Long Telephoto zoom for Bird Photography- Tamron 200-500 or Sigma 150-500 OS?

Hello everybody

I use Nikon D90 with Nikkor 70-300G VR lens. I have been looking for some options for a longer reach and internet seems to be filled with Sigma 150-500 OS and Sigma 50-500 OS versions as recommended budget tele-zooms. Now there is one more from Nikkor, 80-400VR f4.5/5.6 with moderate reach. I almost settled my mind on 150-500OS version as it complements my 70-300VR better.

Now one of my Facebook photographer friend, who swears by Photozone.de, strongly recommended Tamron SP 200-500 LD Di IF. I read the photozone review of this lens and it seems to be alright, more so if I stop down the lens to f8. I tried to find whether there is any comparative test between Sigma 150-500OS and Tamron 200-500 SP Di version, but there is none from reputed sites.

So may I ask the opinion of the members here about which lens would give me better IQ (150-500OS or 200-500 SP Di)? Is there any comparative test between these two lenses? The less weight and shorter zoom range of Tamron (2.5x) also seems to be positive points. I would like to take BIF as well as perched birds with the lens. If any of the members here have used both or either of these two lenses, please help me out in making a choice.

Please understand that I shall not be able to afford higher primes which are simply out of my reach. Though I know this very well that neither will come even close to a 500mm VR Prime from Nikon (and it breaks my heart but I have to live with that otherwise I shall be bankrupt) :(

Thank you

Tamron is very sharp and light weight, but well built. Lower Price.
No OS, relatively slow AF.
I own this lens.

Sigma has OS and faster AF.
Heavy, no as well built and more expensive. I can't speak to it's sharpness.
I owned a Sigma 50-500.

I had a Tamron 200-500 back when I used to shoot with Sony cameras. The 200-500 was quite light and sharp, but not as sharp as a the 400/4.5 prime I bought later.
A friend of mine had a Sigma 50-500 at that time which was very sharp (and much heavier than the Tamron), but I've heard there are big variations in terms of sharpness
on the Sigma lenses so you might want to test what you are buying.
Anyway, here is a link to a comparison between the Sigma 150-500 and the 50-500:
http://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2011/the-...E2%80%99toole/

Thank you very much for your replies.

Capt. Shadle, could you please share some shots taken with Tamron 200-500? Your reply is very precise and to the point, exactly what a confused soul like me looks for, more so, when that soul has a burning desire but no means to fulfill it (how I wish if I could buy a 500f4 or at least 80-400 f4 + 1.4xTC). What about Chromatic Aberration of this lens?
Btw, I have checked your gallery, the shots are beautiful.

@Luis, as I said in my original post, there is basically no comparison between a Nikkor Prime and a consumer or even prosune zoom, and that is why I surrendered in the beginning that I can not afford it, no matter how much I long for it. :)
Now regarding Sigma, I have read in the number of fora that Sigma lenses vary a lot from copy to copy, so you have rightly pointed to that. Though I have no intention in buying Sigma 50-500 as my present 70-300VR will be a waste. Moreover, I have never thought that I may require to handheld that beast, hence never really took care of my mussels that much. ;)
I am only interested in 150-500 OS and Tamron 200-500 OS (Tamron is about $100 costlier). I have heard that the second one a little sharper and the Captain has kindly confirmed that Tamron lens is actually very sharp. I wish there was a comprehensive report comparing these tow, or at least a kind member would come forward and share his/her experience with both the lenses, assuming that s/he has used both.

Thanks again..

I have never shot the Tamron so I can't comment on it. I have a Sigma 150-500 OS and it is surprisingly good for the amount of money spent. I found the AF good and the OS did a good job. Obviously, performance with this lens drops off in lower light. In better light it is pretty good, again, for the money, it is great. I find that it is sharp at 350-400mm, beyond 400mm the sharpmess drops off quickly. You might find the link below to Robert O'Toole's site interesting. He has some eagle shots with the Sigma that look better than anything I get with the Sigma. I don't know how much post processing was done, but I would be proud to have any of these images. Give it a look and good luck with the decision. Bottom line is that you will enjoy either lens because it will get you outside shooting and enjoying nature. I will look forward to hearing your decision. Have fun!

http://www.robertotoole.com/2011/04/...rkshops-dates/

Tom

Thank you Tom for your beautifully crafted reply.

Quote:

---

I find that it is sharp at 350-400mm, beyond 400mm the sharpness drops off quickly.

---

This is exactly what worries me most. You see, as I shall be going out to take Bird shots, longer end will be used most of the times. So if I loose the sharpness at the longest end, it is going to be really a waste. I personally think that I should take a photo in such a manner that I have to spend least time in PP. What happens if you stop down the lens to say f8 at the 500mm end? Do the photos still come out softer than at 300-400mm range? What about CA issue at the 500mm end of this lens?

Quote:

---

http://www.robertotoole.com/2011/04/...rkshops-dates/

---

Thanks for the link. These shots are beautiful. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact (just in case if you have missed it) that all these shots were taken at <400mm. So what would have happened to the sharpness at the 500mm length can not be ascertained from these shots (imho). :|

Roy,

I have a 150-500 sigma (not image stabilized) and it is sharper than my canon 100-400. but neither are as sharp as a 400 f/5.6 or 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC. If you want more detail on a distant subject, there are two options that do not require the cost of a super telephoto. 1) Move to fixed focal length lenses, like 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC, or 400 f/5.6 or similar. 2) Camera with smaller pixels, like the D7000. A combination of 1 and 2 would likely be a major step up compared to another zoom.

Roger

I think that Roger's suggestion of a 300 f/4 with a 1.4x TC is a great option. It is definitely sharper, there is no OS, but it is a very good option for a little bit more money. I found that 90% of the time I was shooting at the long end of the zoom at 500mm and so the zoom capability is not a deal maker or breaker. Also, I was losing sharpness more than I would with a 300 f/4 and TC. If you remove the TC, the 300 f/4 is a very good lens. I think if you can spend a bit more, this would be a better option than the Sigma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Roy Choudhury

Thank you very much for your replies.

Capt. Shadle, could you please share some shots taken with Tamron 200-500? Your reply is very precise and to the point, exactly what a confused soul like me looks for, more so, when that soul has a burning desire but no means to fulfill it (how I wish if I could buy a 500f4 or at least 80-400 f4 + 1.4xTC). What about Chromatic Aberration of this lens?
Btw, I have checked your gallery, the shots are beautiful.

@Luis, as I said in my original post, there is basically no comparison between a Nikkor Prime and a consumer or even prosune zoom, and that is why I surrendered in the beginning that I can not afford it, no matter how much I long for it. :)
Now regarding Sigma, I have read in the number of fora that Sigma lenses vary a lot from copy to copy, so you have rightly pointed to that. Though I have no intention in buying Sigma 50-500 as my present 70-300VR will be a waste. Moreover, I have never thought that I may require to handheld that beast, hence never really took care of my mussels that much. ;)
I am only interested in 150-500 OS and Tamron 200-500 OS (Tamron is about $100 costlier). I have heard that the second one a little sharper and the Captain has kindly confirmed that Tamron lens is actually very sharp. I wish there was a comprehensive report comparing these tow, or at least a kind member would come forward and share his/her experience with both the lenses, assuming that s/he has used both.

Thanks again..

---

Give me a day, I'll post some in my BPN album.
James

- "What happens if you stop down the lens to say f8 at the 500mm end? Do the photos still come out softer than at 300-400mm range? What about CA issue at the 500mm end of this lens?"

Like most lenses, it is sharper at f8 but obviously, you will need more light or slower shutter speed - there is always a cost. Is it sharper than at the 300-400 range? That I can't say for sure.

As for CA, I haven't used the lens for months as I upgraded to a fixed prime lens, but I do not recall it being significant. That said, I am relatively new to this and I may not have been as tuned in as many here on the forum. The readers here often see things in my images, that I have overlooked. I am learning much here.

As I have read your comments and think about things, I really think the 300 f/4 as suggested by Roger would be a good option that I would consider strongly if you can stretch for the additional cost. If not, the sigma (or I assume, the Tamron) will give you much enjoyment. I once borrowed a 300 f/4 from a friend and the shots were sharper than the Sigma. You will need to check the autofocus with the TC, it is probably pretty good with the 1.4. I think Nikon says it will not work with the 1.7x. You will need to double check that on the Nikon website.

Thanks Capt. Shadle, Tom and Roger for your excellent inputs.

Captain, I am eagerly wait to see the results, but please take your time. I am not in a hurry, though I am **** serious about this. Do also be kind enough to comment on the Chromatic Aberration at the extreme telephoto end (500mm). It's a really very important factor to consider. :S3:

@Tom and Roger
I agree with both of you that 300 f4 is an excellent lens and a 1.4x would really work great. But here are my problems:
I already have 70-300VR which I must say is a very good lens for the money and produces excellent sharp results even at 300mm end provided you stop down to f8 or f9, which I am ready to live with as I do not have much intention to use it in low light nor my photographic interest puts me that situation often. Now 300f4+1.4x would make it a 420mm 5.6 lens, not much of an improvement over 300mm reach which I already have. So the next option, 300f4+1.7x=510mm f8 (approx), the reach I want at least but now it is a very slow lens, and I think according to Nikon, it will not AF with my D90 (as correctly pointed out Tom).
Secondly, this combo will cost me about $1700 or a little more, still there will be no VR.
Hence, if it is a prime lens to go for I think that saving money for a 500mm f4 is a better choice. Had I not been using a 70-300VR, I may have gone for this replacing the 1.7x Nikon TC with Kenko's 1.7x latest TC (which I have heard being almost the same quality as that of Nikon).
So as I weigh this option against the cost (and the "opportunity loss" due to 70-300VR becoming useless) involved, features obtained, does it still appear that attractive?

Now I did a little feature comparison of both the lenses that I have mentioned and could summarize the following:

-----------------------------Tamron 200-500 ------------------Sigma 150-500 OS

Max Aperture (wide): ----------f5 -------------------------------------- f5.6
Min Focus: ------------------2.5m ---------------------------------220cm ------- Interesting to note,
Weight: ---------------------1237g -----------------------------------1910g ------- Interesting to note
Stabilization: --------------------X -----------------------------------------Y
AF Motor: ----------------------- X ----------------------------------------HSM
Min Aperture: ----------------32 -----------------------------------------22
Lens Elements: -------------13 ----------------------------------------- 21--------- is it lesser the better?
Lens Groups: ---------------10 ------------------------------------------15---------- is it lesser the better?

As I ponder over the above comparison the following questions come to my mind:
1. Less number of elements and groups in Tamron, does not this mean better and consistent Optical Quality?
2. Does the better Close Focusing distance really matters?
3. For bird photography, a common technique is to try to use Sv >=1/500. At this shutter speeds, does the Optical Stabilization feature really matters? AFAIK, at higher Shutter Speeds, it is better to turn off VR as that may introduce blur in the image.
4. For BIF, I think VR is not at all usable.
5. Sigma though sports a HSM, will it really AF that fast? How good the AF speed of Tamron?

I know there can be flaws in my arguments and logic, so I would welcome heartily, if friends here would be kind enough to comment. Thanks again for all your help. You people are great.

The main drawback on the Tamron is the lack of its own AF drive. Wonder if Tamron plans to catch up in this department any time soon ....

Your D90 will be able to AF with the Tamron, but the difference in AF speed between old style crank shaft lenses and those with built in AF drives is tremendous (just seen it with two x-200 2.8 Nikon lenses).

This AF speed difference would be the biggest contra point for me, as two or more (if x-400mm ones get into equation) Sigma lenses that cover similar focal length ranges offer equal performance with the faster AF and image stabilization as an added bonus.

A 2nd hand Tamron for a good price -maybe, if new one I would look for a Sigma.

Ulli

Thanks Ulli for your response.
But what about the Sharpness? The test showing that 150-500 is not as sharp as Tamron at the 500mm end- which is going to be the most used focal length- this point is bugging me most.... :bugeyed:

I think roger is right here, A d7000 and 300f4+1.4 is what your looking for. I use the d7k and 70-300vr and do a small crop on my photos for now. Ime still waiting for a new 80-400vr to come out some people say possibly in september. Ive heard the 300f4 works with the 1.7 slower AF but i think more reliable than either sigma or tamron. A prime nikon will always be a good investment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Roy Choudhury

@Tom and Roger
I agree with both of you that 300 f4 is an excellent lens and a 1.4x would really work great. But here are my problems:
I already have 70-300VR which I must say is a very good lens for the money and produces excellent sharp results even at 300mm end provided you stop down to f8 or f9, which I am ready to live with as I do not have much intention to use it in low light nor my photographic interest puts me that situation often. Now 300f4+1.4x would make it a 420mm 5.6 lens, not much of an improvement over 300mm reach which I already have. So the next option, 300f4+1.7x=510mm f8 (approx), the reach I want at least but now it is a very slow lens, and I think according to Nikon, it will not AF with my D90 (as correctly pointed out Tom).
Secondly, this combo will cost me about $1700 or a little more, still there will be no VR.
Hence, if it is a prime lens to go for I think that saving money for a 500mm f4 is a better choice. Had I not been using a 70-300VR, I may have gone for this replacing the 1.7x Nikon TC with Kenko's 1.7x latest TC (which I have heard being almost the same quality as that of Nikon).

---

Roy,

In your post, I feel you you focus on specs and focal length. Given two lenses of the same focal length, both can appear to deliver "sharp" images until one compares them closely: one can find that one lens will deliver twice the fine detail as the other, for example. Keys to fast action photography are fast AF, fast aperture, and high image quality at that fast aperture. The fixed focal length lenses generally have higher IQ, especially wide open and faster AF than zooms. How do these factors compare with the lenses you are considering?

Here is a test you might try: image the moon and compare to images on these web pages:

Figure 1 shows a consumer zoom versus a 300 f/4, and figure 2 shows different cameras with the same lens:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/

Different lenses:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/moon-test2/

Try imaging the moon over the next week or so. Compare your results with images on the above web pages. How do they compare? Does your present lens match or better the images on the above pages when at the same focal length?

Perhaps rent a 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC and one of the zooms to test side by side.

On some of your other questions about groups and elements, more of each is not necessarily better, nor worse. It all depends on the specific design.

Roger

Thanks Mark
As I mentioned, I have no doubt that there will be much better quality if I use 300f4+1.4x TC, but if I go for prime, I shall prefer to save my money and buy a Nikkor 500mm f4 lens :)
Basically I am looking for some budget proposition that will give me sharp result in good light.

Roy,, The 300 f4 +1.4 at 1500$ is THE budget option,,,Saving for the 500f4 you will need over 8000$ dollars.,, Trust me theirs nothing worse than getting that once in a lifetime shot and its not sharp. I also use the nikon 70 300 but its



Roy,,,, The nikon 300F4+1.4 is THE budjet option at 1500$ The 500F4 afs will cost you over 8000$ !!! Nothing worse than spending a 1000$ on some cheap super zoom with poor image quality,,yes ive been there.

Hmmmm...I thought that if I stop down the Sigma 150-500 to f8 then I should get sharp enough photo- was I thinking wrong?
Brian, could you please confirm whether Nikon AF-S 300mm f4+1.4x TC and Nikon AF-S 300mmf4+1.7x TC will auto focus on D90?
Secondly, will the photos obtained by this combination be good enough to use in professional work?
VR- this is not available in Nikon AF-S 300mm f4- is it not that important?
And lastly, I thought attaching a TC robs the photo off it's quality. But you and Mark (and must be there are others) seem to be very confident that this combination will produce better result than Sigma always...why? Will not the TC attached affect the quality?

Thanks for your replies :)

Roy.. The 300f4 is a highly respected profesional lens. With the 1.4 the results are excellent pro qaulity the lense is that good...the limiting facter will be the D90..I dont think the 1.7 will AF with the d90. As for Sigma,,the internet is just filled with comment on sigmas poor qaulity control..poor build qaulity af moters burning out...you just dont here this with nikon and canon... IF you only want to print 5/7s or just put pictures on the net ime sure either of those zoomes will be ok. its when you want to print a large high qaulity photo for your wall that the problems show themselves. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brian simpson

Roy.. The 300f4 is a highly respected profesional lens. With the 1.4 the results are excellent pro qaulity the lense is that good...the limiting facter will be the D90..I dont think the 1.7 will AF with the d90. As for Sigma,,the internet is just filled with comment on sigmas poor qaulity control..poor build qaulity af moters burning out...you just dont here this with nikon and canon... IF you only want to print 5/7s or just put pictures on the net ime sure either of those zoomes will be ok. its when you want to print a large high qaulity photo for your wall that the problems show themselves. :)

---

Thanks so much Brian for your reply...
Please do not misunderstand me, I clearly understand the limitations of Sigma, and I also know that AF-S 300mm f4 is an pro quality lens. What I did not know is whether AF-S 300f4+1.4x TC still maintains the same pro quality or not.
I mainly opted for Sigma or Tamron because of the cost advantage, money matters :)
Anyways, regarding TC, do you think Kenko Pro300 series TCs are good? I've read a number of times that Kenko Pro300 series TCs are almost as good as Nikon's own, though I've never used either...

Thanks again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Roy Choudhury

Thanks so much Brian for your reply...
Please do not misunderstand me, I clearly understand the limitations of Sigma, and I also know that AF-S 300mm f4 is an pro quality lens. What I did not know is whether AF-S 300f4+1.4x TC still maintains the same pro quality or not.
I mainly opted for Sigma or Tamron because of the cost advantage, money matters :)
Anyways, regarding TC, do you think Kenko Pro300 series TCs are good? I've read a number of times that Kenko Pro300 series TCs are almost as good as Nikon's own, though I've never used either...

Thanks again...

---

Roy,
Several things. I have had images obtained with sigma lenses win contests, including best in show in national contests. My sigma 150-500 is sharper than my canon 100-400. But having said that, in the telephoto range both my experience and the online quantitative lens test data shows that no zoom lens from any manufacturer matches the image quality performance of a quality fixed focal length lens. This is especially true for action photography where one often needs to work wide open. Also, use of TCs on zoom lenses (with rare exceptions of a few top zooms, like the 70-200s or Nikons 200-400) is usually diminishing returns, especially on lower cost zooms.

I do have 1.4x and 2x Tcs in both canon and kenko pro 300 (not the newer "digital" Tcs). In my opinion, the kenko 1.4x is very close to the canon 1.4x II (not the newest canon TCs which I do not have). The kenko 2x is not bad but not quite as good as the canon 2x. Not sure how this compares to the Nikon TCs.

Roger

Thanks Roger....
Honestly speaking, it's still very confusing...what would be the best thing to do. Sadly in my country, photo goods are in such a nascent stage there is not even a proper dealer for either Tamron or Sigma, most probably I have to take the Grey Market route,and the sellers in the grey market are more supportive :)

I won't go for the 2.0x TC with 300mm f4 (if I go for this combo) as because Nikkor AF-S 300mm f4 does not AF with any Nikon bodies when combined with any TC greater than 1.4x...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Roy Choudhury

I won't go for the 2.0x TC with 300mm f4 (if I go for this combo) as because Nikkor AF-S 300mm f4 does not AF with any Nikon bodies when combined with any TC greater than 1.4x...

---

Do they AF with live view? The Canon consumer bodies will (at least the 5D2). Of course that won't really work for action images, but does for static ones.

Roger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Do they AF with live view? The Canon consumer bodies will (at least the 5D2). Of course that won't really work for action images, but does for static ones.

Roger

---

According to Nikon's Len's Compatibility Chart, it is mentioned that with 1.7x TC the lens will not auto focus. So I am not sure whether the live view will work or not. Personally though, I hardly believe that Live View will be much useable for Bird Photography.

Thanks again Roger...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Roy Choudhury

According to Nikon's Len's Compatibility Chart, it is mentioned that with 1.7x TC the lens will not auto focus. So I am not sure whether the live view will work or not. Personally though, I hardly believe that Live View will be much useable for Bird Photography...

---

While the lens compatibility chart says an f/4 lens won't auto-focus with a 1.7 TC, many of us know full well that it will auto-focus in good light. I had every intention of getting the 300 f/4 and 1.7 TC for my Nikon D7000, then my father died and left me just enough to get a used 200-400 f/4 and 1.7 TC. It focuses perfectly fine (single-point rather than matrix) and delivers stunning images, as will the 300. You definitely will miss the VR (OS, IS, whatever), but the IQ from the 300 is top notch, with or without a TC. It's also true you can get a Kenko or Tamron TC for considerably less than the Nikon 1.7, but I don't believe they'll report the true EXIF data for aperture and focal length, as the Nikon does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Sprunger

While the lens compatibility chart says an f/4 lens won't auto-focus with a 1.7 TC, many of us know full well that it will auto-focus in good light.

---

Agreed, while I don't own that lens I have used it for a few days. With the 1.7 TC autofocus was fine right up to when the lighting started to fail. But, at the time it started hunting, a lot of other lenses do also.

Thanks so much Ron and Fred....
Apart from incorrect EXIF data, will there be any IQ problem if I use Kenko or Tamron TC (though I do not think Kenko manufactures any 1.7x, not sure about Tamron)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Roy Choudhury

Thanks so much Ron and Fred....
Apart from incorrect EXIF data, will there be any IQ problem if I use Kenko or Tamron TC (though I do not think Kenko manufactures any 1.7x, not sure about Tamron)?

---

Maybe Ron can answer your question, as I can't. I've only used Nikon TCs, and have no experience with the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred Canter

Maybe Ron can answer your question, as I can't. I've only used Nikon TCs, and have no experience with the others.

---

Thanks Fred, hope Ron will pay a repeat visit to this thread :)

Roy, I've never shot the Tamron, but I just traded a buddy of mine for the Sigma 150-500mm OS in the Nikon mount. I shot this lens for about a month this past year for the latter part of the whitetail rut here in Alabama, and was very happy with the results. So I ended up trading my buddy for the lens. It is a bit heavy, the AF can be slow, and the OS makes some noise-but for the money it will suit my needs until I can save up the money for a supertelephoto prime.

Here is an image of a button buck from early February. There were some other deer one the other side of the field, but he came out close to the stand and I couldn't resist grabbing a shot or two of him. Granted, this isn't a BIF shot but it was a real test for me in low light conditions-which is the way I end up shooting a lot of the time. The only processing I've done is a touch of sharpening after the crop.

Nikon D700, Sigma 150-500mm @500mm, ISO 2500, f/8, 1/200 s, tripod, remote release

Here is the original image, I'll post the crop in a minute.

Here is a hefty crop of the image above. Best of luck with your decision.

Morteza Nemati posted an image of a Somber Tit a while ago, taken apparently with the 50-500 at 500mm. Looks pretty good to me.

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...594-Somber-Tit

Thanks Jason, lovely shots....

Will it be possible for you to post the 100% crop of the eye region?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Roy Choudhury

Thanks so much Ron and Fred....
Apart from incorrect EXIF data, will there be any IQ problem if I use Kenko or Tamron TC (though I do not think Kenko manufactures any 1.7x, not sure about Tamron)?

---

I have only the Tamron 1.4 SP, and it delivers excellent IQ. Can't really tell the difference between it and the Nikon, except for the missing EXIF. I have a couple old Vivitar 2x that I use with my AI lenses, and they also are very good. I can't really test the Vivitars on the 200-400, which has no aperture ring (G lens). I debated a while before getting the Nikon TCs, because they cannot be mounted on any lenses not on the list, but ultimately decided to get them and haven't regretted it. It was definitely a wallet shock, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S Roy Choudhury

Thanks so much Ron and Fred....
Apart from incorrect EXIF data, will there be any IQ problem if I use Kenko or Tamron TC (though I do not think Kenko manufactures any 1.7x, not sure about Tamron)?

---

Well, in my original response to this I said I'd not been able to tell the difference between Nikon and Tamron 1.4 TCs. I'm going to take that back big time right now. I just went out on the back porch and shot a series of the same shot with the Nikon 200-400 at 400mm without TC, with Nikon 1.4 TC, and with Tamron 1.4 TC. Hadn't tried the Tamron on that lens before. The loss of sharpness on that lens is actually very dramatic. I could send you the images if you want, but really there is no comparison. Test done on a tripod, same focus point in center of a marigold, remote release used in MUP mode to avoid vibration. Two shots in each configuration, and the difference is obvious looking at the NEFs in Bridge.

Seeing that, I can't recommend the Tamron 1.4x with a Nikon professional quality lens like the 300 f/4. Sorry about that.

Ron

That's all right Ron, I was wondering also.....
Though I would say that you should try Kenko Pro 300 series TCs, these are very highly regarded amongst photographers for their sharpness...

Hi folks

Thanks a lot for your help, and after waiting for some months for a second hand one to surface (in proper condition and good price), I ultimately bit the bullet and bought the Nikkor AF-S 300mm D f4 IF ED, which seems to be the unanimous choice in terms of IQ. I have put on hold of my plan to buy a TC till I can save enough to buy a original Nikon 1.4x one which seems to be nearly of the same price as the Kenko Pro 300 1.4x DGx TC.

Robert O'Toole just brought one of the new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS lenses to Alaska to shoot eagles. I'm eagerly awaiting his review as to how it performs with TC's. He sent me a sneak-peak image which is very impressive.

If it does well with retained decent AF when you put on a 2X, it might be the solution some of us are looking for who cannot afford the longer lenses.

Quote:

---

Robert O'Toole just brought one of the new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS lenses to Alaska to shoot eagles. I'm eagerly awaiting his review as to how it performs with TC's. He sent me a sneak-peak image which is very impressive.

If it does well with retained decent AF when you put on a 2X, it might be the solution some of us are looking for who cannot afford the longer lenses.

---

Sadly, this lens is much costlier than 300 f4 and apart from larger aperture, I am not sure whether it is going to offer better IQ than 300 f4 at 300mm end...Let's see what Robert O'Toole has to say...

Yes, it is much costlier than the 300/4, but FAR less expensive than the 300/2.8 (even a used Mk I version) or the 500/4. It may not have better IQ than the 300/4, but you can't retain AF on a crop sensor camera if you put a 2X on the 300/4. I'm awaiting Robert's review eagerly.