100-300mm - spreading the net.

[bill_thorlin]

I have been looking to add something better to my kit in the 100-

300mm range (sorry if I am becoming boring on this topic ).

 

Have had recommendations here for the Tokins AT-X Pro 340 AF and to a

lesser extent the Minolta 100-300 APO. Not much happening so far so I

am wondering if I can spread the net - so is there anything else

worth considering ?

 

There is a 100-400 f4.5-6.7 available but the only review I could

find was less than complimentary - any thoughts ?

[scott_lewis3]

I've never used the 100-400 but would love to give one a go it is suppose to be sharp and close focusing

[ivan_dzo]

The 70-210 f4 is stunning and dirt cheap (not quite your desired length though) more expensive but better again is an 200 2.8 g or not, with 1.4 tc.

[dennis_fallon1]

From everything I've read, the Sigma 100-300/4 EX is a very sharp, well respected lens. I'd expect it to be much better than the Tokina or the slower Minolta - it's high end "big glass", like KMs own G lenses and therefore sharp wide open, though one of the things that makes the KM 100-300 stand out from other similar lenses (xx-300/4-5.6) is its good 300mm wide open performance.

 

It's $900-ish, big & heavy and takes 82mm filters.

 

- Dennis

[User_502260]

In this range you won't be able to get anything faster than f/4. The Tokina lens is supposed to be very good but it is expensive. If you were using a manual focus Minolta camera I would recommend a combination of the 70-210mm f/4 and a separate 300mm f/4.5. This type of combination night still be good because if you will use a 100-300mm lens mostly at the 300 end, the plain 300 would give better results.

[craig_gillette]

The Sigma is really the best lens in the range. The KM is very, very good optically but a stop or more slower - very convenient, small, light, etc. The Tokina has the speed of the Sigma but isn't quite there optically.

 

An advantage to the 70-200/2.8 (for me it would be the Sigma for the $1K price difference) is that you can use it with the TC for range and w/o TC for speed. I followed several threads a while back going over these things and often a 100-300 is first purchased and then gets redundant over time as the fast 70-200 gets purchased and a longer lens supplants the long end.

[Greg M]

And, of course, if you have $2,500 burning a hole in your wallet you can always opt for the Sigma 120-300 f2.8! Outstanding, very heavy lens.

[joseph_albert]

<i>The Tokina has the speed of the Sigma but isn't quite there optically.</i>

<p>

Did you actually test them side-by-side, or is this just based on reputation, photodo, or other unreliable sources of information?

<p>

You might look at <a href="http://xoomer.virgilio.it/ripolini/100-300.htm">this review</a> of the Tokina lens by a professional nature photographer who rates this lens higher than the nikon 80-200/2.8 and 70-180/4-5.6 micro.

[sl attanapola]

What about the Sigma 135-400mm lens? You can get one for under 200 pounds secondhand!

[chris haake]

Yeah, what Joseph said!