70-300 5.6 AFP or 70-200 f/4...cannot decide! (or 2.8?)

GarysInSoCal · Mar 9, 2022

Ad12 said:
the 70-300mm at f/5.6 is still better than the 400 even at f/8, even in good light.

This surprised me. I have my 150-600C for big reach, so I’m leaning towards the 70-300 for ease.

Here's a statistical comparison between the two lenses. I own both. I do like the shorter length and lighter weight of the 70-300... but the subject isolation of the 70-200 F4 (at 200 at F4) is quite amazing. It also might be just a tad sharper. At this point it's pretty much tit for tat.

Tiffany in Mismaloya on the Cruiseboat Photoshoot... shot with the Nikon 70-300 ED-VR.

Stats comparison here: https://www.google.com/search?q=nikon+70+200+f4+vs+nikon+70+300+vr&pcmp=f

Ad12 · Mar 9, 2022

whoosh1 said:
Ad12 said:

I have my 150-600C for big reach, so I’m leaning towards the 70-300 for ease. I could then replace my 150-600C with the future Z 200-600, and then I’m fully Nikon and full compatibility.

Decisions! Last test is both lenses on the dogs!

Click to expand...

Keep it simple - you have already laid out your decision there. Get the 70-300 right now without further testing - it is a good lens and not too costly. Later when Z 200-600 is released - get that. It is a different enough lens that there’s a place for both - one for lightweight/convenience and the other for reach.

You make good sense. Ive been looking at all three teles I now have, Nikon 70-300 AFP, sigma 100-400C and Sigma 150-600C. What strikes me is the smoothness of the AF, the optical quality, and the quality of the VR of the Nikon. It just lacks reach. The sigma lenses, whilst i've been very happy with the 150-600C, having checked back at the images, I still think for wildlife the fine details of the subject are not ground breaking.

Imagine a lens that has reach, is super sharp, fully compatible on Z, excellent VR, excellent fast smooth silent AF, a mix of the 70-300 AFP and the sigmas. It strikes me that this lens actually exists? In the form of the Z 100-400?

I know the image itself is greater than the sum of the parts, but i'm wondering whether I should stop half measures and messing about and trade all three of these for a Z 100-400. It seems like the pinnacle of telephoto performance for a Z?

I wonder how that Z 100-400 with 1.4TC would compare with the sigma 150-600C?

whoosh1 · Mar 10, 2022

Ad12 said:
Imagine a lens that has reach, is super sharp, fully compatible on Z, excellent VR, excellent fast smooth silent AF, a mix of the 70-300 AFP and the sigmas. It strikes me that this lens actually exists? In the form of the Z 100-400?

I know the image itself is greater than the sum of the parts, but i'm wondering whether I should stop half measures and messing about and trade all three of these for a Z 100-400. It seems like the pinnacle of telephoto performance for a Z?

I have not seen reviews comparing the Z 100-400 with the 70-300 AF-P. But Z 100-400 may be the best choice for you. But on the other hand, the 70-300 AF-P is a very lightweight lens and cheap. And importantly the Z 200-600 is not yet out. When it is out, there is a chance that you may prefer that over the Z 100-400. If you would have already bought the Z 100-400, you will lose money selling that and buying Z 200-600.

I had the Nikon AF-S 80-400mm before I got the 70-300 AF-P. In my tests, I found that the sharpness of the 70-300 AF-P was comparable to the heavier 80-400mm. As per Camerlabs review of the Z 100-400 mentions the following in the comparison to the 80-400:

"Sure, the Z 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 VR S is better optically especially outside the center and at long distances but the differences are not huge."

So it is possible that 70-300 AF-P may not be much worse than the Z 100-400 - and may not be a bad purchase right now while all the budget telephoto options in the Z mount get released over time (Z 100-400, Z 70-300, Z 70-200 f4, Z 200-600). By budget telephoto options I mean something not in the good used car price range.

Also the 70-300 AF-P can be an extra lightweight lens along with either 100-400 or 200-600.

Ad12 said:
I wonder how that Z 100-400 with 1.4TC would compare with the sigma 150-600C?

I would assume that the Z 100-400 would be better.

Ad12 · Mar 15, 2022

I know the threads evolved away from the 70-200 for now, but here are some shots from the sigma 100-400C and nikon 70-300. I think the Nikons sharper at 300mm than sigma at 400mm wide open, but 400mm improves a bit at f/8. If it was just sharpness i'd maybe go for Nikon as it can be cropped, but the Sigma 100-400 has two things I like about it over the Nikon, 1; shallower DoF and better subject isolation, 2; I find the bokeh more pleasing for my tastes, it's creamier and less shaped, the Nikon not always but can have more distracting elements.

So to conclude -

Nikon sharper (which allows cropping close to 400mm FoV anyway), lighter, quieter AF, likely faster but AF too but not tested yet.

The sigma though gives me images I really like owing to the easier time of isolating the subject (even cropping the 300mm f/5.6, it won't achieve the same shallow DoF as 400mm f/8 at the same shooting position), and also the smooth bokeh I enjoy more. Push pull zoomings nice too.

Some random shots from both:

whoosh1 · Mar 15, 2022

Great ! So you are set.

Tord S Eriksson · Mar 15, 2022

Ad12 said:
I know the threads evolved away from the 70-200 for now, but here are some shots from the sigma 100-400C and nikon 70-300. I think the Nikons sharper at 300mm than sigma at 400mm wide open, but 400mm improves a bit at f/8. If it was just sharpness i'd maybe go for Nikon as it can be cropped, but the Sigma 100-400 has two things I like about it over the Nikon, 1; shallower DoF and better subject isolation, 2; I find the bokeh more pleasing for my tastes, it's creamier and less shaped, the Nikon not always but can have more distracting elements.

So to conclude -

Nikon sharper (which allows cropping close to 400mm FoV anyway), lighter, quieter AF, likely faster but AF too but not tested yet.

The sigma though gives me images I really like owing to the easier time of isolating the subject (even cropping the 300mm f/5.6, it won't achieve the same shallow DoF as 400mm f/8 at the same shooting position), and also the smooth bokeh I enjoy more. Push pull zoomings nice too.

Some random shots from both:

To, just looking through these shots, without PP, all 100-400 seems sharp (very!) while not all 70-300 are not (the last ones are better).

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses.
WSSA #456

Ad12 · Mar 16, 2022

Tord S Eriksson said:
Ad12 said:

I know the threads evolved away from the 70-200 for now, but here are some shots from the sigma 100-400C and nikon 70-300. I think the Nikons sharper at 300mm than sigma at 400mm wide open, but 400mm improves a bit at f/8. If it was just sharpness i'd maybe go for Nikon as it can be cropped, but the Sigma 100-400 has two things I like about it over the Nikon, 1; shallower DoF and better subject isolation, 2; I find the bokeh more pleasing for my tastes, it's creamier and less shaped, the Nikon not always but can have more distracting elements.

So to conclude -

Nikon sharper (which allows cropping close to 400mm FoV anyway), lighter, quieter AF, likely faster but AF too but not tested yet.

The sigma though gives me images I really like owing to the easier time of isolating the subject (even cropping the 300mm f/5.6, it won't achieve the same shallow DoF as 400mm f/8 at the same shooting position), and also the smooth bokeh I enjoy more. Push pull zoomings nice too.

Some random shots from both:

Click to expand...

To, just looking through these shots, without PP, all 100-400 seems sharp (very!) while not all 70-300 are not (the last ones are better).

Hmmm. I felt overall the 300 was sharper wide open at max reach than the sigma. Perhaps the examples I posted favour the sigma. I feel a few of those 300mm shots are sharper than the 400mm at 400mm, but at f/8 it's about a wash i'd say? I do prefer the rendering of the 100-400 though, the backgrounds seem a lot smoother, would you agree?

I've decided to keep both lenses for now. The idea of buying used to properly test two lenses is a great thing, i've never tried this before!

150-600C will be used for exclusive birding/reach limited subjects I think, or when near a car. The 100-400C i'll use for wildlife and landscapes when I want to be a bit lighter (the 150-600C is notably heavier and bigger in a bag - indeed the Z6 and 100-400 together with FTZ are shorter than the 150-600C alone!). The 70-300 I realised is great for travel and super light trips.

This weekend I'm heading out with someone to visit somewhere and the Z6, 24-70 f/4 and 70-300 with FTZ can fit in the smallest bag I own, and weigh nothing - the 70-300 is also less conspicuous.

It's a bit silly to own both, but I intend to keep them both, use them both when I can, and then in a few months review the images taken, how often used, output, and decide then! Thanks for all the input.

Tord S Eriksson · Mar 16, 2022

Ad12 said:
Tord S Eriksson said:

Ad12 said:

I know the threads evolved away from the 70-200 for now, but here are some shots from the sigma 100-400C and nikon 70-300. I think the Nikons sharper at 300mm than sigma at 400mm wide open, but 400mm improves a bit at f/8. If it was just sharpness i'd maybe go for Nikon as it can be cropped, but the Sigma 100-400 has two things I like about it over the Nikon, 1; shallower DoF and better subject isolation, 2; I find the bokeh more pleasing for my tastes, it's creamier and less shaped, the Nikon not always but can have more distracting elements.

So to conclude -

Nikon sharper (which allows cropping close to 400mm FoV anyway), lighter, quieter AF, likely faster but AF too but not tested yet.

The sigma though gives me images I really like owing to the easier time of isolating the subject (even cropping the 300mm f/5.6, it won't achieve the same shallow DoF as 400mm f/8 at the same shooting position), and also the smooth bokeh I enjoy more. Push pull zoomings nice too.

Some random shots from both:

Click to expand...

To, just looking through these shots, without PP, all 100-400 seems sharp (very!) while not all 70-300 are not (the last ones are better).

Click to expand...

Hmmm. I felt overall the 300 was sharper wide open at max reach than the sigma. Perhaps the examples I posted favour the sigma. I feel a few of those 300mm shots are sharper than the 400mm at 400mm, but at f/8 it's about a wash i'd say? I do prefer the rendering of the 100-400 though, the backgrounds seem a lot smoother, would you agree?

Definitely!

Ad12 said:
I've decided to keep both lenses for now. The idea of buying used to properly test two lenses is a great thing, i've never tried this before!

I wasn't that wise as I bought mine new!

Ad12 said:
150-600C will be used for exclusive birding/reach limited subjects I think, or when near a car. The 100-400C i'll use for wildlife and landscapes when I want to be a bit lighter (the 150-600C is notably heavier and bigger in a bag - indeed the Z6 and 100-400 together with FTZ are shorter than the 150-600C alone!). The 70-300 I realised is great for travel and super light trips.

That is roughly as I do it, even if I have to 70-200/4.0G as well, and my AF-P is the DX version. And my 150-600 is the Sports version.

Ad12 said:
This weekend I'm heading out with someone to visit somewhere and the Z6, 24-70 f/4 and 70-300 with FTZ can fit in the smallest bag I own, and weigh nothing - the 70-300 is also less conspicuous.

It's a bit silly to own both, but I intend to keep them both, use them both when I can, and then in a few months review the images taken, how often used, output, and decide then! Thanks for all the input.

Good luck and have a nice trip!

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses.
WSSA #456

Ad12 · Mar 24, 2022

Little update for those that may be interested. Having used both lenses a bit more I also did some testing and fast small dogs running towards me. The hit rate wasn't amazing on either lens to be honest, likely some operator/body related issues involved too of course.

I found the decision difficult, but decided to sell one of the lenses to reduce my exposure to F mount glass.

From the action dog session I learned the following:

- The 70-300 has more sure footed, faster autofocus I felt.

- The 70-300 was easier to use and hold and felt nicer in the hand for sure

- The 100-400 AF was struggling I feel for dogs running towards it. Both lenses did, but the 100-400 notably more.

- Looks like a loss for the 400, except a big one, again as above, the final images - when the 100-400 C images were in focus, I love the rendering and subject isolation. Not only is isolation easier due to the extra 100mm, i find the bokeh much nicer. The 70-300 had more shots in focus, but I found them a little busy and distracting these images. The 100-400 shots were smooth and creamier and I really like the look.

- So it basically comes to deciding which compromise to live with. Nicer images, extra 100mm, but heavier with slower AF, or less pleasing rendering and busier bokeh, but faster AF and lighter and easier to hold.

Given I don't need an amazing hit rate for dogs and can be patient being a hobby only, I think I prefer having images I prefer the look of, even if they are harder to achieve. Furthermore, I've picked up a sigma dock for my 150-600, which I can then also use on this 100-400 to see if I can tweak the AF a bit.

I felt an advantage of the 70-300 would be it'd be easier to take on trips for instance. However, on my trip I went on (I wasn't alone), I didn't want to change lenses at all, so I took only the 24-70 and left the 70-300 at home. So the weight benefit is lost anyway.

So i'll return the Nikon in the end, keep the sigma 100-400 C. 150-600 C for exclusively birding or when I have a car. 100-400 for all other telephoto uses.

I may grab a 24-200 for trips and such to have a better 1 lens solution.

Tord S Eriksson · Mar 24, 2022

Ad12 said:
Little update for those that may be interested. Having used both lenses a bit more I also did some testing and fast small dogs running towards me. The hit rate wasn't amazing on either lens to be honest, likely some operator/body related issues involved too of course.

I found the decision difficult, but decided to sell one of the lenses to reduce my exposure to F mount glass.

From the action dog session I learned the following:

- The 70-300 has more sure footed, faster autofocus I felt.

- The 70-300 was easier to use and hold and felt nicer in the hand for sure

- The 100-400 AF was struggling I feel for dogs running towards it. Both lenses did, but the 100-400 notably more.

- Looks like a loss for the 400, except a big one, again as above, the final images - when the 100-400 C images were in focus, I love the rendering and subject isolation. Not only is isolation easier due to the extra 100mm, i find the bokeh much nicer. The 70-300 had more shots in focus, but I found them a little busy and distracting these images. The 100-400 shots were smooth and creamier and I really like the look.

- So it basically comes to deciding which compromise to live with. Nicer images, extra 100mm, but heavier with slower AF, or less pleasing rendering and busier bokeh, but faster AF and lighter and easier to hold.

Given I don't need an amazing hit rate for dogs and can be patient being a hobby only, I think I prefer having images I prefer the look of, even if they are harder to achieve. Furthermore, I've picked up a sigma dock for my 150-600, which I can then also use on this 100-400 to see if I can tweak the AF a bit.

I felt an advantage of the 70-300 would be it'd be easier to take on trips for instance. However, on my trip I went on (I wasn't alone), I didn't want to change lenses at all, so I took only the 24-70 and left the 70-300 at home. So the weight benefit is lost anyway.

So i'll return the Nikon in the end, keep the sigma 100-400 C. 150-600 C for exclusively birding or when I have a car. 100-400 for all other telephoto uses.

I may grab a 24-200 for trips and such to have a better 1 lens solution.

Sounds like a wise conclusion.

In another recent discussion here on DPReview one guy had had severe AF issues with his AF-P 70-300 FX that his first had needed replacing and the second had needed to be repaired, in both cases AF issues. My DX version has had no issues, but the bokeh is a bit busy! Best around 135mm!

Search

70-300 5.6 AFP or 70-200 f/4...cannot decide! (or 2.8?)

GarysInSoCal

Senior Member

Ad12

Senior Member

whoosh1

Senior Member

Ad12

Senior Member

whoosh1

Senior Member

Tord S Eriksson

Forum Pro

Ad12

Senior Member

Tord S Eriksson

Forum Pro

Ad12

Senior Member

Tord S Eriksson

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts