatics) to shoot through, you would have thought I'd know exactly where to turn. I did, but got intrigued with the zoom feature and VR of the 80-400mm.
Oh. My. Word. That lens nearly singlehandedly took 25 years of loyalty to Nikon and threw it out the window. That was THE worst lens I have ever, bar none, personally used. Poor contrast, horrific fidelity...just plain unsharp the VAST majority of the time whether handheld or beanbag or tripod or... For me, I never realized anything close to even the mixed reviews on the lens UNLESS the subject was quite close. It's possible an AF Fine Tune would have helped some, but on the D2X that was not an option, and so the lens left my collection and left me with a very, very bad taste in my mouth.
I went to where I should have gone all along, the Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 IF-ED. It is an extraordinary performer. It produces wonderful sharpness and very pleasing bokeh (when not attached to a TC), but it is strongest in pure sharpness and acuity. We've since added the 200-400mm to our lineup, but I can honestly tell you shooting side by side with Jenaya that whoever has the 300mm f/4 mounted to their camera will almost always have the sharpest images. Frankly, the 300mm with the TC-14EII may be sharper (when stopped down 2/3+ stops) than our copy of the 200-400mm. Now when combined with the TC it doesn't produce the colour and contrast the 200-400mm does, and is abysmal in comparison in the bokeh department, but it is one SHARP combination.
We do find the convenience and precision of the 200-400mm to be a wonderful asset. There's many times it allows us to get shots we wouldn't be able to get with the 300mm, and it's always preferrable (IMO) to frame it right the first time in camera instead of in PP. But, MOST times we can get a great, quality shot with the 300mm, even if we would have framed it SLIGHTLY differently if we had the zoom. It has helped us get creative and stronger in comp as well.
Anyway, three thumbs up for the newer 300mm f/4, and personally, three thumbs down for the 80-400mm. I'm sorry I can't speak specifically to the two lenses you initially inquired about.
One (two?) other thought(s): Have you considered a lightly used Sigma 100-300mm f/4 or if you can swing it, a 120-300mm f/2.8? By all accounts both are excellent lens that represent Sigma's very best offerings.
All the best in your quests for the right glass for your needs!
Thanks for your insight on the 80-400mm, I'll scratch that one off my list.
John
Hey John- From the poor comments and results of friends with the 80-400, you just made a very wise decision.
But it comes down to cost, and despite my initially listing the 18-300mm as a possible, it also comes down to reach and what Richard said--he knows my avian images well!!!
Done deal, I'm ordering the Sigma 150-500 tomorrow. I've used the 50-500 Bigma before, but not this one. As luck would have it, my Canon shooting buddy yesterday had the Sigma 150-500 on! It wasn't nearly as heavy as I recalled the Bigma being... and well, I've read A LOT of reviews and seems what I need at this point given my budget.
I've been selling quite a few prints lately!! And calendar season is coming up which always helps.
I'm doing my normal personal calendar. And by marketing myself, I am also producing a 2013 calendar for a big, local employer and they are getting 2,000 copies to start--totally separate from my personal one.
So maybe by year's end, I can address the lower end of the mm spectrum. Thanks again all!!!!!