Nikon 300mm F4 plus 1.7 vs Sigma 150-500mm

<p>Looking for some added distance. Currently have a Nikon 300mm F4 and a 1.4 extender. The quality is great, but I'm looking for longer. Can't afford the Nikon 400mm and longer. Anyone have experience with the 300 F4 and a 1.7 extender or the Sigma 150-500mm. These are two options I'm looking at. I realize the Sigma is not the top quality telephoto lens. But can it compete with a Nikon 300 F4 with the 1.7 extender. The extender is about $500 vs $1000 for Sigma. But the Sigma would be easier to hand hold. Thanks ... Ray.</p>

<p>I assume you have the 300/4 AF-S...<br>

I use the TC-17EII on mine - it results in a 500/6.7 - so Sigma has a little advantage there. In both cases, AF will slow down and become spotty when the light is low. Optical quality of the 300/4 suffers with the TC-17EII attached - especially when used wide open (which is almost all the time). I don't actually use it for "more reach" over the 300/TC-14E combo - but for tighter in-camera framing. The 300/1.7x combo weighs less than the Sigma but is lacking the VR/OS - forcing you to use fast shutter speeds when hand holding or a monopod/tripod. Can't comment on how optical quality compares to the 150-500 - maybe the best way would be to get both and do a comparison.</p>

<p>I also cannot really comment on the Sigma, I do have the 300 f/4 and the TC14 and TC17. I actually bought the TC14 only recently, after using the TC17 a lot for more than a year. I found the combination of the 300 with TC17 lacking sharpness and contrast unless light is totally excellent up to harsh - IQ dropped a bit more than I like, and it does not really sharpen up dramatically stopping down to f/8-f/11. <br>

The difference in reach between the 420mm and 500mm are not all that dramatic as far as I can tell, the 80mm is not much difference in field of view. But, more important, the TC14 offers much better quality and AF speed. So my advice would be: the TC17 nor the Sigma. Stick with what you've already got.</p>

<p>I just spoke with a friend who has that lens & has stopped shooting with it due to lack of sharpness on the Sigma. I would personally stick with what you've got. You can use the 1.7 TC - but the 1.4 is better.<br>

JMHO<br>

Lil :-)</p>

<p>well i do have the sigma. it cost me £666.00 from microglobe in uk. Best money I ever spent on photo gear (except for my D300) it is handholdable down to 1/160 with the OS switched to position 1. It Afs pretty quickly and is quick enough to use the 3d tracking or to keep up with a flying bird. (kingfisher proved just too evasive though). All I can say is that my copy is NOT soft. The OS definately works, but it is a bit noisy and there is a definate small jolt when it engages stabilisation.<br>

The nikon 300mm is a great lens. I haven't tried it with a x1.7<br>

One thing to consider too though is how usefull is a 150 to 500 zoom? Do I go from 500 to 200 for a quick shot by changing lenses or just simply turn a collar?<br>

It is BIG, heavy and with the lens hood.... long.<br>

The build quality is really good (E.X Quality)<br>

It gets noticed and will maybe one day get you mugged<br>

It doesnt say Nikon on it :(</p>

<p>I use a Sigma 150-500 OS on a D200 and D700. Sometimes I use a Tamron 1.4X telecoverter with the lens. With a crop sensor camera and teleconverter, the effective focal length is 1050mm. The teleconvereter works great. I have not seen a significant decrease in image quality at any focal length with my setup. Without the teleconverter autofocus works pretty good and generally works better on my D700 than the D200. Using the teleconverter on the D200 with the Sigma has taught me to appreciate manual focus. The sigma lens facilitiates manual focus with its big focus ring, which seems to fit my hand well. This has also taught me to slow down and be patient. The Sigma is a slow lens. The teleconverter makes it slower. You have to pay close attention to light, your subjects, shutter speed and ISO. In short, you have to plan your shots much more carefully than with a fast long prime. For me, the purchase was worthwhile. I also own a Nikon 300/2.8. The Sigma is a grade below the Nikon in terms of image quality, build quality, general feel in the hands, etc. If the Nikon 300/2.8 is rated excellent, I would rate the Sigma good to very good.</p>

<p>Optical stabilization on the Sigma is a plus. I've found the stabilization works well on the shorter end, and pretty good at the long end, but if you want to shoot birds, or something, and crop heavily into the image, a tripod is required with the Sigma. The sigma racks out as the focal length increases. This changes the lens/camera balance on the tripod. Small vibration from a shutter release can effect image quality, especially with the teleconverter. A sturdy tripod and head is required, as is cable or remote shutter release and mirror-up shooting on occasion. With carefull technique, excellent results can be obtained on a repeatable basis.</p>

<p>The image below was made with the D200, Sigma 150-500, 1.4x teleconverter, with an effective focal length of 1050 mm, 1/125 s, f8, ISO 100, spot metering. The image is a camera jpg, that was cropped and lightly sharpened.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is another shot with the same setup as above.</p><div></div>

<p>Finally, hand held with OS at 500mm on the D700.</p><div></div>

<p>The sigma is a decent lens<br>

The IS works, but it eats a lot of battery juice. Also there is vignetting. You can see some pics with it here<br>

I think its best used with a tripod.Its long and heavy</p>

<p>Those photos with Sigma look incredibly good compared to what I get with my Sigma. I guess image quality varies a lot with Sigma. I have to do some tests next week and decide what to do with the Sigma. With 500 mm I have stop down to f/11 before I get decent quality.</p>

<p>300 + 1.7 all the way! If you have time look at my portfolio... all the birds shots are taken with that set up!</p>

<p>I am also using the 300/4 AF-S & TC-17e combo. It is quite good, and better than cropping a straight 300mm shot. Autofocus has been pretty good in my experience, but I no longer shoot action/sports. Of course, this combo really demands a tripod (or at the very least, a monopod) to get the potential sharpness out of it. Even with a D700 dialed up to higher ISO.</p>

<p>FWIW, I find that my 300mm f/4 with the TC-17eII produces less-than sharp images on both FX and DX bodies. The lens by itself is very sharp so either my TC needs adjusting or at 70% magnification it is simply pushing the glass to its limit. As Dan Brown points out, scaling down a 300+1.7x image is likely to produce similar if not superior results to cropping a picture shot with just the 300. I recently aquired the TC-14eII and still need to give it a good shakedown with the 300 f/4, but I'm hoping it'll be the best of both worlds.</p>