Alternative (non-nikon) 300mm f/2.8s

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Alternative (non-nikon) 300mm f/2.8s

(31 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

12 Next »

TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I'm now in the market for a 300mm f/2.8 and have found Tamron and Tokina lenses for about $1,000 and was wondering if anyone has used these or even the Sigmas. I would be willing to look at older Nikkors but I'm not willing to go above $1,500 at all. Don't bother suggesting anything over $2k - I know the new lenses are better, but it's not going to happen.

It looks like I'm going to get a reoccurring (annual) job shooting some high-school seniors during their football games for a friend who is a head coach and just moved back to the area. This will be a very low paid job (as he pays for it out of his own pocket.) I'm looking at it more as something that will be fun and in time pay for a 300mm lens I wouldn't bother getting. I really have almost no other use for a 300 f/2.8 but know that I will absolutely need the 2.8 for the stadium I will be shooting in. In the past, I have shot my 85mm f/1.8 at f/2 due to the light. My 70-200mm is not getting me enough reach and seen in the past, F/4 with the light will leaves me with too few usable shots.

Other info:
DX (D300 or D400 when released)
Budget is really $1,200
Some images will be printed at 24x36. Most 8x10.
I do need AF.
Looking at Tamron SP 300mm and a Tokina 300mm f/2.8 AT-X.

Thanks everyone.

Posted 1 year ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Whatever you choose it will be easy to resell it for exactly what you paid for it when you are done with using it, and it appears you wont really have a use for it after anyway. Considering that its a shame you can't push your budget a little higher since that would let you grab an AF-N 300mm 2.8 off ebay pretty easily, and depending on how much you got it for you might even be able to make a bit of money off the resale. I did when I sold mine.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

I don't think there are tons of choices. I have been looking into the same area...not for sports but the lens type. The newer F2.8 lenses in this range and Nikons all cost $$$. Honestly the only thing I have found is the Nikon 300 F4 and it doesn't really fit the bill. Everything falls in the $3000 range.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I have read some decent reviews on the Tamron and Tokina-s but most were tested with F4s or F5s (Film Days) or early D2 series cameras. As we all know, digital sensors test the resolution of the older lens designs and I was curious to see if they held their IQ or not. Many then also said the AF was fast but in comparison to what we are used to seeing now, who knows what that looks like. Just looking for an updated experience with these.

Sigma or an AF-S v1 wouldn't be bad but those seem to hit above the $2k mark. I will update my body this year so the budget will be tight for something I don't have much need for.

I could rent one or a D3s for that matter but this will come right in the middle of FB season (availability and weather permitting) and for $300 for 4 days, if I have to rent it twice due to weather, I'm almost at a full lens. I figure a 3-year pay back and I could just own one and have the convenience of working around weather.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

Pity you need the AF. One of my 300 2.8's was acquired for $400 off ebay (Ai-s version). Cosmetically ugly but sharp as a tack. Avoid the tamron's as they don't fare well with rain or humidity...

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

kyoshinikon said:
Avoid the tamron's as they don't fare well with rain or humidity...

Thanks for the tip!

Posted 1 year ago #
DutchNikon

preferred member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 241
offline

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

Posted 1 year ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
CaryTheLabelGuy

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 224
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
tcole1983

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,553
offline

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?

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
DutchNikon

preferred member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 241
offline

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..).

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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

Posted 1 year ago #
DutchNikon

preferred member
Joined: Apr '11
Posts: 241
offline

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..

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Thanks!

Posted 1 year ago #
bowen

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 17
offline

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?

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

@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).

Posted 1 year ago #
bowen

member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 17
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

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...

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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?

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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

Good to know, thanks.

Posted 1 year ago #