Birding lens: Nikon 300mm f/4 +TCs or third party 150-600mm?

G

guess&press

Suspended / Banned
Messages
310
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to upgrade from my current Sigma 150-500 on a D7100. The purist in me says get the 300mm plus a TC (the 1.4 version of which is actually already bought). It nearly feels like a no-brainer, but I've noticed some people on here have swapped that setup for the Sigma or Tamron zooms instead. So, which way should I go?
 
with the 300mm you have f4 at 300mm or with the TC14Ell 420mm at f5.6 ……… the only pity is that it is not a VR lens (yet) …… and it only weights less than 1.5kgs

In f4 light it is deemed to be as good as the 300mm f2.8 at f4

The Tamron 150 - 600mm weights about the same has VR but is a f5.6/f6.3 lens

similar prices within £200

I reckon that it really depends on shooting conditions, (available light) ………. the 300mm f4 is as good at f4 as it is at f8

Also tripod/handheld use is something to consider ….. I have never been disappointed with the Nikon 300mm f4 ….. although I'd be happier with a 400mm f5.6 VR, (as Canon produce)
 
Last edited:
300 + 1.4 TC gives you 420mm - if that's long enough for the birding you do then it's a no brainer, (I wouldn't use it with a 1.7 or 2.0).
On the other hand if, like me, you always want more reach then the 150-600 will have great attraction ... 420 @ f5.6 verses 600 @ 6.3 :)
 
gramps said:
300 + 1.4 TC gives you 420mm - if that's long enough for the birding you do then it's a no brainer, (I wouldn't use it with a 1.7 or 2.0).
On the other hand if, like me, you always want more reach then the 150-600 will have great attraction ... 420 @ f5.6 verses 600 @ 6.3 :)
Click to expand...

plus you have VR with the Tamron, gramps
 
Dave Semmens said:
The Canon 400 f5.6 is not VR - the 300 f4 is though.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave ……… that makes me feel better as I'm a Nikon shooter … and I thought I was "missing out"

Presumably you mean the Canon 300mm f4 is VR or IS
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
300 + 1.4 TC gives you 420mm - if that's long enough for the birding you do then it's a no brainer,
On the other hand if, like me, you always want more reach then the 150-600 will have great attraction ... 420 @ f5.6 verses 600 @ 6.3 :)
Click to expand...

I'm coming to think that the bit in bold really is the key.

I shot a kestrel on a gatepost yesterday a fair distance away. A nice enough photo of record, but would extra reach have made it into something you could put up here? I don't know! And without a tripod...probably not!

And then there's the absolute sharpness vs versatility issue. I've not used a long prime lens and I do appreciate, a lot, being able to zoom. But absolute sharpness will never be delivered with a zoom. So that's a question for gramps or anyone else in that situation: how do you feel about the reach v the quality? And is 600@6.3 really viable or are you stopping down?

BillN_33 said:
plus you have VR with the Tamron, gramps
Click to expand...

A lot of bird shots seem to require fairly fast shutter speeds upwards. I've read you should turn off VR at high SS. So how much use is VR practically in birding situations? I've caught murky brown jobbies at the bottom of bushes at say 1/320 which I couldn't have done without VR, but it's mostly 1/640+, so how much are you missing out on in practice from non-VR? This may just come back to the bit in bold again but I'd be interested in personal experiences.
 
Last edited:
I have used the Tamron 150-600 at f6.3 and have some on my Flickr but I tend to use it more at f7.1/f8 - the VC is very good, though I rarely hand-hold it (beanbag or tripod) as my grip is not as good as it was when I was younger.
I'm very happy with the results and the lens is easy to carry around ... I've used the 400 f2.8 and 300-800 f5.6 and both are serious weight to carry about.

Absolute sharpness?
Well that comes with serious money, the 150-600 is sub £1k, a 600 f4 prime is going to set you back considerably more than that even secondhand!

I do not switch off VC (VR) at high shutter speed, I've never seen any evidence that it is necessary and I've shot at 1/2000 and above where I needed to with this lens.
 
gramps said:
Absolute sharpness?
Well that comes with serious money, the 150-600 is sub £1k, a 600 f4 prime is going to set you back considerably more than that even secondhand!
Click to expand...

Ah, yes of course, but I was thinking of the sharpness difference between these two setups, so (presumably) @420mm the Nikon + TC will be sharper? but the Tamron gives a lot more reach so...quandary. I think your point about how you use the camera is the thing for me to think about here.

gramps said:
I do not switch off VC (VR) at high shutter speed, I've never seen any evidence that it is necessary and I've shot at 1/2000 and above where I needed to with this lens.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you've already seen this advice, which I've recently come across e.g. here. OTOH there are forum posts saying turning it off makes things worse, so as ever with things on the web there is no universally agreed answer. I'm going to experiment to see what it does for me, though I suspect practising better long lens technique will be more signficant. A big problem with not using VR is framing the shot (and even seeing what you are shooting :)) is harder without it...
 
killy said:
The Tamron 150-600 aint to shabby

check out the link below

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0


Regards

Mike
Click to expand...

Wow. That is a thought-provoking link--thanks. (y)

All seems OK with the Nikon at 300mm; they are about the same wide open and at f/5.6 the Nikon is sharper (which shows it does benefit from stopping down, something I'd read it didn't need). But at 420mm v 400 it's way behind, the Tamron being sharper wide open than the Nikon at any aperture. Good God! And at much longer focal lengths the Tamron compares very favourably with the Nikon at 420 at what seems to be its sweet spot of f/8.

A few issues: The cameras being used are of different manufacture (and are full frame where mine's a crop). I don't seem to be able to change this. The site says the same body should be used for critical comparisions so this is already potentially an issue. Thoughts?

Beyond that I wonder how representative either chart would be of the results on a D7100. Again, any views?

Finally, the magnification of the Tamron at a given focal length is noticeably smaller (is this focus breathing, an oddity arising from the test setup or what?) but it doesn't seem to interfere with the comparison too much.

Overall though this has shaken my near conviction that I'd go Nikon, even with a 1.4 tc sitting on my desk. I'm a bit wary of how shooting charts compares to shooting small feathery things in the distance, but even so...hmmm.....

PS the Tamron also absolutely murders my current Sigma 150-500, being considerably sharper wide open at longer focal lengths than the Sigma at f/8, which it really needs to get anything decent. So that's got to go whatever happens! :)
 
Last edited:
I've used the Nikon 300 f4 and it's a good 300mm lens, put the 1.4 on it and it is still good but there is no way I would go back to it from the Tamron 150-600. For wildlife and particularly birds the 600mm is just too much of a useful tool to put aside ... in some respects it's even more useful a 600 prime as the zoom gives you scope for variation and also the ability to 'find' the subject and zoom in. :)
 
I recently met a guy who was birding and was using a Tamron 150-600 with a Nikon 7100, he kindly offered me his gear to try for a few minutes. The results on the LCD looked impressive, but that's not the same as seeing them on a computer screen so is not a fair test, it was certainly food for thought though.
I did read however, that the stabilising isn't very good on the Tamron when panning, but then that was in a magazine test report, would you agree with this or do you find it adequate for birding?
I recently sold my Canon 500 f/4 because of the weight, and I miss the reach so am seriously looking at this Tamron lens to replace it.
 
Trev I find it very suitable for birding ... don't get me wrong, it doesn't have the IQ of my old 400 f2.8 but you wouldn't expect it to, it probably won't replace your 500 f4 in IQ but it will probably get much more use as it's convenient and still has good IQ.
It's a versatile lens that is much easier to carry than a big prime and associated kit ... my other telephoto is a Sigma 300-800 and that takes specific effort to carry around and use with a gimbal and tripod, my Tamron hangs from my shoulder with the beanbag. :)
 
Having recently returned from Costa Rica where I had decided to utilise my sigma 120-300 os as the primary birding lens instead of my 500mm, never again! Get the nikon and tc14 and get pro quality results. Your findings with the sigma 150-500 mirror mine, it's decent but not in the same league as the nikon set up. I'm sure the 150-600s are good but Ive learned my lesson the hard way and from now on I'm sticking with nikon glass, it's not just sharpness, it's focusing accuracy, speed and reliability. Regarding VR, if the lights bad enough to warrant it, shoot off a monopod
 
005269 said:
Having recently returned from Costa Rica where I had decided to utilise my sigma 120-300 os as the primary birding lens instead of my 500mm, never again! Get the nikon and tc14 and get pro quality results. Your findings with the sigma 150-500 mirror mine, it's decent but not in the same league as the nikon set up. I'm sure the 150-600s are good but Ive learned my lesson the hard way and from now on I'm sticking with nikon glass, it's not just sharpness, it's focusing accuracy, speed and reliability. Regarding VR, if the lights bad enough to warrant it, shoot off a monopod
Click to expand...

Have you compared the 150-600?
 
gramps said:
Trev I find it very suitable for birding ... don't get me wrong, it doesn't have the IQ of my old 400 f2.8 but you wouldn't expect it to, it probably won't replace your 500 f4 in IQ but it will probably get much more use as it's convenient and still has good IQ.
It's a versatile lens that is much easier to carry than a big prime and associated kit ... my other telephoto is a Sigma 300-800 and that takes specific effort to carry around and use with a gimbal and tripod, my Tamron hangs from my shoulder with the beanbag. :)
Click to expand...
Cheers Gramps. When I used it, the weight was quite comfortable to hand hold which surprised me. Its understandable that a sub £1k lens wont have the IQ of a big Canon/Nikon prime, its going to be a compromise, but from what you say its a good compromise. I still have a Canon 100-400 and wont part with that, but the extra reach of the Tamron is very tempting to have as well. Thanks for your thoughts.
 
Some excellent contributions here chaps--thanks!

It looks like I'm heading for the 3rd party side--what a turnaround!--but, an outstanding issue from Mark (005269): how does the focusing performance compare? Everything I've read says the D7100 is hunky dory as far as crop bodies go so it's all on the lens...
 
Last edited:
I had no issues with the Nikon 300 + 1.4 but with the 1.7 many issues ... I have had no focusing issues with the Tamron 150-600, I've not used a Sigma 120-300 (of which there are 'old' & 'new' models).
 
pingu666 said:
wait for the sigma lenses if you can imo
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for the pointer. I was already starting to feel there was a bit of compromise with the Tamron as the Nikon is sharper at 300mm @f/5.6. I know it's only one focal length but it was bugging me and yes I do want everything! :). There's no hurry, and from early reviews it looks like the Sigmas may resolve this problem (pardon the pun). In the meantime I've decided to rent a 300mm for a while over the festive season to see what it can do.
 
Just caught up with the thread. I've found the autofocus on my D7100 to be very good for bif, certainly on a par with my d700 and a different league to my D7000. The af performance is stellar with all my nikon lenses and that is the biggest issue with my sigma, when the light is flat, low contrast or poor so is the af performance of the 120-300, more than acceptable though in good light. It was pretty much the same with my 150-500. I never get that issue with my nikon lenses, even the 70-300 VR blinds any sigma I've ever had for af performance, optically the primes outperform the zooms but not by that much, both sigma zooms I have had ( still have in the case of the 120-300) have been very good. I think that sums it up for me, when conditions are far from perfect I need the better performance of the nikkors, in good light you'll do perfectly fine with any of them, in fact at f8 they're all good.
 
And just to show you don't have to spend a fortune to get a good walk around birding lens, both these shot with a 70-300VR that I picked up for £250 used, much nicer to carry around than the 500mm VR that cost considerably more!

macaw 1 by Mark Gregory1, on Flickr 270mm (405mm equiv) iso 560 1/400s @ f5.6

pelican 2 by Mark Gregory1, on Flickr 240mm 1.2 crop mode (480mm equiv) iso 100 1/200s f5.6 fill flash
 
005269 said:
Just caught up with the thread. I've found the autofocus on my D7100 to be very good for bif, certainly on a par with my d700 and a different league to my D7000. The af performance is stellar with all my nikon lenses and that is the biggest issue with my sigma, when the light is flat, low contrast or poor so is the af performance of the 120-300, more than acceptable though in good light. It was pretty much the same with my 150-500. I never get that issue with my nikon lenses, even the 70-300 VR blinds any sigma I've ever had for af performance, optically the primes outperform the zooms but not by that much, both sigma zooms I have had ( still have in the case of the 120-300) have been very good. I think that sums it up for me, when conditions are far from perfect I need the better performance of the nikkors, in good light you'll do perfectly fine with any of them, in fact at f8 they're all good.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I'm glad to see the first highlighted comment as I vacillated over getting the D7000 or D7100 but plumped for the latter on the basis of reviews I've come to trust. Great to see them confirmed. AF is still definitely something to consider especially with the second highlighted bit in mind. Whether the next gen 3rd party lenses cut it is still something I'd like to know more about, though in their favour the Tamron is getting positive reviews on here and the new Sigmas are tbc.

The pelican shot is a corker! Though when I try to get to the original for a closer look the browser wants me to sign in to google. What's that about? o_O
 
Last edited:
For me the AF-S 300 f/4D wins. I have never used the Tamron but tried other f/5.6+ long zoom lenses.

The best thing about the 300 prime route is that you can get the converter off and have a perfect 300mm and still relatively fast aperture lens. With all the benefits pertaining to that (brighter image in the viewfinder, faster shutter time = less iso or less motion blur, better AF with more active points, etc.). The IQ of the 300 f/4D is ultimate. Sometimes you can put teleconverters on it, but it has a pure super-telephoto class quality when you use it naked.

I am sure the Tamron is a great lens. I know it is sharp. However, I wouldn't swap my 300 f/4 for any f/5.6 zoom lenses. I would rather spent time and effort trying to get closer to a bird with my f/4 lens than using a longer f/5.6-6.3 lens at distance.
 
Last edited:
guess&press said:
The pelican shot is a corker! Though when I try to get to the original for a closer look the browser wants me to sign in to google. What's that about? o_O
Click to expand...
It's listed as private when I tried to look.
 
mpe said:
For me the AF-S 300 f/4D wins. I have never used the Tamron but tried other f/5.6+ long zoom lenses.

The best thing about the 300 prime route is that you can get the converter off and have a perfect 300mm and still relatively fast aperture lens. With all the benefits pertaining to that (brighter image in the viewfinder, faster shutter time = less iso or less motion blur, better AF with more active points, etc.). The IQ of the 300 f/4D is ultimate. Sometimes you can put teleconverters on it, but it has a pure super-telephoto class quality when you use it naked.

I am sure the Tamron is a great lens. I know it is sharp. However, I wouldn't swap my 300 f/4 for any f/5.6 zoom lenses. I would rather spent time and effort trying to get closer to a bird with my f/4 lens than using a longer f/5.6-6.3 lens at distance.
Click to expand...

All excellent points. Especially given that the D7100 as a crop body isn't the king of high ISO. Much of it comes back to the question of how you go about taking shots in the first place: closer is better--if you can! Definitely have to think about this. A week's rental over xmas will tell me a lot, I hope.

Your praise for the prime is matched by the quality of your photos! Sublime stuff, and the best advert for this lens I've seen. Though I'm sure that's as much/more to do with technique, something I have a long way to go on. One thing though, do you find it's as as sharp wide open (without the t/c) as it is at f/5.6, or that the difference doesn't make a difference in practice? f/5.6 looks a lot sharper on that sharpness testing website.
 
I found the 300mm f/4 as good at f/4 as it was at f/5.6 and didn't notice hardly any different with or without the converter on ( TC-14EII ) I agree with Mirek's points above, the Tamron is a good lens but light will struggle you, at f/6.3 fully zoomed out, I know a mate of mine uses a D7100 & 150-600mm and gets some great shots with it, but this time of year when the lights craps his hit rate is low and he finds woodland birds near impossible with the setup, even if you use the 300mm with no TC you have got 420mm with the D7100 crop factor and 600mm isn't it with that 1.3x crop mode extra? Still at f/4, in the field the different between f/4 & f/6.3 for example is massive to say the least...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top