telephoto lenses 120-300mm or 300mm or another one

<p>Hi!<br>

I'm at planning the buying of my next lense for nature photgraphy. For the first time I dont know what to buy. I already have Nikon TC-20E II 2X. I want to shoot bird and other wildlife. I travel a lot and go outside too and I bring along my photo gear. I did look at the Nikon Nikkor 300mm AF ED IF f2.8 Telephoto and also to the APO 120-300mm F2.8 EX DG HSM. Any other suggestions are interresting too! thanks!<br>

PL</p>

<p>I shoot Canon, but I think my experience may be of some use. I too enjoy nature photography. I first purchased a Sigma 50-500 lens and found myself ALWAYS at 500mm....and wanting more. I purchased the Canon 600mm f/4, but considered the 400mm 2.8. I too have teleconverters, both the 1.4 and the 2.0. However, I find the 2.0 worthless. Mine is Canons mark 1 version, but its only use is to throw at attacking wildlife. The 1.4 is much better, but why mess with image quality if you don't have to. So I went with the longest I could afford and will use the 1.4 w/ the 70-200. Extenders tend to work better on primes as well.</p>

<p>300mm is too short for birding unless you have a blind right by a bird feeder. At 10 feet, a Chickadee or Titmouse does not even fill half the 35mm frame. A cardinal does, by the way. On occasion, with raptors, you can close enough (20ft+-) if you slowly walk up to them and then you can get a half way decent image.</p>

<p>Also, the faster the better. I have an f4.0-5.6 zoom and even with 400 speed film on a bright sunny day, at best I'm shooting at 1/250. I'm shooting with a Pentax mount system so I'm very limited with the lenses I can get compared to Nikon or Canon.</p>

<p>I would love to get a really fast f/4+ 600mm lens (800mm even better!); which is unavailable for Pentax. So, even with a converter on it, I can still get some decent shutter speeds. It's not so much for camera movement as for the speed of the birds. They flit around so much that many times I just a get a blur on the image.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 300/2.8 is a superb lens by all accounts. I have a 300/4 AFS which is incredibly sharp at 1/4th the cost of the f/2.8 version (and half the weight). A 300mm lens is primarily a focal length for landscape, fashion and sports. It is generally considered too short for birds, but then no lens is long enough without good "hunting" skills, including stalking, blinds and camouflage.</p>

<p>A 300 makes a surprisingly good lens for closeups in nature. It is very sharp, the narrow FOV limits conflicts with the background and the working distance is very long. The 300/4 will cover a 4x6 inch area at a distance of 5 feet - good enough for flowers and animals not easily spooked.</p>

<p>Don't look for bargains. Long lenses with good optics tend to be very expensive. Even the 300/4 is over $1000.</p>

<p>Pierre, I have the same 300mm AFS lens as Edward and think it is a fantastic and fits nicely between my 80-200mm f 2.8 and my 500mm f4 AFS. Recently I have jealously been eyeing the Sigma 120-400 f4.5-5.6mm OS that a colleague owns in a Canon mount. I think it is a sweet alternative that is well made and can be used as a walk about lens or mounted on a tripod. There is a review on Popular Photography that leads me to think that it may be equal or better than the Canon 100-400 or Nikon 80-400 both stabilized and with the same maximum aperture. It’s just a thought. I recently I purchased my first third part lens in 8 years. A Tokina 10-17mm fish eye for underwater use and have so far not been disappointed. Good hunting. Andy</p>

<p>A 500 f/4 and a 1.4X TC, with a good tripod/Wimberley.</p>

<p>I don't know much about Nikon lenses in particular, as I use Canon, but I do know that for bird photography a 300mm lens will usually leave you wanting more reach.<br>

The Canon 300mm f2.8L IS works well with their 2x extender, to make a 600mm f5.6, and the Nikon equivalents may well provide similar quality. I would expect the prime lens to be of higher quality (and therefore more compatible with the 2x extender) than a zoom lens.<br>

As I have progressed more into bird photography in particular over recent years, I now use a 600mm f4L IS, and still find I usually attach the 1.4x extender (and often need to crop as well!). You can never have too long a lens for bird photography!</p>

<p>Pierre, I read the Sigma 120-300 is a pretty decent lens but not as sharp as their 300 f/2.8 prime. When you consider you will certainly be using it at the long end for birds, the prime makes more sense. It works well with their 1.4 t/c but any of these lenses will be a bit more disappointing with a 2x converter.</p>

<p>And yes, you can never have a lens too long for birding.</p>

 

<p>For starters I would go with a Nikon 300mm f/4 + a 1.4x TC It is a bit short for birds, but I have used it a LOT as a travel lens and done plenty of bird photography with it. Later, you could see if you're in the market for a 500mm prime. But, even if you eventually do get a 500mm you will want to keep the 300mm f/4. My main point is that you can't go wrong with a 300 f/4 because they are so useful and you will keep it for the long term. That's the way it's been for me. We have another international trip in the future, I will not be packing the 500 f/4 but will definitely have the 300 along. Also, I much prefer primes than zooms for any type of subjects... much sharper. Good luck! -g-</p>

<p>For starters I would go with a Nikon 300mm f/4 + a 1.4x TC It is a bit short for birds, but I have used it a LOT as a travel lens and done plenty of bird photography with it. Later, you could see if you're in the market for a 500mm prime. But, even if you eventually do get a 500mm you will want to keep the 300mm f/4. My main point is that you can't go wrong with a 300 f/4 because they are so useful and you will keep it for the long term. That's the way it's been for me. We have another international trip in the future, I will not be packing the 500 f/4 but will definitely have the 300 along. Also, I much prefer primes than zooms for any type of subjects... much sharper. Good luck! -g-</p>

<p>I use the 120-300/2.8 + 2xTC on a 1Dm2 for birds. It's heavy, but the IQ is still very good. It's not as good with the just the 1.4x or w/o any TC, but still good enough.<br>

The 1Dm2 is a 1.3x crop, but on a 1.5x crop, I would suggest the 50-500 instead.. I carry that when I don't feel like hauling the 120-300 + 2x on a hike. The 50-500 is a very good travel lens too, it's about the same length as a 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 is you can afford it. I have one and I think it is one of the very best lenses made. If you cannot swing the $1500-2000 for it, then go with the 100-300 f/4. I used to use a 300mm f/2.8 with TCs as needed for sports photog, but didn't like the fixed focal length limitations, so I bought the 120-300mm which is tremendously more effective and versatile. I would stay away from the 70-200mm range if you really want something longer...you might have to just buy another lens to fill in the range in shorter time.<br>

Best of luck.</p>