another possiblity...i would check out the sigma zooms such as the new 150-500. they seem to be pretty good values. i had an 80-400 sigma and really enjoyed it--great value for the performance you get.
depends on what you need, i needed length and good aperture for cheap. both together are hard to find for under $5000. I'm good with manual focus- picked up an Ai-s 400mm 3.5 for under $900
some people NEED AF, so than the AF 300mm F4 or AF-S 300mm F4, would be the cheapest but still good telephoto lenses. sigma/tokina has some prime 400mm 5.6 lenses with AF or MF for $200-$400 if you don't need aperture as much as reach.
bsear wrote:
Are there any other lenses that are as good of a deal? Thanks.
Hey, Brent--Like always, that "depends" on your criteria, needs, and shooting style. I still own and have shot quite a bit with that lens. It's sharp wide open and really sharp choked down a couple of stops. It also handles TC's well, especially the 1.4's. If your primary subjects are wildlife and you can get close (blinds, yard feeders), be patient, and put it on a 'pod, you'll get some great results. If you have any intent to shoot in-flight shots, the slow focus of the lens will drive you batty and make you wish you'd ponied up the money for the 300mm AF-S.
Low light? The D300s is going to give you ISO capabilities out to ISO 1600 without a ton of noise, so you may find that sufficient for morning shots with the 300mm IF-ED. I'd base my choice on available funds; if you can split with $1100 (used, average on B&S) for the 300mm AF-S, you'll be happier in the long run, but if money's tight, spring for the older 300 and just work a little harder.
At the price point you mentioned, make sure you get the hard case, extra drop-in filter and demand images that show it's a clean machine and not all brassed-up. I paid $500 for mine a year and a half ago and it came with all the original accessories and was in immaculate condition. One in that condition may be worth more, now, but make sure it's clean and get all the goodies.
Good luck and let us know how you jump with this one....Mitch
The current AF-S model is much better optically, but not quite in the same league as the Canon EF 300mm f4L or the EF 300 f4L IS.
I never got that feeling at all after owning each lens that you mentioned no less than twice. In fact the newer 300 F4 IS is not as good as the old version and never has been. The Nikon 300 F4 AFS is of similar design and sharpness to the old Canon and noticably better than the newer Canon even if you get a properly aligned one which is difficult .
My vote is for a 180mm f/2.8, used, although it is dog slow on the focusing. The 300 f/4 is a nice lens, but not very versatile. With so many people dumping their 70-200s these days, if you can swing $1400-1500, that would be the one to get. If you stick with DX, that lens will serve you well for many years.
bsear wrote:
I would like to get into wildlife photography and do landscapes. Would the f4 be fast enough for wildlife near dawn? And what landscape lens would you recommend?
I shoot alot of wildlife / but I don't get up that early ....... and alot of the time, they are static. You'll have your BIF and runnin' animals, but your gonna get most of them posin' for you.
bsear wrote:
I would like to get into wildlife photography and do landscapes. Would the f4 be fast enough for wildlife near dawn?
If that's what you have, then yes.
I've done some wildlife shooting with the 200-400 f/4 VR on a D200, up to ISO 800 or so at most. The D300s will give you at least a usable ISO 1600, maybe a little more. You'll get a little noise, but you'll be OK. And as mentioned before, most animals are moving more slowly at those times.
.