Nikon 300mm F4 vs. Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 ???

<p>I just purchased a Nikon 300mm F4 ED-IF (not the AF-S) for shooting wildlife. I started a thread about two weeks ago on a good long lens for under $1000. I purchased mine for $500 and it is sharp and fastish. I shot down the idea of the Sigma from one particular rental company not carrying the Sigma as they stated it did not hold up. I went back today to read any new postings and Mark Evans has cast a shadow of doubt in my mind.<br /><br /><br />I have tried the Sigma in a store and was impressed. It is as heavy as a cannon but seemed balanced. The image stabilization works as it should and the focusing was really fast indoors. I would love to hear others experience with either / both. If the Sigma is the better lens then I'm sure I could get near what I paid for it and scrounge around for another $500. If not, then I just need to get a better TC. I purchased the Kenko SQH 1.5x and am planning to dump it for the Kenko 3x the price (blooming and chromatic aberrations).<br /><br /><br />Is the Sigma that sharp? The Nikon is awesome. I would miss the extra stop of speed but the image stabilizer does make it far more versatile. I plan on doing the majority of shooting on a tripod, but I find myself trying to use my 300mm free style because something exciting just crossed my path.</p>

<p>Jason, I think the question becomes, is the Nikon 300 f/4 meeting your needs? Meaning, is it sharp enough to do what ever it is your doing with images, or not?<br>

I wouldn't arbitrarily change hardware based on a statement "oh yeah, that one is way better". You know what I mean?<br>

What is better for one person is not necessarily better for another.<br>

Good luck</p>

<p>...and please keep in mind, if you are using a digital Nikon body: f6.3 is not going to be exactly great for the auto-focus system. If you are using a film body, the f6.3 factor would not matter as much.</p>

<p>Adding a teleconverter will also make your autofocus system not happy once you go beyond f5.6.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stick with your Nikkor...While Sigma has greatly improved their optics, their build quality is still a bit suspect....I have several friends who have the Sigma "Bigma" & all have had to send them back for service</p>

<p>I haven't used the 150-500mm, but I would expect similar performance to the Sigma 50-500mm, which I have used extensively. I ultimately sold it in favor of a Nikon 80-400mm, which I find to be sharper. I have also used the 300mm f/4 extensively and it is extremely sharp - much more so than the my Sigma at 300mm on up. While the focusing motor is indeed faster, the f/6.3 took away some of the advantages. OS is nice, but I rarely use it on any of my shots (mostly moving things) so I wouldn't base my decision on that.</p>

<p>I tend to think you need a good long zoom and a long prime. I cover it with the aforementioned 80-400mm and a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S plus teleconverters as needed.</p>

<p>I had the Sigma 120-400 VR (or Sigma's equivalent). I sold it because it was (a) not sharp enough (b) heavy) and © noisy VR. I picked up a used Nikon 300 mm f/4 (AF not AF-S) and I'm much happier. I miss the zoom a bit, but not enough to want the Sigma back. I'm also using my tripod more. For moving birds or wildlife, VR doesn't cut the mustard.</p>

<p>I would agree with the 50-500mm Sigma and its inherent issues. I sold mine in the first year after buying it due to lack of sharpness and overall size (zoom creep was a major issue)<br /> Stating that Sigma is a questionable company due to a few lenses, is not fair. I would state the Nikon has produced some rather questionable lenses and still routinely produces low-end lenses with plastic mounts. You simply have to research and pick the right lenses.</p>

<p>Speaking from actually experience and not speculation, I have both the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 and 100-300 f/4. I would completely recommend either of these 2 as excellent examples in your range. Yes, their relative focal lengths are redundant, but I had an opportunity to purchase a 120-300 in 2006 for a deal that I couldn't pass up. I also have a Nikon 500 f/4 and while this is an amazing lens, it does have its inherent disadvantage of being very heavy and also being a prime lens. (not to mention cost)</p>

<p>For wildlife and its changing positions, in my opinion, try out the Sigma 100-300 f/4. It is an amazingly sharp & quick lens that is part of their EX/HSM grade and keeps you in the stop range that you need. Plus if you need the flexibility of additional reach, a 1.4TC will help and still provide you with the multiple focal lengths & decent speed (especially in abundant light)<br /> You should be able to find the above lens used for ~$1000 or less.<br /> Cheers,<br /> Andy</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have two Sigmas in recent years and they were very well built and sharp. Still have the 30mm f1.4. I think it depends on the lens--I wouldn't make general statements about them. I nearly bought a used Sigma 100-300mm f4 the other day, but finally came to the conclusiong that my Nikon 80-400mm VR that I already have will work just as well for me on an upcomming trip to Iceland.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>The Nikon 80-400mm is a good lens, but I don't like the older screw-drive motor. Don't know why other than size and expense that Nikon didn't equip it with the later AF-S systems. Also a 1.4TC with this lens would be poor results and loss of more critical stops. <br>

The Sigma 100-300 f/4 is constant aperture & length and uses the super-fast HSM motor system.<br>

Read the great review on photozone.de<br>

There is no image stabilization on my model (not sure it is available now) --- but on a tripod you don't want IS/VR/OS etc anyhow.</p>

<p>HTH,<br>

Andy</p>

<p> </p>