Never thought i would ask but need opinions on lens change.

M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Some of you will not know (as I haven’t made a fuss about it):rolleyes: ime unhappy with aspects of my Tamron 150-600,i have the feeling this will never be resolved to my satisfaction so am thinking its time to move on and enjoy my photography rather than let it frustrate me.



I do like the 600mm reach but have just been going through older images and apart from a lack of bite from the Sigma 120-400 @ 400mm I did fairly well with it,so a higher IQ from 400mm with a lower ISO could leave me enough scope for cropping.


A few options are open to me that range from no extra cost to £1000 extra so any input would be welcome before I drop more money on the problem.


First.


Sigma 150-600 contemporary (the sport is too heavy for me) unknown quantity at the moment although some Canon shooters are saying it has a problem with some bodies.


Second


Nikon 80-400afs,with the cash back for the next two months this would be an initial cost of about £600,i dont think there are any doubts about IQ with this lens,i say initial cost because I would borrow a 1.4 converter to try at some point to check IQ,i know the combination was not good with the D version but dont know about the afs.


Third


The new Nikon 300mm f4 PF early reports are its as good as the old one if not better and is a great combination with the 1.4,cost here starts to go up £600 extra for the lens then at some point if I cant find a second hand 1.4 its another £450 for that.


Fourth


The good old Nikon 300mm f4 IQ is great and the upgrade would cost me £50 with a possible £450 for the 1.4 if I had to buy new.


None of the costing really put me off as if I stick with the super zoom Tamron or Sigma I would be upgrading the camera body to help get the best from them. My biggest concern is moving away from a zoom so this makes the 80-400 a top contender even if its a no go using a converter on it.


All thoughts are welcome and any thing I have missed with a topline cost of under £2000
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
If you have the funds or are willing to allocate enough, I'd honestly say 300 PF and a tele. There's no such thing as enough reach/short end with birds and I'm sure both you and they would enjoy you being far away enough. Insects even more so. That and you'll have the excellence of a prime and perhaps still better quality than the megazooms even with a TC.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
SkvLTD said:
If you have the funds or are willing to allocate enough, I'd honestly say 300 PF and a tele. There's no such thing as enough reach/short end with birds and I'm sure both you and they would enjoy you being far away enough. Insects even more so. That and you'll have the excellence of a prime and perhaps still better quality than the megazooms even with a TC.
Click to expand...

Thanks and i wouldn't argue with that logic at all.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I faced a debate over the summer - a 70-200 or that Tammy cannon, knowing that giving up 2-300 end of the 70-300 would severely limit my critter shooting, but 70-200 allows a far wider range of application that I needed or may easily need any given day unlike the birding -600 reach that's purely for the hobby aspect. You're pretty solid on your application, so get the best tool you can and enjoy the new depth of quality.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
I don't know how disappointed or annoyed you are in the Tam but did you try fine-tuning it to the 400mm solely and check what that delivers. In my case it very much improved the quality and minimized freezes since using it as a semi-prime does affect how I shoot it.

She will never outperform a 300mm prime which is, quality-wise, the best option.


I have a hate-love relation with my Tam but when using only the best parts, she delivers pretty decent shots. Even when I hate her, there's little else on the market that can get me to 600mm (cheap).
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
I'm personally trying to get past the days of medium rare being well done, which was about always the case with 70-300. Shots looked good to me, but not great and that lens simply could not do any better. Using tamcannon outside of 400-600 range almost defeats the point of it in a way, and sadly that's where reviews report it to be weaker.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
On my D750 she delivers pretty decent shots at her 400mm focus-lock but is a bit weaker when using longer. At 600mm she's tolerable only when shooting her at f/10.

On the D810 it's a different story and I was amazed how well she does at 400mm and 600mm when using the right aperture.

On my D3300 however she close to never produces a shot I consider worth keeping. The fact I can't fine-tune her on that cam might have something to do with it.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I can live with the IQ from the Tamron thats not the problem,if i play my part i can get 100% crops that have fine detail,i often dont but thats not the lens its me,as Skvl said not utilizing the full zoom range makes owning it and carrying it around pointless,its only the focus freeze that is driving me crazy,it should not happen on any lens and not least on a £1000 one.
There is no doubt it happens and Tamron whether they will admit it or not must know about it, they are just sitting back saying nothing while looking for a solution there is no way they will hold there hands up and admit it not now they have the sigma alternative out there.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
That's the problem with any zoom. Even my 70-200mm does come at a price whenever I utilize the full range and any available aperture. Some will deliver the best quality possible, others not so much.

The more expensive lenses tend to have a more constant quality during a wider focal range and aperture selection but none of them do equally well at every aspect.


The freezes however is another story. They can easily get me into hate-mode too. I don't even expect a solution to them. If it is a hardware issue, if they'd have to fix every lens sold, they'd go bankrupt.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
One lens that has just come to mind which i forgot about is the Sigma 150-500,old design but the technology has stood the test of time,any input on that one would be welcome,i have done the flikr image search and pixel peepers but lets be honest most folk only post there best images so we dont know if they get 80% rubbish and 20% great.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
You keep going back to IQ, like me you will only be happy with a top notch result. The 80-400 is a good lens, but no where near the IQ of the 300 f4. It might be "good enough" like the Tamron, but that's not good enough. Get one of the 300 F4's. On your D7100 you'll have stellar results and a bokeh monster and 420 with the TC will be sharper than the other choices. With the V2 adapter you have a razor sharp 810mm!, which will blow away everything else on the list and some you can't afford.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
Rick M said:
You keep going back to IQ, like me you will only be happy with a top notch result. The 80-400 is a good lens, but no where near the IQ of the 300 f4. It might be "good enough" like the Tamron, but that's not good enough. Get one of the 300 F4's. On your D7100 you'll have stellar results and a bokeh monster and 420 with the TC will be sharper than the other choices. With the V2 adapter you have a razor sharp 810mm!, which will blow away everything else on the list and some you can't afford.
Click to expand...

Thanks Rick i am tempted down that route very tempted,i like the idea of the new PF because of the VR and using it on the V2 where i cant up the ISO too much to keep high shutter speeds when hand holding.
 
S

slowpoke

Senior Member
Mike,You left out the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 sport.You might want to look into this lens.Did I say it's a F2.8 at 300 and with a 2x converter it pops your AP at F5.6 giving you tons of light at 600+.You can even program it to your D7100.
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
slowpoke said:
Mike,You left out the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 sport.You might want to look into this lens.Did I say it's a F2.8 at 300 and with a 2x converter it pops your AP at F5.6 giving you tons of light at 600+.You can even program it to your D7100.
Click to expand...

How's the IQ on that one though? Not all 2.8's were created equally, but I'll assume your suggestion merits THE 2.8 kinda IQ which would be a step above 150-600 indeed.
 
M

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
slowpoke said:
Mike,You left out the Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 sport.You might want to look into this lens.Did I say it's a F2.8 at 300 and with a 2x converter it pops your AP at F5.6 giving you tons of light at 600+.You can even program it to your D7100.
Click to expand...

Thanks the problems for me with that would be i think its a bit pricey and its far too heavy for me.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
mikew said:
Thanks Rick i am tempted down that route very tempted,i like the idea of the new PF because of the VR and using it on the V2 where i cant up the ISO too much to keep high shutter speeds when hand holding.
Click to expand...

The V2 is usable up to ISO 800, reduce the EV-1 and I had plenty of speed. But it depends on your shooting style and subjects. I got a lot of great bird shots with the V2 and Nikon 70-200 f4. When you get a lens you can shoot wide open it makes a huge difference.
 
S

slowpoke

Senior Member
_0004700.JPG

Hi,Dude.I shot this Eagle at 75yds hand held 2x converter and this is a HEAVY crop. It's not the greatest but for a grey over cast day I'll take it.LOL What do you think?Mike
 
Last edited:
A

aroy

Senior Member
A prime will give better results compared to a zoom. It will also be faster and lighter. If you do not plan to use TC17 or TC20, then the older 300mm F4 D AFS is a better option. Reviews state that there may be QA problems, so the lens is not as sharp at edges as the old one, and some report VR issues. The major advantage of the newer 300mm F4 is VR and its lack of weight. If these are not your priority, then the older lens is a better buy, as you will get the lens and TC14 for less than the new lens only.
 
Top