What super telephoto zoom is better?

Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
674
Location
Springfield, OR
I currently have a 70-300 vr but it doesn't have enough reach for what I shoot.

I am leaning towards the Sigma 150-500 os but am still looking at the Nikon 80-400 vr.

Also any other super telephoto zoom recommendations welcome.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
1,112
Location
Jacksonville & Melbourne
I currently have a 70-300 vr but it doesn't have enough reach for what I shoot.

I am leaning towards the Sigma 150-500 os but am still looking at the Nikon 80-400 vr.

Also any other super telephoto zoom recommendations welcome.
Depends on your budget. If you can afford the 200-400 f4 vr from nikon then that is probably the best. Also the sigma 120-300 f2.8 is quite good and you can the sigma 1.4x TC for a bit more reach. Both thse are heavy much more than the 70-300 and 150-500. Also dont forget the sigma 120-400.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
674
Location
Springfield, OR
Depends on your budget. If you can afford the 200-400 f4 vr from nikon then that is probably the best. Also the sigma 120-300 f2.8 is quite good and you can the sigma 1.4x TC for a bit more reach. Both thse are heavy much more than the 70-300 and 150-500. Also dont forget the sigma 120-400.
Don't tempt me with the 200-400! I'm 16 so that's way out of my price range.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
6,374
Location
Alabama
If you are looking for a super tele, I would get the Sigma 100-300 f4 with a converter over any sigma whatever to 500mm. If budget is not a problem, the Sigma 120-300 with a TC is a good combo. Not as sharp as the Nikon prime, but is more versatile.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
674
Location
Springfield, OR
If you are looking for a super tele, I would get the Sigma 100-300 f4 with a converter over any sigma whatever to 500mm. If budget is not a problem, the Sigma 120-300 with a TC is a good combo. Not as sharp as the Nikon prime, but is more versatile.
The Sigma 120-300 is out of my price range and I want OS or VR if it is not
f2.8. Thanks for the suggestion though!
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
383
Location
Metrowest. MA
If you do not need to sell the 70-300

I would suggest looking at the Nikon 300 f/4 AFS. It takes a TC 1.4 very well and has really good IQ capabilities. It leaves you a little less flexible at the long end, but it does give you a high quality solution for a reasonable price.

I currently have a 70-300 vr but it doesn't have enough reach for what I shoot.

I am leaning towards the Sigma 150-500 os but am still looking at the Nikon 80-400 vr.

Also any other super telephoto zoom recommendations welcome.
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
20,980
Location
South Florida
Depends on what you want to shoot, and budget of course. If you want BIF, I'd use the 300/4. Not a zoom but an excellent lens, and my primary BIF lens. If you want reach for more stationary subjects, or for the zoo, the 80-400VR, though old is a very good lens. AF is not too fast but IQ is excellent.

The Nikon 200-400 is too expensive ,and too heavy, so the two I mentioned were my choices,and am happy with both.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
674
Location
Springfield, OR
Most wildlife photography I do is early in the morning. So I really use VR. I have been looking at the 300 f4 . What version do you have?
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,122
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Early morning is a problem with all these lenses because of their 5.6 (or even slower) aperture.

Optically, the Nikon 300 f/4 AF-S with the TC-14E beats any other lens in this category, unless you can afford a used 300/2.8 AF-S (which you won't be able to find for under $2000).

But you will need a tripod in lower light unless you have VR/OS, and you will be restricted to relatively stationary subjects because you can't get the shutter speed up.

If you can't or don't want to use a tripod, I'd recommend the 80-400 VR. It's old and focuses slowly, but it has excellent IQ at 400mm if you stop down to at least f/7.1. Better than the Sigma alternatives, IMO.

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
3,086
Location
NJ
Well, one way to help out with the light issue in the morning is to use a Better Beamer. It gives you a smidge more shutter speed and great results.

The 80-400 VR is great for "slower" Wildlife, I'd go with that, it's very sharp.

If you want a prime, get a 300 f/4 AF-S and use it with or without a TC depending on the lighting conditions. Great lens, super sharp, and shake isn't an issue with a monopod.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
674
Location
Springfield, OR
Well, one way to help out with the light issue in the morning is to use a Better Beamer. It gives you a smidge more shutter speed and great results.

The 80-400 VR is great for "slower" Wildlife, I'd go with that, it's very sharp.

If you want a prime, get a 300 f/4 AF-S and use it with or without a TC depending on the lighting conditions. Great lens, super sharp, and shake isn't an issue with a monopod.
I'm not quite ready to get a flash yet.

If I get the 80-400 VR should I sell my 70-300 VR?
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
962
Location
Germany, near Duesseldorf
Hi,

if you can afford the 200-400/4, go for it. It is the best long zoom available at the moment.

The Sigma 150-500 is much better than the old Nikon 80-400 I tested. The AF is faster, the IQ is better, and it's 100 mm more reach. The 80-400 is just too old, I guess. It was among the first VR lenses from Nikon, together with the 24-120.

Maybe there will be a new AF-S-Version of Nikons 80-400, but nobody knows for sure. I can highly recommend the Sigma 150-500, which I use since more than a year on D300, D2Xs, D700 and D3.

Regards

Mattes
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom