HELP!

A

alvernrabbit

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, I'm Liz and new to the forum. I recently upgraded from a Sony A100 to a Nikon D300 with 18-200mm, which I'm very pleased with generally. However, I am particularly keen on getting into bird photography ( previously I took some decent shots with a Sigma 70-300mm)and therefore need to get a longer lens. I can't afford a 2.8 so it comes down to Nikon 300mm F4 with no VR or the 80-400 zoom with, with a Sigma 50-500 (again no VR) as a cheaper alternative. Can anyone offer advice or comments on the dilemma of a wider aperture versus the VR zoom with 5.6. The Sigma seems to have
good reviews, but is heavy and no stabilization. A teleconverter could be the answer but again a compromise.
I am in a absolute dilemma so any help would be appreciated from experienced bird photographers. I do have a decent tripod and remote.
Cheers
 
I agree with Joe

but i have the 1.7 with my 300f4 that gives 510 f6.7
 
Welcome to TP, Liz.

This question is much more difficult than it should be. It's an area where Nikon definitely seem to lag Canon, in my opinion.

Canon would offer you:
* 300mm f/4 L IS
* 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS
* 400mm f/5.6 L

The Nikon 300mm f/4 doesn't have VR; the AF 80-400mm VR doesn't focus anywhere near as quickly as the Canon 100-400; and Nikon simply have nothing comparable to the 400L which is optimised for birds in flight.

Of course Nikon have the amazing 200-400mm f/4 VR, but it's horribly expensive. And big and heavy.

I think the least bad option is probably the 300/4 with some flavour of teleconverter. (And try not to compare notes with your friends who have Canons!)
 
Another vote for the Nikon 300mm F4 and 1.4 TC.

It really does work well with the D300

I have this combo and in good light with a reasonable iso set it's perfectly possible to handhold.

I'll be after a 1.7 soon as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top