Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: upgrading from a 70-300 to... ?

  1. #1
    Jeroen Wijnands
    Guest

    Default upgrading from a 70-300 to... ?

    I'm quite pleased with my Nikon D300, that's not going to change. My main interest for much of the year is wildlife. I shoot fallow deer with a 70-300 and most of the time that works out well. I got the fieldcraft skills to get close enough.
    To give you some idea:









    What I find myself struggling with is birds. Shots like this:








    Are more of a challenge. In fact about 80% of the time I'll spook the bird before I get close enough. If I do get reasonably close it's often a disappointment when I crop.
    So...
    I'm thinking of getting something longer. Absolute limit of my budget is 1000 euros. It doesn't have to be new.
    My first thoughts went to the bigmas, 150-500 and 50-500 but the f6.3 at the long end and the rather mixed opinions make me a bit hesitant.

    I've also read a lot of good things on the 300mm f4 and a TC but that lens is out of my budget new and the very few that do appear on the used gear market are often about the same price as a new 150-500. I'm also looking into a used sigma 400mm f5.6. I also do wonder if the step from 300mm to 400-420mm (300 + 1.4 TC) will bring enough benefits to justify the costs.


    I do know Nikon makes excellent 500 and 600mm primes but these are just too expensive for me.

  2. #2
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Nashua, New Hampshire, United States
    Posts
    1,280
    Threads
    260
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    The Nikon 300 f/4 has IQ that you probably won't get in the Sigma zooms, but there may be Sigma owners that will want to argue with that.

  3. #3
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Irvine, CA, USA
    Posts
    358
    Threads
    24
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I also do wonder if the step from 300mm to 400-420mm (300 + 1.4 TC) will bring enough benefits to justify the costs.
    I've been shooting birds with a 400mm lens for the past year, and although I've gotten some nice images, most of the time the lens has been too short. There are ways to get closer to birds (such as using a hide) or getting the birds to come closer to you (baiting them), but if you plan to shoot wild birds in a wild setting -- and want high image quality -- you're going to have to use a long lens: 500mm or greater.

    If you're not ready to invest the money in a long lens, a reasonable alternative is renting one when needed.

    John

  4. #4
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    285
    Threads
    57
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Sigma do a 500 4.5 prime which is a 'cheap' entry into long lens. IQ is great. Try before you buy though, mine had to go back to Sigma for focusing issues from new though now I'm extremely happy with it.

  5. #5
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Taunton MA
    Posts
    1,247
    Threads
    175
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    with not much money to spend Initially I would go with the 50-500 Sigma (the new one) it works well, but not as good as the Nikon 500 f4 but the cost differential is great I have both and when I am on bird watch trips or longer hikes I use the 50-500 for its portability only problem the TC for it is only manual focus. I also have the 300 Nikon f4 which In us e with a 1.4 x TC for BIF without problems

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myer Bornstein View Post
    with not much money to spend Initially I would go with the 50-500 Sigma (the new one) it works well, but not as good as the Nikon 500 f4 but the cost differential is great I have both and when I am on bird watch trips or longer hikes I use the 50-500 for its portability only problem the TC for it is only manual focus. I also have the 300 Nikon f4 which In us e with a 1.4 x TC for BIF without problems
    Meyer,
    As you have both, I would bet the 300 f/4 + 1.4x TC records more detail on a subject than the 50-500 zoom, using the same camera at the same distance. Can you confirm that? A zoom with a 10x zoom range can't be very sharp.

    Roger

  7. #7
    Jeroen Wijnands
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Kes View Post
    A friend of mine purchased a 150-500 for his Nikon gear and has not complained once. Price/Performance is quite good, but wildlife is just a part of his interest. The prime super-tele lenses are just unbeatable. Are you prepared (and able) to bite the bullet, then you will never regret getting one.

    Well... My wife's car had to be replaced and that was just about as much as a 500mm nikon would have cost. Honestly, it's a hobby and on my pay I just can't justify laying out 7000 euros for a lens. I know they are excellent but unless I win a lottery it's not going to happen.

    Thanks everyone for the responses.

    one additional question, does anyone know if there is much optical difference between the 300mm f4 and the 300mm f4 AF-S?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics