I was going to get a Tokina, but evidently I wasn't the only one with that realization. Missed out on the two lenses and out bid on one other. Sitting with nothing at the moment. I have had a hell of a time finding a good Tokina and then getting it before it is sold. Now I'm waiting to see what the announcement is next week (D400?) and if it is a body, I will probably aim for a body upgrade and rent a lens this year.

One valuable nugget is what Mustard mentioned above and was said to me again at a local shop. The Tamrons need to be upgraded and there is no visual way to tell and you have to try it out. That just doesn't happen with buying things over the internet. Where I'm out of, the upgrade would cost $450-600. Because of that, I am steering away from them unless someone says it is upgraded.

I have seen some Sigma 300mm f/2.8 lenses for a decent price - if anyone has any info on them I would love to hear it. I have heard some good things about them but only from review sites which I don't put too much credit on. I like hearing from those who actually use it regularly.

Did you finally get something?

I have seen that on the Tamron. Good to know the cost of the upgrade. You will have to let us know how it works.

I have a Tamron 300 2.8 AF IF which has been in my possession since the mid 90s which worked great with the F4 and then F5. I recently went digital and bought a D700 and the AF hunt was terrible. I read somewhere that Tamron can replace and upgrade the CPU of the lens so I contacted Tamron and they confirmed it and said that the charge would be $390. Luckily, the service center in NY is 30 minutes away from where I live so I brought it in a week and a half ago and picking it up tomorrow morning. Coincidentally, my daughter has a softball game tomorrow afternoon so this would be a perfect time to test it out. I will keep you posted on the results.

I'm leaning toward the Tokina. Although I just had someone offer me a Sigma 500 f/4.5 for a price I may not be able to pass up. Not what I'm looking for but I may just rent a D3s and make due.

Not like you really have too many options here, unless you drop to f4. If you want a 300mm f2.8 optic, I think you have enough info even in this thread to make a decision.

So, whaddaya tink?

kyoshinikon said:
The 17-35mm and 28-70mm are the same way...

Good to know, thanks.

To roll this back to the topic, maybe catch a few more this weekend -

Anyone else have any experience with Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina 300mm 2.8s?

bowen said:
...but any cropping shows the fuzziness.

I found F/8-9.5 is my "Sharp" setting for the 70-300. Probably goes without saying, to get pixel peeping, tack sharp photos, shooting at 300mm, on a DX you need at least a 1/300 of a shutter speed with VR and really should have 1/400. Most softness with any long lens, is actually very small camera shake. Hand-holding the F/4 your shutter would have to be 1/500.

NSXType-R said:
Odd that it has AF-S but it isn't a G type lens.

The 17-35mm and 28-70mm are the same way...

adamz said:
@bowen - two completely different lenses.
N70-300vr is light, compact and doesn't deliver once You cross the 200mm border, not to mention the fact that if You want tack sharp images You need to close it down at least one stop

on the other end of line You have N300/4 - sharp from wide open, excellent build quality, sure it lacks VR but remember that it's rather old construction, it's not even a "G" type lens. As for AF-S speed I would say they are comparable, with N70-300 being a little slower (but only slightly).

Odd that it has AF-S but it isn't a G type lens.

Thanks Adamz/TaoTeJared;

That's exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I shoot mostly at 300mm on my 70-300, and it's showing it's ability lately since my shot discipline and composition have become better. I find I have to stop it down to f/8 or f/11 to get a decent non-fuzzy shot. I do like the shots I get at tiems, but any cropping shows the fuzziness.

I'm going to try it out and pick it up tonight if there's nothing wrong with it.

@bowen - two completely different lenses.
N70-300vr is light, compact and doesn't deliver once You cross the 200mm border, not to mention the fact that if You want tack sharp images You need to close it down at least one stop

on the other end of line You have N300/4 - sharp from wide open, excellent build quality, sure it lacks VR but remember that it's rather old construction, it's not even a "G" type lens. As for AF-S speed I would say they are comparable, with N70-300 being a little slower (but only slightly).

Really two different uses for each lens. Both are great - like most primes, the F/4 is sharper but the VR well, has VR.

If you search the site there is a lot of info on both. I think there are many of us struggle with that question.

Has anyone got experience comparing the AF-S 70-300mm VR with the AF-S 300mm f/4? I've been looking for a little better (sharper / faster AF) performance than the 70-300, and have an option to buy a really nicely priced used 300/4. I'm just not sure about the upgrade? Anyone have experience with these two?

Thanks!

Hmm it was a 2008 version if i remember well ( tried it in the summer of 2009...) and it had either a silver or gold ring... not totally sure about that..

@DutchNikon - Was that the Red ring or the Gold Ring version?

Ok,

I've tried a friends Tokina 300mm f2.8 ..
The negs. :
- I do not like the balance on my D300, especially during AF ( it was an AF version) since the focussing ring is in the space that you would hold the lens , and this ring turns during focussing.
- the specimen i tried was nit perfectly aligned i.e. sharpness in on the left half of the picture was in a slightly different plane from the right half at wide open, this dissapeard at f4 -f5.6.
- To much CA for my taste but others may think differently.
- Heavy... , Front Heavy...

The Pos.
- reasonably fast AF
- Tack Sharp , especially since the D300 uses the sweet spot fo this lens i guess.
- Well build, hence the "Heavy" ...

Since i've had it only for 2 days, thats all i can say about it.
The Sigma and the Tamron i've never had a chance to try.
The Sigma 120 - 300 i've tryed and i loved it, but i cannot justify to buy it , just rent it a day at a time, once or twice a year, but very sharp at all focal lengths..( ok you did not want to know about this one..).

I'll try to roll this back to the topic of my OP. I appreciate people opinions that don't address the topic, but there are other threads for those. I am looking for some helpful experience that people have had with the other 300mm-s.

Summary looking for:
I'm looking for a 300mm f/2.8 for less than $1,500. If anyone has any specific experience with Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina 300mm 2.8s I would love to hear it.

tcole1983 said:
I personally don't think I can get myself to pay over like $600 for a non-nikon lens. I have had zero problems with my Nikon lenses and I haven't heard of anyone complain about theirs, but I hear everyone complain about Sigma and Tamron lenses. I would hate to throw the money away. Especially when I got in the thousands of dollars range. Maybe they have better QC for the expensive lenses?

"Hmm alternatively, there is a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 on Ebay right now, at a reasonable price ... "

I only see ones that are several thousand. Is there an older model?

I may be a Nikon snob, but there isn't a lens over $1000 that I want that isn't a Nikon lens, maybe other than the crazy non autofocus Zeiss lenses.

I personally don't think I can get myself to pay over like $600 for a non-nikon lens. I have had zero problems with my Nikon lenses and I haven't heard of anyone complain about theirs, but I hear everyone complain about Sigma and Tamron lenses. I would hate to throw the money away. Especially when I got in the thousands of dollars range. Maybe they have better QC for the expensive lenses?

"Hmm alternatively, there is a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 on Ebay right now, at a reasonable price ... "

I only see ones that are several thousand. Is there an older model?

I would say, stay far away from Tamron. I have had a lot of bad luck with them. Their quality is seriously lacking amd they are not durable at all. Tokina = quality. Tokina is one-par with Nikon. Sigma, as you know, is hit or miss. I would give the Tokina glass a shot, if I were you. It may suprised you. I know they suprised me.

I would rather go for N300/4 - for this price You can get a brand new copy or for app $800 a used one from ebay/craigs. I had this lens for couple months and it was a great performer - sold it as I needed cash. Was using it with TC17 with very good results. AF is reasonably fast, although doesn't compare to Nikon 2.8 lenses. IQ is exceptional.

Hmm alternatively, there is a used Sigma 120-300 f2.8 on Ebay right now, at a reasonable price ...