Beyond 300mm For D600

S

saruman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4
Edit My Images
No
Can anyone suggest a good lens for taking wildlife pictures. I have a Nikon 70-300 mm lens at present, so I am looking for something to supplement that. I does not necessary have to be a Nikon lens as these can be quite expensive.
 
Last edited:
Upto £1500.
 
Nikon 300 F4 along witha 1.4 and 1.7 tc.

Secondhand would come in under budget.

People will recommend the sigma zooms, if you like primes, go with the above, if not,get a Sigma 500 zoom.There are various types and I have never owned one, so cannot offer any advice sorry.
 
I also have the 70-300VR and love the versatility of that lens
stay away from Sigma 150-500 I had some very bad experiences with that one. try a Nikon 300F4 and a 1.4 teleconverter. I use that for motorsport on a D800
maybe you could also try with a longer TC but you may lose AF
Dont whatever you do put a TC on the 70-300VR, I did and the results were rubbish.
 
I've been looking at long lenses recently and for me the best Nikon option is the Sigma 120-300 OS. It is f/2.8 so you can buy a 1.4/2x tc without any issue and get 420 f/4 or 600 f/5.6 (with some image quality degradation obviously).

Nikon are severely lacking in well priced long lenses IMO and paying over £1k for a non VS 300 f/4 is stupid IMO. The OS on the 120-300 will be very useful for wildlife, especially when going long with TCs.
 
^^
that is an interesting solution but with the TC would put you above your budget unless you sell the 70-300VR to fund a few £s more.
 
Chrisbie said:
^^
that is an interesting solution but with the TC would put you above your budget unless you sell the 70-300VR to fund a few £s more.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, a used 120-300 OS goes for around £1350 from the second hand shops (mpb) and less private (if you can find one...) and a Sigma TC will be around £100-150 used. Not sure if they accept Nikon TC's or whether they would be better.

iced_jacob said:
If you like the quality from the 70-300 why not get a d7000 for half your budget to give you more reach, a spare body and some money on the side for other stuff?
Click to expand...

That would be what I currently have now and IMO it's not a real solution, the 70-300 is slow and just not up there with a good 300mm lens (I used to have the Canon 300 f/4). Maybe it would suit the OP though.

On the other hand I was going to come back and make a serious suggestion to the OP of buying a used Canon 40D and a used 300 f/4 IS or 400 f/5.6. Both would still come in under budget and the former lens (inc. camera) would be cheaper than getting the non VR Nikon... I'm seriously thinking about something similar myself...
 
Last edited:
Sigma 120-400 OS or Nikon 300 f4 with a 1.4 TC would be my two choices.
 
Amp34 said:
I've been looking at long lenses recently and for me the best Nikon option is the Sigma 120-300 OS. It is f/2.8 so you can buy a 1.4/2x tc without any issue and get 420 f/4 or 600 f/5.6 (with some image quality degradation obviously).

Nikon are severely lacking in well priced long lenses IMO and paying over £1k for a non VS 300 f/4 is stupid IMO. The OS on the 120-300 will be very useful for wildlife, especially when going long with TCs.
Click to expand...
Have you got a 300 F4?
 
I've got some great sharp photos with the Sigma 150-500 OS, even wide open at f6.3, from my Canon 5D3 and 7D. Most of the aircraft and bird photos on my Flickr page are with the lens and are SOOC with no PP.

This is one of my favourites even though the light was poor.
7493943218_79cbfae498_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
I paid extra for the image stabilisation (600mm f4) but have it turned off all time.
 
Cagey75 said:
If that wildlife stays very still, aye.
Click to expand...

Or is just gently moving around like most animals on the ground. BIF's I'd agree are different (but a decent panning ability on IS/VR/OS can definitely help that as well) but for most animals IS/VR/OS at 300mm is very useful. At 400+mm (with a TC) being able to hand hold and shoot at 1/200 without worrying about lens shake is very useful, or even better if the light is starting to fail and you need to shoot at 1/100.


drexyl said:
I paid extra for the image stabilisation (600mm f4) but have it turned off all time.
Click to expand...

Out of interest do you hand hold? If you're using it on a Monopod/tripod then it's a different ball game.
 
Last edited:
But you don`t have a Nikon F4, the lens under discussion?

I have owned a Sigma 120-300 and the have a Nikon F4, the Nikon beats the sigma at IQ,sharpness,lightness,ability to handle TCs,close focus distance,it does not need stopping down with either the 1.4 or 1.7 tc it sharp with either wide open.

For small birds,the Sigma needs a 1.4 tc to fill the frame as the close focus distance is dreadful.

The only thing the sigma has is the zoom, but for wildlife I found that I was always at 300 anyway.Saying that, I did like my Sigma,but the Nikon is just better.

VR/OS/IS or whatever you want to call it is damned near useless for fleet moving creatures. So, for me, that is a non issue.

The 120-4oo gets good reviews, that may be worth looking at as Tom suggests.
 
I've seriously never found it an advantage on a long lens.

Mine lives on a tripod which pretty much makes it redundant anyhow.
 
fracster said:
But you don`t have a Nikon F4, the lens under discussion?

I have owned a Sigma 120-300 and the have a Nikon F4, the Nikon beats the sigma at IQ,sharpness,lightness,ability to handle TCs,close focus distance,it does not need stopping down with either the 1.4 or 1.7 tc it sharp with either wide open.

For small birds,the Sigma needs a 1.4 tc to fill the frame as the close focus distance is dreadful.

The only thing the sigma has is the zoom, but for wildlife I found that I was always at 300 anyway.Saying that, I did like my Sigma,but the Nikon is just better.

VR/OS/IS or whatever you want to call it is damned near useless for fleet moving creatures. So, for me, that is a non issue.

The 120-4oo gets good reviews, that may be worth looking at as Tom suggests.
Click to expand...

I've used or tested loads of different lens/body combinations (including this one)so I'm not just spouting.

But we all have our own opinions.
 
drexyl said:
I've used or tested loads of different lens/body combinations (including this one)so I'm not just spouting.

But we all have our own opinions.
Click to expand...

I never said you were, the post was directed towards Amp34,should have quoted him, sorry for the confusion.

For the record, I bought an older 500 F4, simply because I did not want the expense of something that I would rarely use,the VR system.
 
Last edited:
No problem.

I too bought the same 500mm lens.
 
fracster said:
But you don`t have a Nikon F4, the lens under discussion?

I have owned a Sigma 120-300 and the have a Nikon F4, the Nikon beats the sigma at IQ,sharpness,lightness,ability to handle TCs,close focus distance,it does not need stopping down with either the 1.4 or 1.7 tc it sharp with either wide open.

For small birds,the Sigma needs a 1.4 tc to fill the frame as the close focus distance is dreadful.

The only thing the sigma has is the zoom, but for wildlife I found that I was always at 300 anyway.Saying that, I did like my Sigma,but the Nikon is just better.

VR/OS/IS or whatever you want to call it is damned near useless for fleet moving creatures. So, for me, that is a non issue.

The 120-4oo gets good reviews, that may be worth looking at as Tom suggests.
Click to expand...

No I don't, however the Non IS 300 f/4 is virtually identical in every important way to the Nikon, with the IS version having the addition of IS only. Which is why I find your comments very interesting comparing it to the 120-300, however you also missed out one of the other important bits, the VR/OS.

You may not like VR, however in many situations (especially when you are shooting more mobile rather than from a tripod in one place) it is very useful, which is why many people swear by it and it is standard on most new longer lenses now. Different strokes and all that.

For me, having used a couple of longer lenses without IS/VR it would be an essential part of the lens. The ability to shoot at 1/100 second hand held is very useful. Again it depends on the type of shooting with the usefulness of the zoom, if you're shooting single animals I agree, however if you want to get a herd or use the lens for landscape then the zoom would be useful. On the other hand the zoom is of lesser importance to me.

So all in all an interesting post (seriously) and it may be pushing me towards getting a Canon 300 f/4 IS and a second Canon body, cheaper, lighter and better IQ etc than the Sigma potentially.
 
To be honest mate, sorry don`t know your name, handholding a 5/600 at 1/100th, vr/os is not going to help a great deal. Unless your built like popeye on condensed spinach.........:lol:

But, if you really need VR/IS or OS, then it seems a decent plan to go the Canon route.

Like Drexyl above, mine is either rested on a bean bag or on a tripod, so VR for me is not an issue, I do understand that for others it is.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks for the replies. Combining lenses with TC's seems to be the preferred option. Therefore would the loss of upto a couple of stops depending on the TC be compensated with increased ISO. :help:
 
fracster said:
To be honest mate, sorry don`t know your name, handholding a 5/600 at 1/100th, vr/os is not going to help a great deal. Unless your built like popeye on condensed spinach.........:lol:

But, if you really need VR/IS or OS, then it seems a decent plan to go the Canon route.

Like Drexyl above, mine is either rested on a bean bag or on a tripod, so VR for me is not an issue, I do understand that for others it is.
Click to expand...

You're extrapolating from something I haven't said...

Gaining the equivalent of a stop or two at 300mm (1/100s - or getting 1/200-1/300 at 400-500mm with a 300 f/4 and TC) is what I'm talking about. Seems fairly reasonable to me (done it many a time... ;)) and it's what IS is designed for.

As you say though you appear to shoot from one spot more often than not (hides etc?) IS/VR is a lot more useful when you need to be more mobile (for example try setting up a tripod if you're trying to shoot a monkey... They don't usually sit still long enough for you to set it up!
 
saruman said:
Many thanks for the replies. Combining lenses with TC's seems to be the preferred option. Therefore would the loss of upto a couple of stops depending on the TC be compensated with increased ISO. :help:
Click to expand...

That was one of the reasons I was erring towards the Sigma 120-300 as even with a 1.4TC and 420mm of reach you're at f/4, although it appears fracster doesn't rate it very highly.
 
HDEW have the Nikon 300mm F4 for £775 and have done for quite some time. I assume it's the correct price but it does seem extremely cheap. I bought my 70-200 VRII off them for less than people on here wanted for a used lens so it is possible it's a genuine price and not a mistake.

They are grey imports but for a Nikon lens that is not a problem as they have an intl warranty.

You could also go with a second hand 70-200 and a TC which would come in under budget. Depends how much more than 300mm you want!

I have the TCE 2.0 III which I use with my 70-200 and gives very good results.

I wonder what the difference you'd see between using crop mode and the 1.4 TC? Similar focal length effect. I've seen some D800 crop results, best DX camera Nikon makes!
 
I can`t be arsed with internet claptrap anymore. buy what you want. The simple fact is that to get over 300 mm with anything decent, costs money.

Period.
You have people here commenting on lenses they have never owned, so make of that what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top