Need a High-End Wildlife Telephoto for under $1,000

[coastalconn]

I knew my ears were ringing for a reason I have another suggestion for you. How about a Sigma 100-300 F4? I have not shot one, but I have seen stellar reviews about them. You don't loose much on the short end, you gain a stop on the long end and you could still throw on a 1.4x TC for a 420 F5.6...
Everyone raves about the Nikon 300 F4, I tried the older one a few weeks ago. It was a touch sharper than the Tamron 200-500, but it had uncorrectable

I never finished this statement Purple fringing Chromatic aberrations...

I think someone here took my advice because the next day the sigma I linked to was gone...
However, I followed my own advice and order a used Sigma 100-300 F4 today. I've read so much about it and realized it might be a good upgrade for me. So the Tamron might be for sale soon TBD

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, it will be interesting in hearing your comparison of the Sigma vs the Tamron.

My wife (BlackSheep) has the Tamron and I have the Sigma ... but we have not had a good shoot to really compare the two yet.

 

[Rafterman]

I followed my own advice and order a used Sigma 100-300 F4 today. I've read so much about it and realized it might be a good upgrade for me.

I look forward to reading your full review complete with sample images.

My new revised short list:

• Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4
  • Pros: Reputed IQ, works w/Nikon teleconverters, holds value over time, full-time manual focus, ED glass elements, built-in SWM focus
  • Cons: Most expensive of the group at ~$1,400 new, heaviest of the group at ~3.17lbs, no stabilization, tripod/monopod almost mandatory for use, impractical focal length for indoors
• Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM
  • Pros: Great for low-light situations, works w/Sigma teleconverters, versatile focal range, optical stabilization, full-time manual focus, ED glass elements, built-in HSM focus
  • Cons: Moderately expensive at ~$1,200 new, second heaviest of the group at ~3.15lbs, won't hold future value as well as a Nikon equivalent
• Nikon AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8
  • Pros: Reputed IQ, great for low-light situations, lightest of the group at ~2.87lbs, versatile focal range, ED glass elements, holds value over time
  • Cons: Moderately expensive at ~$1,100 new, no stabilization, no full-time manual focus, no built-in SWM focus, won't work with teleconverters
• Sigma 100-300mm f/4
  • Pros: Least expensive at ~$750 used (can't find new), works w/Sigma teleconverters, versatile focal range, full-time manual focus, coated elements, ED glass elements, built-in HSM focus
  • Cons: Heaviest of the group at ~3.17lbs, no stabilization, won't hold future value as well as a Nikon

 

[kundalini]

• Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4
  • Pros: Reputed IQ, works w/Nikon teleconverters, holds value over time, full-time manual focus, ED glass elements, built-in SWM focus
  • Cons: Most expensive of the group at ~$1,400 new, heaviest of the group at ~3.17lbs, no stabilization, tripod/monopod almost mandatory for use, impractical focal length for indoors

I'll respectfully disagree with the bolded text, but you did leave yourself an out by including 'almost'. After a while you get use to the weight and with a proper shooting technique you can shoot with a slower shutter speed than the recommended 1:1. I think this lens is awesome; great color, quite sharp and smooth bokeh.

 

[Rafterman]

I'll respectfully disagree with the bolded text, but you did leave yourself an out by including 'almost'. After a while you get use to the weight and with a proper shooting technique you can shoot with a slower shutter speed than the recommended 1:1.

Yeah, I definitely could have interchanged "almost mandatory" with "needed at first, but not after you get used to the weight."

The Tamron 70-300 I've got now weighs about 1.69lbs, so just over half of the 300 f/4. I've got steady hands and a good grip/breathing technique, but I'm sure a hunk of glass that big would need some practice before I could use the slower shutter speeds effectively. As an experiment, I should try using my Tamron at 300 with the VC turned off and see how slow of a shutter speed I can get to without losing sharpness.

I think this lens is awesome; great color, quite sharp and smooth bokeh.

That seems to be the general consensus, and why it's currently at the top of my list. Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate it.

I'd say the only MAJOR concerns I have with getting it are the cost and the loss of a shorter focal length. Those are the 2 factors that keep the other 3 lenses safely on the list. If things were different, and I had about $2,000 to throw around, I'd just get both the 300 f/4 for wildlife and an 85 f/1.8G for low-light situations and be done with it.

Ugh, why couldn't I just like street photography, so all I'd need is my cheap D3200 and a 35mm 1.8G?

 

[coastalconn]

Ok, you mentioned wandering around on the beach...


So that is me with the D300 and the Tamron 200-500 wandering on the beach Oh and my old D90 with the Tamron 70-300 VC

You are worried about tripods/monopods. Other than my back yard birds, 99% of my shots are handheld. I think the balance of the camera and lens is very important and no one ever talks about it...
1/30th Hand held..

deer closeup by krisinct, on Flickr

1/125th Handheld...

Eastern Female Towhee by krisinct, on Flickr

1/250th handheld... there are many in my photo stream that are below the 1/focal length rule...

Cardinal in the snow by krisinct, on Flickr

granted not every shot is perfectly sharp, but I have a pretty high keeper rate handheld. Birds are so twitchy that if you really need the VR the Odds are you will get motion blur from the bird anyways..

I wouldn't let lack of VR deter you too much from picking a lens. I had the 70-300 VC and the VC was amazing. Other than that I obviously have been using the 200-500 and lack of VR hasn't bothered me because I just got used to it..

You need to add lens #5 to your list.... Coastalconn's POTY Tamron 200-500 $575 shipped and an 85 1.8 $375 from KEH and your still under budget j/k...

 

[Derrel]

Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM...make sure it actually will FOCUS reliably with whatever Nikon you have. If you have a "new" Nikon, there's a decent chance the lens will not focus correctly, since many of these are older lenses, and with the Nikon D200, Nikon severely "broke" the AF-S focusing protocol for a lot of older, third-party lenses. Just as Nikon encrypted RAW white balance information beginning with the D2x, so Adobe software can NOT read the WB data, but only "guess" at it, so too with a lot of older, third party lenses that use an "imitation AF-S" protocol, like Sigma's HSM protocol...my 100-300 f/4 EX HSM and 180 APO-Macro EX HSM Sigma both had terrible problems with D2x and newer class Nikon bodies. In other words, make sure you get a NEWER version of the 100-300, not an oldie...

Nikon does not provide independent lens makers with any information on anything...those companies have to reverse engineer everything...and if you want automatic in-camera chromatic aberration correction on JPEG files...and so on???? Better make sure it's a Nikkor lens on your newer Nikon camera. I'm not saying the 100-300 is a bad lens...just that there is a chance that there "could be" issues with older lenses. I have not tried the Sigma 100-300/4 EX HSM that I own on any of the very-newest bodies, but Nikon DID change the autofocus switch system located on the body fairly recently. I am not sure if "older" Sigma lenses can be re-chipped to bring them up to compliance with the very-newest Nikon bodies. My problems with the 100-300 and the 180 EX HSM MAcro were with weird focus hunting behaviors, under relatively "normal", everyday shooting situations...the lenses would just...bug out..and would radically mis-focus, often on relatively normal, ordinarily easy to focus subject matter. For sports, the 100-300's tendency to back focus by 10,15,or even 20 meters distance made it simply impossible to rely upon in autofocus mode.

Here is a test result that matches my experience with the 100-300; possibly a decentered element. One side of the lens performing poorly. Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG HSM APO (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

As they note, the 70-300 VR Nikkor is sharper, and has more CA, and does not have the constant aperture...but then again, you can find 70-300 VF's for, well...I payed $349 used for mine... I hate to rain on somebody's lens buying parade, but my experience with Sigma has not been without quality control issues and odd performance issues.

 

[SamSpade1941]

Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM...make sure it actually will FOCUS reliably with whatever Nikon you have. If you have a "new" Nikon, there's a decent chance the lens will not focus correctly, since many of these are older lenses, and with the Nikon D200, Nikon severely "broke" the AF-S focusing protocol for a lot of older, third-party lenses. Just as Nikon encrypted RAW white balance information beginning with the D2x, so Adobe software can NOT read the WB data, but only "guess" at it, so too with a lot of older, third party lenses that use an "imitation AF-S" protocol, like Sigma's HSM protocol...my 100-300 f/4 EX HSM and 180 APO-Macro EX HSM Sigma both had terrible problems with D2x and newer class Nikon bodies. In other words, make sure you get a NEWER version of the 100-300, not an oldie...

Nikon does not provide independent lens makers with any information on anything...those companies have to reverse engineer everything...and if you want automatic in-camera chromatic aberration correction on JPEG files...and so on???? Better make sure it's a Nikkor lens on your newer Nikon camera. I'm not saying the 100-300 is a bad lens...just that there is a chance that there "could be" issues with older lenses. I have not tried the Sigma 100-300/4 EX HSM that I own on any of the very-newest bodies, but Nikon DID change the autofocus switch system located on the body fairly recently. I am not sure if "older" Sigma lenses can be re-chipped to bring them up to compliance with the very-newest Nikon bodies. My problems with the 100-300 and the 180 EX HSM MAcro were with weird focus hunting behaviors, under relatively "normal", everyday shooting situations...the lenses would just...bug out..and would radically mis-focus, often on relatively normal, ordinarily easy to focus subject matter. For sports, the 100-300's tendency to back focus by 10,15,or even 20 meters distance made it simply impossible to rely upon in autofocus mode.

Here is a test result that matches my experience with the 100-300; possibly a decentered element. One side of the lens performing poorly. Sigma Lens: Zooms - Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG HSM APO (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

As they note, the 70-300 VR Nikkor is sharper, and has more CA, and does not have the constant aperture...but then again, you can find 70-300 VF's for, well...I payed $349 used for mine... I hate to rain on somebody's lens buying parade, but my experience with Sigma has not been without quality control issues and odd performance issues.

That explains a lot why my Nikon lenses focus perfectly and my Tamron lens hunts for focus on occasion.

 

[coastalconn]

No worries Derrel, If it sucks I can send it back to KEH. I have read more positive reviews than negative. I have also noticed Canon users have it tougher than Nikon Users with 3rd party lenses.. Not that MTF charts are the end all, but the sigma 100-300 with a 1.4 tc has slightly more resolution than the 70-300 fwiw. Hopefully I will get a "good" copy

 

[Rafterman]

So that is me with the D300 and the Tamron 200-500 wandering on the beach

That's quite the rig you have there! Great setup for sure, but I guess I should have been more specific about how light I really like to travel on the beach: board shorts, sunglasses, boonie hat, camera (w/simple strap) and that's it.

You are worried about tripods/monopods. Other than my back yard birds, 99% of my shots are handheld. I think the balance of the camera and lens is very important and no one ever talks about it...

(snip)

I have a pretty high keeper rate handheld. Birds are so twitchy that if you really need the VR the Odds are you will get motion blur from the bird anyways... I wouldn't let lack of VR deter you too much from picking a lens.

Those are some great shots! Thanks for sharing. :thumbsup: I'm not dwelling too much on the "VR or no VR" thing. Obviously, photogs got sharp shots before VR was created and a fast enough shutter speed will freeze just about anything anyway.

You need to add lens #5 to your list.... j/k...

No you're not.

Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM...make sure it actually will FOCUS reliably with whatever Nikon you have. If you have a "new" Nikon, there's a decent chance the lens will not focus correctly, since many of these are older lenses, and with the Nikon D200, Nikon severely "broke" the AF-S focusing protocol for a lot of older, third-party lenses.

(snip)

In other words, make sure you get a NEWER version of the 100-300, not an oldie...

Thanks Derrel. I'll definitely take that into consideration. Kris's feedback on the 100-300 f/4 will definitely help minimize any risk for me. It's easier when someone else is the guinea pig! If money were no object and I really wanted to go 3rd party, I'd pick up Sigma's brand new 120-300mm f/2.8 for $3,600. Then again, for that kind of cash, I'd go w/Nikon glass anyway.

 

[dxqcanada]

Not that MTF charts are the end all, but the sigma 100-300 with a 1.4 tc has slightly more resolution than the 70-300 fwiw. Hopefully I will get a "good" copy

I was not happy with the Sigma 1.4x EX APO on my Sigma (which is why I am selling it) ... possibly the newer EX DG APO is better.

 

[coastalconn]

@ Rafterman, My strap is pretty hard core I got a cheap $15 "dual camera strap from fleabay and went the the hardware store and got 2 bolts and a few washers and it is bolted to my camera and tripod foot So yes I walk around with $1000+ in gear on a $15 strap
@dxqcanada I have a Tamron SP pro 1.4x that is the same as the Kenko (5 elements) and a Kenko 300 Pro DG 2x. I don't have high hopes but I will give them a shot. The both worked pretty well with the Older Nikon 300 F4, of course the 2x took about 2 minutes to focus, lol...
@ Derrel, I did message several people that shoot the same lens on the D300 and they haven't had issues, but time will tell...

It will be here tomorrow but I'm working like 22 hours in the next 2 days... boooo. the life of a chef. But I should make it out sunday night for an hour before the suns sets and I will be out ALL day monday. I'm up to 5 Ospreys nest that are active within 6 miles of my house and more to find

 

[dxqcanada]

I'm up to 5 Ospreys nest that are active within 6 miles of my house and more to find

You suck !!

 

[coastalconn]

.. My problems with the 100-300 and the 180 EX HSM MAcro were with weird focus hunting behaviors, under relatively "normal", everyday shooting situations...the lenses would just...bug out..and would radically mis-focus, often on relatively normal, ordinarily easy to focus subject matter. For sports, the 100-300's tendency to back focus by 10,15,or even 20 meters distance made it simply impossible to rely upon in autofocus mode.

Exactly what I got! Back to KEH it goes. I have had many cheap crappy lenses and I have never encountered anything like I did trying out the Sigma 100-300 F4 today. It was just straight out bizarre, no matter how simple the subject it was just wah-wah-wah back and forth, back and forth... NO go on a D300 or a D200!

Rafterman cross it off your list!

 

[dxqcanada]

Hmm, is it the HSM ?
The Minolta A-mount version is not available with HSM, so I cannot comment on that.