• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Nikon 300mm f4+1.7TC vs Sigma 150-500 (1 Viewer)

S

swainsons

Well-known member
Hello All,

This is my first post and I am so glad I found this forum. I shoot with a D60 and Sigma 150-500 and reasonably happy but my keeper rate is rather low and also find that the pics are kinda soft.

My question is: Do I sell the Sigma and get Nikon 300mm f4 with converter or do I upgrade my body to D90. My gut feel is that the D60 is not a bad body and probably as good as older D2x's. I also suspect the optics on the Nikon will be far superior to that of the Sigma's, even with a 1.7TC, hence my "softness" will be a thing of the past.

Most of my birding pics are shot off a tripod and in a hide so dont really need fast AF.

Here in South Africa the Nikon 300mm f4 is not a very popular lens but reading the posts on this forum it seems its a cracking lens.

All adcise will be greatly appreciated.

Kind Regards,

Leon Besaans
 
That Sigma is a pretty sharp lens on a cropped camerra but it is possible the lens may be a lemon or it could be user error. Best to do some tests in a controlled setting inside under good lighting, stopping the lens down to F8 and shooting at different focal lengths from a tripod on timer.

If you get a sharp image then you need to check your technique.
 
I've experienced the 'lemon' factor on the Sigma - back/front focusing and blooming seem to be very common so it's possible you have a bad copy (the first one I tried was truly awful!). The copy I have now is a lot better but still nothing like as sharp and detailed as my 300mm prime with 1.4x teleconverter and doesn't take cropping as the prime does. The prime is also very good wide open at f/4, yet I have to stop the Sigma down to f/9.1 or smaller to get the best sharpness out of it - far from ideal here in England!

Have you tried setting the camera up on a tripod aimed at a flat subject like a wall and then comparing manually focusing and autofocusing shots for sharpness to see if the AF is out of calibration? I don't think the D60 allows adjustment of front/back focus that my D300 does so if the AF is out you could send it back to Sigma for servicing and adjustment to try to get them to correct the focus?
 
Hello guys and thanks for replies. Maybe I should rephrase my question: If you had a D60 with Sigma 150-500 and your results where ok but you want to get better, what do you upgrade, the glass or the body.

My take is that the D60 is entry level DSLR, but certainly no slouch. I seem to take hassle free picture with my nikon 70-300VR, whereas with the Sigma you have to really watch what you doing. Am I not gonna get similiar hassle free pics with a 300mm f4 and converter?? Surely the optics in the Nikon is superior to the Sigma's??

My other reasoning is that the D90 has better low light performance and focus system than the D60. Surely that could also have an impact??

I wanna take better pictures but want to buy the correct kit.

Regards,

Leon
 
Hi Leon,
I'd go for the 300mm f4 if it was me. A good lens makes a tremendous difference. I bought a 300 f2.8 over a year ago and the difference between it and my Sigma 170-500 is like day and night. Go for the prime lens any day!

Richard
 
I'd go with the 300/4 but with a 1.4 teleconverter instead of the 1.7. I used top use a Tamron 200-500 zoom then changed to the 300/4 with 1.4 converter. Didn't notice the drop in focal length from 500mm to 420mm at all. Infact the extra sharpness from the Nikon seemed to give me more reach.
 
I use a 1.7 tc pretty well permanently attached to my 300 2.8. I find the combination great, however some of the threads do report some problems with the 1.7 tc. I feel I need the reach for most of the photography I do.

I've attached a photo using this combo.
 

Attachments

  • Christmas-Robin2-web.jpg
    Christmas-Robin2-web.jpg
    267.8 KB · Views: 1,045
Helios said:
I'd go with the 300/4 but with a 1.4 teleconverter instead of the 1.7. I used top use a Tamron 200-500 zoom then changed to the 300/4 with 1.4 converter. Didn't notice the drop in focal length from 500mm to 420mm at all. Infact the extra sharpness from the Nikon seemed to give me more reach.
Click to expand...

Smashed me head on the keyboard for the last week or so toying with different lenses, This is the combo i have settled on after much spitballing and frustration on my part and those trying to advice me:);)

Everything i have now read and since looked at seem to make this combo superb, sturdy and good value for £££'s

cheers
karpman
 
rdspalm said:
I use a 1.7 tc pretty well permanently attached to my 300 2.8. I find the combination great, however some of the threads do report some problems with the 1.7 tc. I feel I need the reach for most of the photography I do.

I've attached a photo using this combo.
Click to expand...

You use an fx D700 though don't you Richard ?
 
grab the good glass first and then upgrade the body,,

if your considering a TC 1.7 be sure to test them out first as there are some bad copies,, it took me three to find a great one,, after I found a good one the 1.4 went bye bye,,

Derry
 
Thanks for all the replies.

Went out yesterday with my D60 and tested the 300mm f4 with 1.4TC and I was SO disappointed. The autofocus was super sluggish compared to my Sigma 150-500 and I could not see any difference in IQ.

I am starting to seriously doubt if the D60 is good enough for either the Sigma or Nikon combo, and I say this because I used a D90 with my Sigma lens and it just seemed as if things went a little smoother. Maybe I am wrong?? Maybe I should test the D90 with the Nikon combo and see if its any better??

Love to hear similiar experiences.

Regards,

Leon
 
Have'nt used a D60 but I have used several other Nikon DSLRs - as well as other makes. The D90 is a very very good camera - I only passed mine on to a friend when i had the chance of a good priced D300 [I take lots of photos and the extra durability was the main attraction]. OK the D300 has better build quality and extra features, but the D90 is'nt far behind in performance and the image quality is almost identical. Plus it can use all those older lenses which are'nt AF-S/HSM and keep AF. If you go for a D90 I don't think you'll regret it - only thing to watch is its tendency to overexpose on some occasions - easily rectified with a bit of exposure compensation.
 
There is a big difference between Nikon models. A few years ago when I upgraded from a D70 to the D200 I noticed the autofocus was vastly superior on a 70 - 300mm Nikon lens.
I expect going from the D60 to D90 or D300 would be noticable
 
swainsons said:
Hello guys and thanks for replies. Maybe I should rephrase my question: If you had a D60 with Sigma 150-500 and your results where ok but you want to get better, what do you upgrade, the glass or the body.
Click to expand...

Some folks are taking Pulitzer Prize-winning pics with an iPhone. Taking great pics has nothing to do with the gear. The gear will never make you better. It can make it EASIER, but never better.

Your camera and lens can take superb pics. If you feel compelled to buy more gear, go ahead. Just know even $20,000 in gear can still produce lousy pics if the operator lacks skills.

Buying more gear is easy but taking better pics takes practice and work on artistic composition. Your money/effort might be better spent buying John Shaw Nature Photography Field Guide.
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
Some folks are taking Pulitzer Prize-winning pics with an iPhone. Taking great pics has nothing to do with the gear. The gear will never make you better. It can make it EASIER, but never better.

Your camera and lens can take superb pics. If you feel compelled to buy more gear, go ahead. Just know even $20,000 in gear can still produce lousy pics if the operator lacks skills.

Buying more gear is easy but taking better pics takes practice and work on artistic composition. Your money/effort might be better spent buying John Shaw Nature Photography Field Guide.
Click to expand...

You are SO right, but better kit helps build your confidence over time. I bought the D90 yesterday and from using it for an hour I can tell you i have a better product on my hands. I took the attached in flight with a 70-300VR lens and I could NEVER have done that with the D60.

Overall, I think I made the right decision.

Thanks for the help guys.
 

Attachments

  • wattled lapwing in flight.jpg
    wattled lapwing in flight.jpg
    197.4 KB · Views: 1,221
Maybe you could see it as a sign to save your money and carry on as you are and just keep learning how to get the most out of the Sigma and D60 - if your keeper rate and sharpness are around the same with the Sigma and the prime (tripod-mounted?) then I'd say you are better off working on technique than throwing money at the problem.

The D60 is plenty good enough for the Sigma and the prime, but using lenses like these can be tricky - I've not managed to get anything like the best from the Sigma even though I make pretty good use of the 300mm and TC. I mostly use my 70-300VR these days. I don't know how long you've been doing photography but just give it time and patience and most importantly keep shooting and working on your technique - it's something we've all gone through and many of us are still going through (you never stop learning!).

I found it really helpful to shoot the local fairly tame birds in the park and spent a lot of time with those working on technique - that was very worthwhile indeed! Trying to get the most out of fairly easy (never feels like that at the time!) static subjects before attempting more difficult subjects helps work through some of the bad habits we all have at the start.
 
Hello Paul,

I am so NOT sorry that I bought the D90. Long term its a better body, I think people dont often realise that a lot goes on in the brain of more expensive cameras than entry level cameras, Anyway, we can argue for months, its like the Toyota vs Land Rover debate.

Attached some more pics from this weekend, all at ISO800

Regards,
 

Attachments

  • lesser swamp warbler.jpg
    lesser swamp warbler.jpg
    244.1 KB · Views: 705
Warning! This thread is more than 12 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

shrek48
D7200 + sigma + TC ?
Replies
3
Views
746
gerald762
gerald762
E
Upgrading from Sigma 150-600 C to Nikkor 500mm PF
Replies
4
Views
2K
rezMole
rezMole
Musoman
Electrical contact problem ?
Replies
2
Views
798
Musoman
Musoman
T
Camera choice for birding around 3000 Euros with lens?
Replies
3
Views
1K
Tsvetan
T
Len Poxon
Nikon 500 F5.6 PF
Replies
6
Views
3K
The BulbMogul
The BulbMogul

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top