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

[amolitor]

You can buy the manual focus ones for even less. You can get an AIS 300/4.5 for under $200. Throw it is in the bag for the days when you need more reach and have the light.

 

[Rafterman]

did you rule out an older ED AF nikkor 300mm f/4? easily under 1k used.

Wow, KEH has one in EX condition for just $485! I'm concerned with the focus speed though since it's a screw-drive lens. Anyone have any experience with that one? Plus, it weighs 3-pounds. Yikes!

 

[pixmedic]

We had the ed af nikkor 300mm f4 for a while. Wish i had kept it sometimes. Its a big lens, but the focusing wasnt that terribly slow. I had a terrible time with it handheld. Maybe just needed some practice. Image quality was good as well. On a tripod i found the focusing just fine, and was sharp even wide open

 

[KmH]

High-end telephoto generally means 'fast'. Fast telephotos are heavy.

The $1000 or so 3rd party 150 or 200 mm to 500 zooms are not high-end, but given sufficient light perform well for the cost.

With some AF lenses, Nikon's screw-drive focus system is noticeably faster than in-the-lens focus motors.

 

[coastalconn]

The older 300 F4 is a very good lens. I returned mine to KEH because the AF switch was stuck. It takes TC's pretty well. I think it is light (everyone else thinks it's a tank) but I'm used to big lenses. I mentioned before purple fringing was out of control in back lit shots, and it is slow to focus but the limiter helps. These should be the good shots I posted on flickr while I had it. I have plenty of bad ones if you want to see any let me know... Flickr: Search krisinct's photostream I labeled some 300 and some 300mm so there might be more here... Flickr: Search krisinct's photostream

 

[Rafterman]

KEH has the older Nikon 300mm f/4 in "EX" condition for $485. With the 1.4TC, I could get to 420mm f/5.6 for under $1,000. They also have the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 in "EX+" condition for $750 w/o tripod collar. The Sigma works with their 1.4x teleconverter ($200 new) as well, making it a 140-420mm f/5.6 lens. Though it's an older lens, PhotoZone gave it a glowing review back in 2008. Lastly, B&H has the Tamron 200-500mm f/5-6.3 in "9+" condition for $730.

On my Tamron 70-300mm, I'm at 300mm 80% of the time. If I had the Sigma, I'd be using it at the 300mm length a lot as well. With the Tamron, I'm guessing I'd be between 400-500mm most the time. I'm assuming the Nikon would have the best quality glass, but if it's slow to focus and the CA is bad like you say, then maybe I need to look more closely at the 3rd party options.

If my low-light indoor concerns can be remedied simply by getting a fast 85mm, then maybe I really do need to focus more on having the super-long length for birding. The Tamron is appealing for the reach and the price, but the Sigma w/teleconverter is about the same aperture at 420mm and would give me the option to go down to 100mm if I wanted. One final concern I have with the Tamron (or any super-tele for that matter) is that I'll need to use a monopod/tripod to reduce camera shake. However, when we're at the beach, I usually just stroll down the sand and shoot whatever comes along. I want to travel light without the need to bring my tripod with me too as I'm walking.

So, which of the three would be the best option?

 

[pixmedic]

I believe a few people here have sigmas 150-500 and have posted some really great pictures with it. Costalcon is one i think, and his photos are great. The sigma would give you some really good reach without needing a teleconverter. The nikkor 300 f/4 is a good lens, but it is big. Bigger than i would want to walk around with. If you want something to walk with, but still want some reach, i have been really happy with my 180 f/2.8 and it isnt a very big lens. Its the older ed af model. Once you get to 300mm plus, handheld shots start getting difficult.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

My big brother bought the Nikon 200-400mm, but it was expensive and its heavy. I don't think he's used it since his african safari

 

[Rafterman]

If you want something to walk with, but still want some reach, i have been really happy with my 180 f/2.8 and it isnt a very big lens. Its the older ed af model. Once you get to 300mm plus, handheld shots start getting difficult.

Coastalconn has the Tamron 200-500mm and he gets some great stuff with it! The VC on my Tamron 70-300 is awesome at all lengths and makes hand-holding a breeze. Plus, I do target shooting with rifles as another hobby, so I use a similar steadying/breathing technique with photography and it works great.

Another option I found in different thread is to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 and a teleconverter. That would get me some reach at a fairly fast aperture as well.

My big brother bought the Nikon 200-400mm, but it was expensive and its heavy. I don't think he's used it since his african safari

Yeah, I looked at that lens as well and even used versions are WAY above my budget. If I needed something like that just for an exotic trip, I'd rent one for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Patrice]

Rafterman,

Look in the 'buy sell' section on this forum. Someone is selling a sigma 70-200 /2.8 in your price range.

 

[shefjr]

The thread that Patrice is talking about.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...0mm-f-2-8-ex-dg-hsm-ii-macro-nikon-mount.html

 

[Rafterman]

Thanks for the link. I took a look at the lens he was referring to.

 

[dxqcanada]

I shoot with the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO DG and I find the IQ great, even wide open ... I settled for this zoom, as I could not get a Minolta 300mm f/4 for under $1000.00. I was not too pleased with the Sigma 1.4x.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-100-300-F4-EX-DG-IF_lens269.html

Having a good IQ zoom is convenient ... though a 100-400mm f/4 would be better.

 

[Derrel]

I think you'd be happiest with a really GOOD optic....one that has minimal color fringing, is sharp, focuses FAST, balances well when used hand-held, and which is a good fit for high-quality Nikon teleconverters. There's one such lens I can think of--the 300mm f/4 AF-S from Nikon. it works very well with the 1.4x TC1.4e or e-II converters, to make a 420mm f/5.6 with autofocus. On its own, it focuses pretty fast in AF, and it focuses very,very CLOSE for a 300mm lens!!! it can function as a sort-of-macro-lens on close-distance butterflies, snakes, plants,etc, and is good at zoos, on walks, and so on, due to its exceptionally close minimum focus distance. Optics are very good (most would say excellent). Plenty of used ones on the market. $900 to $995 spent on this will give you QUALITY files, which can be cropped-in on. It's sharper than the Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX HSM I own (which i always liked for baseball and softball, and for some outdoor candid shooting). Some of the zooms in this range are f/5.6 or even f/6.3...that is right at the critical edge for lens speed. You really need to keep in mind that this lens is ALSO a pseudo-macro lens with a 12mm extension tube added! And--your $995 is going to be invested in a lens that will not depreciate over the next ten years...not so with a Sigma or Tamron or whatever.

 

[Rafterman]

I think you'd be happiest with a really GOOD optic....one that has minimal color fringing, is sharp, focuses FAST, balances well when used hand-held, and which is a good fit for high-quality Nikon teleconverters. There's one such lens I can think of--the 300mm f/4 AF-S from Nikon. it works very well with the 1.4x TC1.4e or e-II converters, to make a 420mm f/5.6 with autofocus.

How does the AF-S version compare to the AF 300 f/4 in terms of optical quality? Considering one is $1,000 used and the other is sub-$600, I'd be interested to hear arguments for both. I know a big advantage of the AF-S lens is that it will auto-focus with Nikon's teleconverters, which the AF version won't since it's screw-driven. I'm certainly not against manually focusing though if the lens price is right.

The thought of owning a lens that opens to f/5.6 at a 630mm field of view (1.4x TC plus the D7000's 1.5x crop factor) is VERY appealing.