View Full Version : 300mm plus lens required!
Right, I'm pretty much at a stage where I have everything I want/need with one huge exception... a fast super telephoto lens.
I have the 70-200mm VR and 1.7x TC, which gets me to 340mm, but this just isn't enough sometimes.
I also have a Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm), but this is f/6.3 at 500mm..
My thinking is that if I get an F2.8 300mm lens, I can use a TC to get either 420mm f/4, 510mm f/4.8 or 600mm f/5.6
So, my options are -
Sigma 120-300mm F2.8
Nikon 300mm F2.8 (second hand)
Nikon 400mm F2.8 (second hand)
I have included the 400mm as I have found a second hand example for £1600, however at over 6kg I don't think this is a sensible option.
Are there any other obvious alternatives (I have ruled out the Sigma 300mm as I believe the 120-300mm is based on this and offers a zoom?)?
I would ideally like the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR, but it is a bit too much for my wallet and I haven't seen any second hand ones around..
Any thought/advice welcomed.
Thanks
Chez
They all weigh a ton, mate. Even the new 300mm f2.8 with the carbon hood.
I leave it in the car unless I know I'm gonna need it.
The 300 and 600 are both very good lenses (I sold my own 600 for £2,000 last year to pay for a new boiler - now I wish I'd let the buggers freeze, but there you go...), although the 600 was a bit too long for most subjects.
I find the 300 to be the long lens I use most - used with a Nikon DSLR it gives a 'film' focal length of 450mm anyway.
I'm not a fan of some of the new VR lenses - we've found the 80-400 VR Nikkor to be as soft as butter optically, despite some heated arguments with the Nikon bods who say it's the best thing since sliced Hovis.
I would go for an older-spec AF-S 300mm f/2.8 IF-ED. More than adequate and there should be some coming on the market now as newer lenses become available.
Ah, was just about to say 80-400, with VR giving you equivalent of 2 stops advantage....but who wants butter ;)
Hi Rob, thanks for the advice.
I'm not a fan of the 80-400mm VR. I tried one out and went for the 70-200mm VR over it (much faster, sharper and generally far superior!)
Even if I wanted it, I don't think funds will allow the 300mm VR..
Are the AF-S versions much better than the AF version do you know?
I don't think I will need 600mm often, and if I do a 2x TC would give me f/5.6 at 300mm..
As for weight, I know none of them are light, but from what I can see, the 400mm is 6.3kg and the 300mm is 2.8kg - a fair difference!
Ah, was just about to say 80-400, with VR giving you equivalent of 2 stops advantage....but who wants butter ;)
lol
The 80-400mm also isn't exactly fast to focus... I will be using this lens for F1 amongst other things, so focus speed is a priority..
Also, while VR gives 2 stops advantage in terms of shutter speed, it doesn't give the same DOF as a lens which is 2 stops faster...
Also, while VR gives 2 stops advantage in terms of shutter speed, it doesn't give the same DOF as a lens which is 2 stops faster...
Time to invest in PS training & save some money ;)
lol - aah, the joys of gaussian blur, eh?
My problem is getting my selections right and feathering correctly!
You'd get plenty of practice on every F1 shot ;)
Gutted!
Just had a chat (5 mins ago) with the QM and he's ordering the 80-400 instead of the 70-200 I asked for.
Toss!!!!!
Butter, anyone?
Seriously though...why?
Dunno - the decision was made while I was in Iraq and the other Team's Photographer likes the 80-400. I don't. Subjective, thought the QM and ordered the one that covered most focal length.
Shame, the 70-200mm is such a fantastic lens... (although don't you already use the 80-200mm F2.8?)
Well at least you can use it for soft focus shots of the ladies ;)
Venomator
10-01-2006, 12:32
Dunno - the decision was made while I was in Iraq and the other Team's Photographer likes the 80-400. I don't. Subjective, thought the QM and ordered the one that covered most focal length.
Aaahh ... QM's - brings back fond memories ... NOT ! :hissyfit: Don't you just love 'em ? :Ponders:
Yes - I'll be keeping my now almost obsolete AF-S 80-200 f/2.8....
Does anyone know what the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 D ED-IF Lens is like?
I have heard very mixed reports..
Some people say the focus is as fast as the F2.8, others say not..
It is generally accepted that the tripod mount is pretty shoddy (although it can be replaced).
The optics are meant to be superb though by all accounts..
There's a review here -
http://www.bythom.com/300AFSlens.htm
EDIT - another review here with an 'interesting' solution to the tripod mount! - http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS300_test_images.html
This is a good resource for NIkon lens reviews - http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_main.htm
I've got the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and so far its been great! Its far cheaper than any other 300 2.8s and also offers a zoom! I find the zoom indispensable for motorsport.
BTW, the Sigma 300 2.8 prime is actually less sharp than the 120-300 2.8, die the the latter being a newer lens. Apparently even Sigma have admitted it.
Thnks for that Joe..
I can imagine the zoom being useful. Especially as I already have up to 340mm covered.. I could just put a 1.4x or 1.7x TC on and have a good range...
I may have to see if Calumet have both lenses for hire and try them...
Generally speaking, lenses with a 'slower' max aperture but the same focal length tend to be of better quality than their faster brethren.
It's easier to make them apparently
This is a good resource for NIkon lens reviews - http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_main.htm
Great link...just what I was after :thumb:
S/H Nikon 300mm f/2.8 on EBAY here (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7578935686&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:UK:1)
Thanks DJW - I saw that, but that is more than I want to pay..
I've seen AF-S ones for around the £1000-1200 mark..
Also, I can get a brand new one in HK for around £1700 (as in have a week over there for around £600, buy that lens and a couple of other bits and the holiday pays for itself!)
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.