Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF OS HSM vs AF-S Nikon 300mm f/4 with 1.7x TC?

[anirban_halder]

<p>"Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 AF APO DG OS HSM Zoom for Nikon" vs "Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S with <strong>1.7x TC</strong>"<br>

Which one will be better choice for real <strong>wildlife photography </strong>(not birds in our patio or animals in city zoo) and shooting wildlife all day long? I am looking for opinions from someone who <em>used/tried</em> both the lenses.<br>

What are the pros and cons of Sigma 150-500mm AF OS? The biggest advantage I see with sigma is cost and zoom convenience. I know Nikon 300mm f/4 is superb lens. But how good it is compared to Sigma when added to 1.7x TC, can someone please shed some light on that. <br>

Thanks ~Anirban</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TgQP<br>

I use the 300 with TC-17EII but have no experience with the Sigma. Due to the lack of VR, fast shutter speeds (or a tripod) are always required with the 300/17x combo - and even then, most of the time it is either fully open or at most stopped down 1 stop. The combo is quite usable when one is close enough for frame filling shots but starts showing lack of resolution, contrast and sharpness when the distance to the subject increases. AF becomes problematic in anything but good light or when there is a varied background.<br>

I'd be surprised if the Sigma fares better - given that it is a zoom at a lower price than the 300/4 AF-S alone.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Hmmm. Both have their strengths. For wild wildlife, the Sigma might be a touch better because you have 500mm and OS. WIth OS, you could brace the lens against a fence post, rock or whatever instead of having to set up a tripod. However, the 300mm f4 would certainly have a bit better image quality, would certainly do better in lower light. Downsides to the Sigma is at f6.3 you might have AF problems in some low contrast OR low light situations. Downsides to the 300mm f4 is it's not quite as long and you'd need a solid rest to use it, such as tripod. The 300mm f4 with TC-17E would be more flexible and versatile than you might think though. Which would I choose? Really, would depend on what I'm trying to shoot and what other lenses I have. Since I already have the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 and TC-17E, I'd probably get a Nikon 500mm f4 P, AIS. Oops, did I just make things harder? What I'm hoping is that Nikon adds VR to their 300mm f4. That would make it a no-brainer. Now, watch Sigma beat them to it, LOL.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[doug_santo]

<p>I have the Sigma 150-500 OS. I also have a Nikon 300/2.8. I commented at some length on both lenses at the forum post listed below. Many others commented as well.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TgQP">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TgQP</a></p>

[moop]

<p>The simple fact is that the nikon 300 f4 is better opticaly, but the Sigma is more versitile. I have included a picture taken today with the Sigma. I am not claiming it to be any good. It is blurry and soft. BUT it was taken at 500mm with a kenko x2 converter ie 1000mm at f 6.3 and Handheld. Not even a post to support it. Ok so it is no where near a good enough image for publication, but I got a shot of a kingfisher that I would have had no chance of getting with the nikon 300mm.</p>

<div></div>

[jorgen_udvang]

<p>I'm going through the same consideration at the moment, and from what I've seen, the results are more or less equal. The Nikkor is lighter and seems better built, while the Sigma is a zoom and will give your more flexibility. If handled correctly, both will give you excellent results. Here are some samples from one who has used the Sigma extensively for motor sports (not my photos):</p>

<p>http://www.pbase.com/powerbauer/sigma_150_500</p>

[anirban_halder]

<p>Thanks a lot everyone for your comments.<br>

Doug ~ thanks for posting the link. It already has lot of info.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I ordered my 150-500 two weeks ago, but it is still in transit due to some transport problem. Oooooh, I am so looking forward to it!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Don't know if you read the thread Dieter refers too. Posted a similar thing there, but just in case...Another a consideration. Personally, I feel the TC17 is just a bit too much on the 300 F/4. It delivers quite good pictures, it is (to me) still handholdable, but on the edge. It is slow. The problem Dieter describes, the TC17 having more loss of contrast and sharpness on longer focus distances is exactly what I experience too.<br>

So I got the TC14 as well. First of all, the difference in AF speed between these 2 TCs with this lens is day and night. With the TC14 it's as snappy as the naked lens. Sharpness with the TC14 is much better, and stays better as objects are further away. To me, overall, it's a more balanced combination.<br>

And most surprisingly, the difference between 420mm and 500mm is not all that big. I hardly miss the extra 80mm, and if so, the TC14 left me with a better picture to crop anyway.</p>

<p>I never used the Sigma, so I won't compare with that. But do seriously consider getting the TC14 rather than the TC17. You'll end up with a seriously good 420mm f/5.6 rather than a good 500mm f/6.7.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>Here is a shot with the old 300 f/4D and a Tamron SP 2X Tele. Autofocus still works a f/8 max aperture, but it hunts a lot if its not really bright out.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8844718-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="455" /><br>

I'm sure that you can expect much better quality with the 300 f/4 AFS and Nikon 1.7x Tele.</p>

[joel_blacher]

<p>I will agree that the AF difference is a factor between the 17 and 14, but I will respectfully disagree that there is an IQ difference that is significant and that the difference between 420 and 510 isn't significant. I have images wide-open with the 17 that are close in IQ to the lone prime and with post...no difference (with reference to large prints...not 100% crops...which are still impressive). Technique is much more of a factor with these combos than IQ. I've also had a couple of 50500HSM's and they were nowhere close to the Nikkor prime/tc combos. When I had the Sigma's I was very happy with them, but when I added the Nikkor and was able to compare... Anyway, I'm not "bashing" the Sigma...the Nikkor prime is simply that good.</p>

[linda_jones1]

<p>I can only recommend from the Canon side. I bought the sigma 150-500 because I wanted more length than my 300f4+1.4x. [@420mm]. I use the canon MKIII. [which is superbly compatible with teleconverters compared to other cameras].<br>

Eventually I went back to the 300+tele because the sigma was too soft for what I was used to, at 500mm.<br>

Don't get me wrong, the sigma is a fine tool for the range, but for serious birding, a prime is a better answer in that pricerange.</p>