wildlife lens - Nikon 300mm f/4 D ED-IF AF-S ?
- Thread starter colinuk
- Start date
It's one of the finest 300mm f4's out there to be honest, and will be fine for wildlife photography.
It's a very sharp lens, and not too big or heavy.
Depending on what you're photographing though, you may find 300mm a bit short! For small birds, you'll have to either be very close, or need something longer.
You can use a 1.4x Teleconverter on it without too much loss of image quality though, so that would give you a 420mm f5.6.
I've got this lens, the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR, and a Sigma 100-300 f4.
Of the three, I use the Sigma the most, as although the 300mm Nikon is good, it isn't any better than the Sigma, and the Sigma gives me the option of zooming back out to 100mm if I need to. It also works well with teleconverters.
If you're just starting out, the 70-300mm Nikon may be something to get to test the water with. It is an astounding lens for the price, and has VR as well which is useful in some situations. It does work with non-Nikon TC's, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you need the extra length. Image quality wise (and I know all the technical tests show it to be less sharp/contrasty than the Nikon 300mm...), you might be hard pushed to notice much difference, especially in good light. The f4 of the Nikon prime will be useful when things get darker of course.
So, what am I saying?
Basically;
Nikon 300mm f4 = excellent lens
Sigma 100-300mm f4 = excellent lens & more flexible
Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR = Very good lens, and a bargain to boot...
I haven't got any pics with me at work, but can post some later if you like. You won't be disappointed with it if you get one, just be aware that there is that Sigma as well, or the baby Nikon zoom if you want something light and good value for money whilst giving good image quality.
It's a very sharp lens, and not too big or heavy.
Depending on what you're photographing though, you may find 300mm a bit short! For small birds, you'll have to either be very close, or need something longer.
You can use a 1.4x Teleconverter on it without too much loss of image quality though, so that would give you a 420mm f5.6.
I've got this lens, the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR, and a Sigma 100-300 f4.
Of the three, I use the Sigma the most, as although the 300mm Nikon is good, it isn't any better than the Sigma, and the Sigma gives me the option of zooming back out to 100mm if I need to. It also works well with teleconverters.
If you're just starting out, the 70-300mm Nikon may be something to get to test the water with. It is an astounding lens for the price, and has VR as well which is useful in some situations. It does work with non-Nikon TC's, but I wouldn't recommend it unless you need the extra length. Image quality wise (and I know all the technical tests show it to be less sharp/contrasty than the Nikon 300mm...), you might be hard pushed to notice much difference, especially in good light. The f4 of the Nikon prime will be useful when things get darker of course.
So, what am I saying?
Basically;
Nikon 300mm f4 = excellent lens
Sigma 100-300mm f4 = excellent lens & more flexible
Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR = Very good lens, and a bargain to boot...
I haven't got any pics with me at work, but can post some later if you like. You won't be disappointed with it if you get one, just be aware that there is that Sigma as well, or the baby Nikon zoom if you want something light and good value for money whilst giving good image quality.
Last edited:
Hi,
I have the 300mm F4 AF ED version (older one) and it is very good with stunning build quality and integrated hood
I can't see anything matching it.
If you want to take photos of birds though, it might not be long enough. Other larger animals will be fine.
Regards
sid
I have the 300mm F4 AF ED version (older one) and it is very good with stunning build quality and integrated hood
I can't see anything matching it.
If you want to take photos of birds though, it might not be long enough. Other larger animals will be fine.
Regards
sid
Its is a great lens. The only things i've heard i've heard is that a 1.4x TC on the 70-200 2.8 VR ives a very similar image, with the advantage of VR. the 300 f/4 prime is better, but you have to decide if it is worth the money.
There is also the distinct possibility of a 300 f/4 VR lens coming soon, this would be nice on a DX camera (450mm f/4), with a 1.4xTC a 630mm f/5.6. So one full stop slower than the 600 f/4 VR behemoth that pros would use on full frame. With the new sensors Nikon are making 1 stop is forgivable. in upping the ISO gain.
There is also the distinct possibility of a 300 f/4 VR lens coming soon, this would be nice on a DX camera (450mm f/4), with a 1.4xTC a 630mm f/5.6. So one full stop slower than the 600 f/4 VR behemoth that pros would use on full frame. With the new sensors Nikon are making 1 stop is forgivable. in upping the ISO gain.
Can i hijack the thread a bit? 
I've been looking at a similar lens for my Canon 450D, the Canon 75 - 300 mm f4-5.6 for a similar use as well as possibly taking some sports photography e.g football, motorsport.
Would that lens be ok for it without having to blow a huge amount of cash like the OP wants to do?
I've been looking at a similar lens for my Canon 450D, the Canon 75 - 300 mm f4-5.6 for a similar use as well as possibly taking some sports photography e.g football, motorsport.
Would that lens be ok for it without having to blow a huge amount of cash like the OP wants to do?
Last edited:
Cheers for the info so far. Looks like i need the 300prime + teleconvertor then. I was hoping the price would drop, but it hasnt in 4-5 months now.
Derek, it may seem like a lot of money, but i have spent less on other lenses that have turned out to be rubbish. I think sometimes, like for this case, you sometimes have to pay to buy quality, and if its getting used, then its worth it It has taken me about 10 weeks to save up for it though so im not buying it lightly.
I think your lens should be good enough. Maybe another FStop down would be nice, but if you stand in the right posistion, you sould get some good shots.
ColiN
Derek, it may seem like a lot of money, but i have spent less on other lenses that have turned out to be rubbish. I think sometimes, like for this case, you sometimes have to pay to buy quality, and if its getting used, then its worth it
It has taken me about 10 weeks to save up for it though so im not buying it lightly.I think your lens should be good enough. Maybe another FStop down would be nice, but if you stand in the right posistion, you sould get some good shots.
ColiN
Just an alternative to the Nikon foot/collar. Unless you're doing long exposures, I don't think they are necessary. Most wildlife shots are not long exposure.
http://www.kirkphoto.com/lenscollars.html
I would have to politely disagree. The image quality advantage of my Nikon over my Sigma is only slight, not in a different league. I would expect that to be the case though, as they're at similar price points.
Sigma quality control is not the best, so maybe your Sigma isn't a good one?
It should be a stellar lens?
Edit:That's not to disagree with the general statement that primes are better than zooms for a given focal length, just not that all primes are automatically better than some zooms!
Sigma quality control is not the best, so maybe your Sigma isn't a good one?
It should be a stellar lens?
Edit:That's not to disagree with the general statement that primes are better than zooms for a given focal length, just not that all primes are automatically better than some zooms!
Last edited:
no, but the feet are useful for wildlife photography is the shutter speed approaches the resonant frequency of the tripod setup. anything less than 1/60s can cause problems.
As I said, I've found that the std foot is fine. It was the early ones where issues were raised.
But, people have options if they're convinced it's the foot that's the issue...
Derek, it may seem like a lot of money, but i have spent less on other lenses that have turned out to be rubbish. I think sometimes, like for this case, you sometimes have to pay to buy quality, and if its getting used, then its worth it
I agree with what you've said there, but I think your level of photography is far more advanced than mine. I'm only just back into using 'proper' cameras instead of compacts or phone cameras so I'm still learning everything and cant really see myself justifying that amount of money on a lens since I'm sticking money away for a house and a car as well
Fair point Derek. Bought the house when prices were 'normal'. Its not a cheap hobby, but very satisfying when you get that one pic. Although, having the best gear does not make a good photographer, you have to have the eye of the photographer in the 1st place as they say
Cheers for the advice guys. Might have to get a new body next though as the S5 is great at weddings, but i notice not that great at wildlife...
ColiN
Cheers for the advice guys. Might have to get a new body next though as the S5 is great at weddings, but i notice not that great at wildlife...
ColiN