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

[bc_steve]

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

I hear ya. I just got back to work after about 3 months off and I have been busy and only going to get busier in the next few months. Since I started I've seen a moose, about 200 deer, a northern goshawk for the first time, and plenty of hawks and eagles without a picture to show for it. I'm going to have to get myself a nice pelican case so I can keep my camera in the work truck without it getting thrashed and filthy.

 

[coastalconn]

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

Yup it is the 100-300F4 "D" EX HSM. I think it was slightly sharper than the Tamron at a distance. Not so much difference up close. The Sigma has slightly better contrast and smoother bokeh, but it was hard to notice since it would not freaking focus right It was bad by itself but the TC made it way worse so at long distance the Tamron was still better..

 

[Rafterman]

The Sigma has slightly better contrast and smoother bokeh, but it was hard to notice since it would not freaking focus right It was bad by itself but the TC made it way worse so at long distance the Tamron was still better..

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!

I'm so sorry to hear that Kris. Thank you on behalf of my wallet for giving it a shot though. Consider it off the list. Such a shame, as it looked like a great option on paper for a darn good price.

So, any thoughts on what lens you're going to try instead? I think I'm going to drop the Nikon 80-200 and Sigma 70-200 off my list as well. The 80-200 is a wonderful lens I'm sure, but since it has no stabilization, no full-time manual focus, and won't work with teleconverters, there's just too many negatives there for me. The Sigma goes because it's just too much money for me to justify spending on a 3rd party lens at that focal range. For just a couple hundred more, I could get a Nikon 70-200 f/4 brand new or a 70-200 f/2.8 used if I wanted to still go that route. I really would like something 300mm or more.

So, all that leaves is the Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4. Looks like if I want that lens, I'll just have to finish saving up the coin to buy it and a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter to go with it.

 

[coastalconn]

Well I shipped the lens back today. Doesn't this just suck! Why doesn't someone make a 400 F5.6 for Nikon? Canon's is very good (so I hear). I guess I'm going to re-evaluate the shots I took with the older 300 F4. Other than 2 other obscure sigmas 300 f4 and 400 F5.6 APO tele macro, which I'm a little gun shy about after my 1 experience with a sigma lens, I think I'm out of options for my budget.

 

[Derrel]

DxOMark - Wildlife Lenses: telephoto-zoom round up

Ummm, Nikon USED to make a 400mm f/5.6 AiS...perhaps it is still in the catalogue of MF Nikkors??? Not sure. Prime 400's apparently never were very good sellers. I have seen a few 400/5.6 AiS lenses, and the prices vary widely. From what I gather, the 400/5.6 had a reputation as being very prone to vibration. It was a small,light-weight, skinny-tube lens. It's been several years since I saw one, and I am SURE that it never was very popular. ANd, as I recall, it was not all "that good".

 

[Derrel]

.. 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!

Ever wondered how the Sigma company earned the name, "Significant Malfunction"??? See the post above. Two users, a continent apart, two similar bad experiences, same dumb issue...

Sorry to hear that you too encountered the same exact, exasperating, ridiculous behavior that two of my "high-end" EX-grade, HSM Sigma lenses suffer from. There's probably a very good reason the 100-300mm f/4 Sigma you bought was found at KEH.com...

 

[coastalconn]

Derrel, I know you have been into photography way longer than I have. I saw you porn in the other thread, but I have bought and resold many lenses in the past 2 years and this was THE most bizarre thing I have seen looking through the viewfinder! It was like a few inches oz zig zag, then a few feet than yards and yards.. Anyways....

Rafterman, I went through my test shots from the older Nikon 300 F4, here are some shots. judge for yourself. Standard sharpening in LR4 (25) no NR. These were only test shots and it does focus slow so the flight shots are soft. I would probably shoot it in af-c with focus priority next time... SO take it for whats it worth...

Wide open, tripod at 300mm F4, 1/500th ISO 200

100% crop

F5.6 tripod 1/250th iso 200

100%crop

With 1.4 TC handheld F4, 1/640th ISO 400

100%


This eagle is really soft but this is more about the purple fringing I was talking about...
F5.6 plus TC 1/1600th ISO 360

100%

 

[Rafterman]

Thanks a ton for posting these Kris. :thumbsup:

Hmm...the 100% crops are definitely less than stellar, and that purple...ouch! That's primarily because of the lack of lens coatings on the older 300mm, correct? I've read other places that the focus on it is slower compared to the newer AF-S 300 f/4. Not horribly slow, but definitely slower.

It looks like I'll be holding on to my Tamron for now until I gather up the funds to get something really pricy. As you know, the Tammy isn't pro glass, but f/5.6 at 300mm is certainly not horrible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are "equal" as far as the camera is concerned:

• 1/500, ISO 100, f/4
• 1/500, ISO 200, f/5.6

I'm probably over-generalizing here, considering that a $1,300 lens is quite different from a $350 lens, but perhaps spending an extra grand just to gain one f/stop isn't worth it.