Looking for a super telephoto. I have a few in mind...

[Markw]

Hi all. Once again, Im on the prowl for a super telephoto. I was thinking about the following combinations:

Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM ~$850
Sigma 50-500mm F/4-6.3 APO EX D HSM ~$750
Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) ~$750
Nikon 300mm F/4 ED-IF + 2x Tamron SP 300F-FNS ~$600

I want to focus on optical quality instead of just length. That is my reason for posting it here. I was just going to buy the BOSma and call it a day. It has everything I would want and is said to have superb quality. However, I didn't put much thought into the Tamron because of its lack of VC. I realized that it would be better for me to use a pod and get wonderful photos than to be able to hand-hold the camera and get alright photos.

After seeing this, the price tag and image quality started looking better and better to me. Looking a little further, I was looking into the Nikon 300mm F/4. The photos produced by this are very nice for the price and I didnt know if this lens + a TC would produce better photos than the superzooms.

Any advice/other solutions would be wonderful. The longest piece of kit I own is the Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8D. I miss the length of my 70-300, and that was still a tad short at most times.

Thanks,
Mark

 

[table1349]

You want top quality in a super telephoto this is it. AF-S NIKKOR 400mm f/2.8G ED VR from Nikon

 

[Light Artisan]

No, this one:

597306 Sigma APO 200mm - 500mm f/2.8 / 400-1000mm f/5.6 EX DG Autofocus Zoom Lens for the Nikon AF-D Digital Camera - USA Warranty

But the prices are a bit off.

I'm leaning toward the Bigma myself, seen some great images come from it.

 

[chito beach]

Sigma 150-500mm F/5-6.3 DG OS HSM ~$850
Sigma 50-500mm F/4-6.3 APO EX D HSM ~$750
Tamron AF 200-500mm f/5.0-6.3 Di LD SP FEC (IF) ~$750

I have used these 3.........I kept the 50-500mm...Sharper images at 500mm than the other 2

 

[Markw]

Well..it was meant as a serious thread. I want the best quality of the combinations I listed...or other realistic combinations under $1k.

Chito, do you happen to have any examples?

Mark

 

[Light Artisan]

I was serious, I said I was leaning toward the Bigma myself - Chito agreed.

Granted the lens in the link I posted would be pretty sweet.

 

[Markw]

Thanks. Sorry about that. Have you ever used any of these lenses?

Mark

 

[chito beach]

Well..it was meant as a serious thread. I want the best quality of the combinations I listed...or other realistic combinations under $1k.

Chito, do you happen to have any examples?

Mark

From the Bigma yes the other Sigma maybe the Tamron I dont think I kept any

the only pic I could find from the Tamron (I think)

Sigma 150-500mm

Sorry no BIF with the Bigma this will have to do

 

[Markw]

The photos you posted most definately show the progression from worst to best, but granted that BIFs are much harder to shoot than a sessile eagle. Also, the noise on the eagle shot makes me think that it was sharpened an immense amount to look like that..

Mark

 

[kundalini]

I have the Nikkor 300mm f/4 + 1.7TC. Excellent lens IMO, but I don't know about a 2x TC. Without the TC, hand holding is reasonable, but adding the TC, I have to use a tripod. IQ suffers slightly and loss of light is noticable.

 

[chito beach]

The photos you posted most definately show the progression from worst to best, but granted that BIFs are much harder to shoot than a sessile eagle. Also, the noise on the eagle shot makes me think that it was sharpened an immense amount to look like that..

Mark

Smart sharpened 50% is my norm.

 

[Markw]

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 100-300mm F/4 by any chance? I have an 80-200 2.8..and I dont plan to switching for this lens, but I am just curious.

Mark

 

[orb9220]

Why not grab a Tamron or Sigma 1.4x or 1.7x for your 80-200 f2.8 AF-D first?
I had the tamron 1.4x with mine which made for a 280mm f4. But have seen other's use the 1.7x. Wouldn't touch a 2.0x tho with 2 stops of loss and more hits in Image IQ.

But if you start with getting the 1.7x then you can add the 300mm f4 down the road if the 80-200 doesn't cut it for you.
.

 

[Derrel]

Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma 100-300mm F/4 by any chance? I have an 80-200 2.8..and I dont plan to switching for this lens, but I am just curious.

Mark

I have a 100-300 f/4 HSM Sigma....it is "okay", but it is not as sharp as the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S. As far as the original choices you listed--the Tamron 200-500mm seems very light, and hand-holdable to me. To me, it's a spots lens for daylight stuff, like baseball. And an outdoor portraiture lens.

I really think a 300mm f/4 Nikon prime and 2x TC unit would be lower in quality than a decent zoom--although, to be fair, Nikon's new 2x Ashperical tele-converter has been tested by some wildlife people,and it is a VERY,very good tele-converter; far better in fact, than any 2x yet designed, at least with the higher-end Nikon primes and zooms I have seen it tested with.

 

[orb9220]

Yep thanks for mentioning Nikon's New 2.0x Derrel. As will have to keep my eye on that for future consideration. The sad thing that makes me mad. Is nikon's decision not to support the AF and AF-D crowd with their teleconverters.
.