worth the upgrade 300mm to 400mm

avatar12m · 23 Jul 2013 at 09:19

currentlt have a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR kit lens with a 1.4 tele convertor would a Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO DG OS be worth upgrading to for wildlife photography ?

think i can pick one up for £600ish

eyetrip · 23 Jul 2013 at 09:47

While I can't really answer your question directly, when doing a bunch of research in months past, the Sigma 120-400mm didn't seem to fare that well in reviews... I suppose 400mm for £600, one has to manage expectations.

Being in a similar situation having Tamron 70-300mm USD (really quite good), though not intending to upgrade for some time, I know that more reach is ALWAYS helpful for wildlife.

But I wonder if 400mm is enough over 300mm? But there aren't many affordable options over 400mm. The only ones I can think of off-hand are the Sigma 150-500mm, Sigma 50-500mm, or the Tamron 20-500mm.

If your current 300mm lens is a good lens, then do a lot of reading on the 120-400mm before considering seriously (assuming you have not done so alread), as I have read that quality drops off after 300mm...

avatar12m · 23 Jul 2013 at 11:57

thanks for reply , just read a few reviews and they did say the quality is ok and not good, think i will hold off a while, my friend mentioned getting a £500 digiscope and using that , i will have to read up about how good the zoom is at max range.

D.P. · 23 Jul 2013 at 16:29

avatar12m said:
currentlt have a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR kit lens with a 1.4 tele convertor would a Sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO DG OS be worth upgrading to for wildlife photography ?

think i can pick one up for £600ish

Well a Nikon TC wont natively attach to a 55-300 and for a good reason, the results are no better than when using a bare 55-300 and simply cropping the image.

The Sigma 120-400mm doesn't really cut it either I'm afraid, you wont really be capturing any more detail. The Sigma 55-500mm does quite a bit better although it also gets softer towards 500mm but at the 400mm range is very sharp. Of the cheap Sigma super teles it is really the only one to consider.

The best way to get 400mm on a budget is to get the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S and use the Nikon 1.4xTC. You get very, very sharp results at 420mm f/5.6 equivalent. ON A crop body this gives plenty of reach, noticeably more than a 300mm lens.

An alternative is the new Nikon 80-400mm VR II AF-S nano, very very sharp but not cheap. Gives you the flexibility of the zoom range. The older lens (80-400 VR AF-D) is not as sharp as the newer lens.

Lastly there is a very good Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 that takes the 1.4xTC very well, but not cheap and quite heavy. You could use a 2xTC but I am not convinced sharpness hits critical levels wide open to really make it effective.

Beyond that lenses get very big and very expensive.

eyetrip · 23 Jul 2013 at 16:43

D.P. said:
Lastly there is a very good Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 that takes the 1.4xTC very well, but not cheap and quite heavy. You could use a 2xTC but I am not convinced sharpness hits critical levels wide open to really make it effective.

If only that lens was half the weight and half the price...

Amp34 · 23 Jul 2013 at 19:51

Or cost the same as the Canon version (the non IS 300 - directly comparable).

I ended up with the 120-300 OS, a little more expensive than the 300 f/4 (and about twice the weight) but just as sharp with the benefit of 120-299mm.

D.P. · 23 Jul 2013 at 20:43

Amp34 said:
Or cost the same as the Canon version (the non IS 300 - directly comparable).

I ended up with the 120-300 OS, a little more expensive than the 300 f/4 (and about twice the weight) but just as sharp with the benefit of 120-299mm.

Depends on you definition of a little more expensive, the Nikon 300mm F/4.0 AF-S is £1000, the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS is £2800

Amp34 · 23 Jul 2013 at 20:58

The Sigma is actually only about £1600. The price differential is even smaller used.

D.P. · 23 Jul 2013 at 21:25

I took pricing form here:
http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sigm...Sigma-120-300mm-f2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Canon-Fit-Lens

There is an older one that is cheaper,http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sigma/Sigma-Canon-Fit-Lenses/Sigma-120-300mm-f2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Lens
but then you could look at older version of the Nikon 300 - the AF-D version is just as sharp, but no AF with a TC - you can pick them up for a few =hundred quid second hand.

avatar12m · 25 Jul 2013 at 08:07

thanks for input I've added the Nikon f4 300 and the sigma 500mm to my amazon wish list , i'll keep my eye on prices

Amp34 · 25 Jul 2013 at 10:15

D.P. said:
I took pricing form here:
http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sigm...Sigma-120-300mm-f2.8-DG-OS-HSM-Canon-Fit-Lens

There is an older one that is cheaper,http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/Sigma/Sigma-Canon-Fit-Lenses/Sigma-120-300mm-f2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Lens
but then you could look at older version of the Nikon 300 - the AF-D version is just as sharp, but no AF with a TC - you can pick them up for a few =hundred quid second hand.

Wow! The price has shot up in the last couple of months! Wonder why that is? They used to be £1600 (the newest one that is). I don't think you can really class the AF-D version of the 300 f/4 as the equivelant of the "old" 120-300 OS however as it's only a year older than the new one and the only material difference is the weather sealing on the new one (same focusing and elements etc.) The old non OS 120-300 would be the equivelant however.

Either way OP, go for used. The 300 f/4 can be had for £700 and the 120-300 OS for around £1200. Remember also that the 300f/4 doesnt have VR which does limit your options with the lens somewhat (image stabilisation makes a huge difference!)