Printable View
Hello,
I'm a Nikon gear user triyng to find the best option to have more reach.
Currently I have as long lenses the 300Vr and 500VR and the three TC's (1.4 to 2.0)
Bodies are the D3 and D300.
Several options I'm considering:
1. Nikkor 800mm MF (the oldest design and MF)
2. Sigma 800mm HSM (least expensive and the lighter)
3. Sigma 300-800mm HSM
4. Canon 800mm and a Canon body (most expensive move)
5. Swapping my 500mm to a 600VR+1.4TC
&. Do nothing and be happy :)
Can you help me?
Thanks
Pedro
Go with Sigmonster 300-800. Romy Ocon uses it to great effect.
For travelling, especially by airline, you have the best combo. Be happy and take a nice photo trip with the money!
Ditto what Nancy said!! Spend the $$ making images.
I have the Sigma 300-800 AND love it - its heavy and big - but the flexability of the zoom is what gets me.
Picked mine up 2nd hand about 12 months ago - got a absoulete bargain IMHO $5K OZ see the are selling new for 10.5K US on ebay.
I agree with Nancy, and Ed. A 500 with a tc is still a lot of reach, especially to one whose longest lens is a 100-400. With that equipment I would spend the money on a workshop, or a trip.
The Sigma 300-800 is the way to go, IMHO. I now use the Nikon 200-400 and Sigma 300-800 for nearly all my wildife photography. When I forst got the Sigma, I was worried because it didn't have vibration reduction, but I don't find that it is really limiting me in my photography much at all. I can't imagine using a fixed focal length lens anymore. It is too limiting in composition.
Hi Pedro
I would not get rid of the 500 VR ... if can afford get the 600 VR which is 40% more magnification. I don't feel you can interchange !!! Using the converters is just fine and can make razor sharp images with a good technique, just slows the AF with the 2.0 being close to unusable.
.... btw getting a Mk3 and 800 wouldn't be a bad thing at all :)
hello.
The Sigma 300-800mm is a great lens, but its quite "car or fourwheel bound" due to size and added by the fact that you must have a large tripod. If is very sharp and fast focusing - very versatile.
I also own an old 600mm f/5.6 which is light weight and easy to handle but purple fringing is something to contend with, I am sure that this will also occur with the 800mm nikkor (old one).
The new 600mm Vr I have not used, but its quite larger/heavier than the 500mm vr so that is a bummer and the price is ridiculous .
The canon 800mm IS is expensive but very tempting because it is lighter than the nikkor 600mm vr and shorter.
good luck and keep us posted with your decision.
best regards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Serralheiro
Buy a 1.4 and 2.0 converters.
You will make sharp images at 1000mm with good technique and VR.
Great AF @ 1.4, so-so at 2.0
I have an old Nikon 600mm AF-S I and a Sigma 300-800mm.
The Nikon kills the Sigma in AF performance, a newer 500mm should be even better.
The 600mm is sharper but the Sigma is no slouch. I produce marketably sharp images with both lenses.
IMHO , you dont have to change gear, But still if you want , go for 600MM VR with Nano Crystal coat ( Latest one ). I am using it and I can say , what a glass it is
Harshad
I love my 800 f/5.6 in conjunction with the 400 DO and the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Many of the excellent Nikon photographers who travel with me are unable to make sharp images with the latest version Nikon 2X TCs and recommend sticking with the 1.4 and the 1.7X.
ps: That said, I have been telling Canon for years that they need to add a long zoom lens or two to their line-up.
Agreed with Guruji here , I dont go beyond 1.4X.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
I found 600mm is razor sharp with amazing IQ with 1.4X which becomes 840mm/F5.6
:)
Well, thanks to you all, but you are not making thinks easier :D
Yes, I agree it's hard to get very good quality with the 2x TC, but it happens to have very very sharp photos. Problem is I can't afford loosing to many to get 1 or 2 good ones. ONLY on stand still subjects I stack the 2x TC.
So, from your posts, I have three options:
1. Sigma 300-800
2. Canon 800+body
3. Do nothing and enjoy
Interesting enough no answers regarding the prime Sigma 800. Does this mean a thing or two or just coincidence?
I have dropped the swapping option of my 500VR for a 600VR. I can't part with the 500VR. It's too good to walk around and IQ is just superb.
I have tried with a friend's gear digiscoping, but I must be a complete dummy, because the photos are even worst that I get with 2 TC stacked together! (hope he doesn't read this)
So... I have not yet decided, and this weekend will be all wildlife photography. So until next week I'll do nothing but enjoy!! :)
A Sigma Rep told me that the 300-800mm was sharper with better contrast than the 800mm
I can't discern a difference in AF performance (speed) between my Nikon 200-400 and Sigma 300-800. It doesn't mean there isn't a difference, just that it is not noticeable in my daily use. One might think the 200-400 would AF better for two reasons: 1) it has a focus limiter switch and 2) since it has an F4.0 aperture, one would expect it to perform better in low light. However, I haven't been able to tell a real difference and I really can't think of a good controlled test for determination. The Sigma 300-800 doesn't have a focus limiter switch (which worried me at first), but since it doesn't focus down to 7 ft (like the Nikon 200-400), the speed of focus acquisition is quite good. If my action images aren't in focus, it is generally my fault and not my lenses.
I should hope so. I could not imagine a Sigma rep stating otherwise...Quote:
Originally Posted by James Shadle
Or did you mean the Sigma 800??? (I missed any reference to that above at first...)
Hey Artie,
I'd imagine he was talking about the Sigma 800.......even though I love my 300-800.....I doubt it is faster or sharper than the prime Canon 800....but I'd bet it's close! Would be a fun test! I may have to swap lenses with you if you come to Jersey!
PS Sherpa is not included!:D
The Sigma 300-800 is quite slow in focus acquisition when matched up against the newer Nikon long lenses. I have had good success with the 500vr and all three Nikon tcs.
Hey David,Quote:
Originally Posted by david cramer
Is that from personal experience with the 300-800? I have no such issues and I have shot with the older version 600 against it......no percievable difference for me.
......and can anyone actually get the 600VR?
Artie,
Sigma's 800mm not the Canon.
Roman,
My old Nikon 600mm AF-S acquires focus slightly faster than the 300-800mm. However the tracking performance of the Nikon is far superior.
I've never heard a good explanation for the thoughts that a prime lens will autofocus faster than a zoom with a fixed maximum aperture. It is my understanding that the elements moved during autofocus are different elements than those moved during zooming, so intuitively it seems that whether the lens is a zoom or prime would not make any difference in AF responsiveness. If anyone has some definitive references otherwise, I'd be interested in knowing (to correct my own misconception).
Roman,
My old Nikon 600mm AF-S acquires focus slightly faster than the 300-800mm. However the tracking performance of the Nikon is far superior.[/quote]
I'm going to have to try it myself against a newer Canon 600......I just ripped off a sequence of 23 shots of an immature bald eagle in Yellowstone......20 were sharp....missed first 2 (daydreaming/yakking)....and last frame as he was going away.......don't know how it could be better but I would love to compare!
Will have to see if I can convince someone (hint, hint} to swap lenses for a few hours!
Pedro:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro Serralheiro
I urge you to review the discussion in the "Canon Super Telephoto Lens" thread below in this forum, before making any decision. It may provide additional insights for you.
Norm Dulak
