I am interested in buying a long lens for shooting some wildlife. I am considering whether to get the sigma 50-500 or to go for the nikon 300 f4 and use a 1.4 converter. Is there much difference in picture quality between the 2, will the lesser focal length of the nikon + converter be a disadvantage for shooting wildlife, not sure which way to go, would like to hear opinions from people who have or have used these lenses. Will be used with a nikon d90.
lens comparison
- Thread starter jewbs
- Start date
Pandster1981
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 161
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
I haven't used either but a consideration for this kind of focal length is weight. From what I've read the Sigma 50-500 is very big and heavy so not exactly a walk around lens!
scottthehat
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,290
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
both lenses will do a great job but the nikon and tc will be less flexible.
are you looking at the 50-500mm os or non os version, its a 2kg lens but i carry mine all day with no probs on my d300 gripped.
are you looking at the 50-500mm os or non os version, its a 2kg lens but i carry mine all day with no probs on my d300 gripped.
JohnN
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,359
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sadly I don't know the 300 f4 not having a Nikon, however the 50-500 OS is a great lens, OS is very strong, I only ever handhold and have no real issues also the x10 range is very handy.
IQ is also very good, if you like take a look at my flickr account and check my sets - theres one for the 50-500 OS with loads of images to check.
IQ is also very good, if you like take a look at my flickr account and check my sets - theres one for the 50-500 OS with loads of images to check.
rob-nikon
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,077
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I had the same choice when I was looking for a lens for wildlife. I've not used the sigma so can't really comment on it, in the end I went for the nikon 300mm f4.
The nikon 300mm f4 is a great lens, its very sharp both with and without the 1.4 tc. i was previously using a nikon 70-300mm vr lens. I looked through my photos and found I used my zoom lens out at 300mm most the time, where its not at its best. The faster aperture is also useful for me as I usually try to be out for sunrise or sunset, the quality of the low light adds a little extra to the shot. Being able to drop the aperture down to get a faster shutter does come in handy at times. i use my 300mm for everything wildlife wise, its constantly attached to my camera. If I need extra focal length I attach the 1.4 TC. The 300mm f4 is probably one of the best nikon lenses for the money, it hasn't been updated with vr like the others but its still a great lens. Have a look on Flickr to see the images that people take with it, the quality is stunning and very inspiring too.
Whether a prime is right for you or not really depends on you, if you already have a zoom lens try using only one focal length to see how you get on. I do sometimes worry I may miss a shot once in a while by not being able to zoom out, but i find I think more about my positioning and composition now I only use a prime lens. I'm not going to say you can zoom with your legs like some say as its not always possible to do.
i feel the choice is down to which is best for you: a longer but slower zoom lens or shorter but faster prime lens that takes a TC well. which is best for you is down to your personal choice, the best lens will always the one you are going to take with you and use and not leave at home.
TBH you cant go far wrong with either lens, both seem to be equally good. Which ever lens you get, go out and enjoy using it.
The nikon 300mm f4 is a great lens, its very sharp both with and without the 1.4 tc. i was previously using a nikon 70-300mm vr lens. I looked through my photos and found I used my zoom lens out at 300mm most the time, where its not at its best. The faster aperture is also useful for me as I usually try to be out for sunrise or sunset, the quality of the low light adds a little extra to the shot. Being able to drop the aperture down to get a faster shutter does come in handy at times. i use my 300mm for everything wildlife wise, its constantly attached to my camera. If I need extra focal length I attach the 1.4 TC. The 300mm f4 is probably one of the best nikon lenses for the money, it hasn't been updated with vr like the others but its still a great lens. Have a look on Flickr to see the images that people take with it, the quality is stunning and very inspiring too.
Whether a prime is right for you or not really depends on you, if you already have a zoom lens try using only one focal length to see how you get on. I do sometimes worry I may miss a shot once in a while by not being able to zoom out, but i find I think more about my positioning and composition now I only use a prime lens. I'm not going to say you can zoom with your legs like some say as its not always possible to do.
i feel the choice is down to which is best for you: a longer but slower zoom lens or shorter but faster prime lens that takes a TC well. which is best for you is down to your personal choice, the best lens will always the one you are going to take with you and use and not leave at home.
TBH you cant go far wrong with either lens, both seem to be equally good. Which ever lens you get, go out and enjoy using it.
Last edited:
Thanks for the replies, I already have the 70-300 mm vr but i find as said above its on maximum zoom and i struggle to get close enough to the wildlife i want to shoot hence the thought of getting something longer. If i get the nikon i will def get the 1.4 tc to use with it. Next step is a trip to my local shop to get my hands on them and have a play. More comments still welcome though.
scottthehat
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,290
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In terms of pcture qualtiy i would put my 50-500mm os in the same league as my nikon 70-200mm and 28-70mm f2.8,
It my fav lens.
It my fav lens.
Phil Young
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
scottthehat said:
@ 500mm wide open?
Wouldn't mind seeing sold pics if so!
scottthehat
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,290
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
phil at 500mm wide open its sharp enough for prints mate no problem there.
wide open
just some diffrent ones.
I have printed photos of bigger than 18x12 and also had canvas done at 30x16
scottthehat
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,290
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
also this from a d300 12mp and the sigma.
original
crop.
original
crop.
Phil Young
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,584
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
scottthehat said:
Very Impressive Scott.
Sigma annoy me with their QC. I want to buy another long zoom but when I do it will definitely be used and from instead such as these.
scottthehat
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,290
- Name
- scott
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Phil I totaly agree the qc can be bad, i had a couple 150-500mm (on diffrent accasions)
1st was a dog and went back to sigma 5 times it was like it had a layer of vasoline on it.
but i have had 4 sigma 170-500 lenses and all where top, and i waish they would do an os version as its a cracking lens.
when i brought the 50-500mm os i tried 3 shop and 5 lenses and brought the best one the others where all very very good but the one i got just seemed a tad sharper.
I will happily shot wide open at 500mm if need be.
heres some more shots.
1st was a dog and went back to sigma 5 times it was like it had a layer of vasoline on it.
but i have had 4 sigma 170-500 lenses and all where top, and i waish they would do an os version as its a cracking lens.
when i brought the 50-500mm os i tried 3 shop and 5 lenses and brought the best one the others where all very very good but the one i got just seemed a tad sharper.
I will happily shot wide open at 500mm if need be.
heres some more shots.
