70-300mm or 18-200mm

Paul_H

Paul_H

Messages
667
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a 18-55 sigma and a 70-210 sigma on my D70 I bought the 70-210 for £50 just to see how much magnification it would have.
I'm off to Kenya in August and want a lens that will give me close-ish ability but not break the bank.

Also I'd like to take pictures of birds in my garden they come to the feeder which is about 5 metres away the the 70-210 does seem to get clear results the surround area is usually clear but the birds are a bit fuzzy even when shot from a tripod woud eithe ro f the above give a better result

thanks

Paul
 
I understand that the Sigma 70-210 is basically crap which may explain the results you're getting.

For little garden birdies the absolute minimum is 300mm but even with more it isn't necessarily easy.

For Nikon, the cheapest way of getting a decent 300mm new would be the Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR although a little soft at 300mm it's fine as long as you're not pixel peeping. Also, on Safari there should be plenty of light so I wouldn't be too concerned about the minimum F5.6 aperture.

Alternatively, you should be able to get a Nikon 300mm AFD prime for under £400 and they have stunning image quality, you can use teleconverters too.

Alternatively, the Sigma 100-300 F4 HSM is meant to be pretty decent and could be had for similar cash to the above.

I've just bought a Sigma 150-500 (there's one in the classifieds on here) which gives me plenty of reach, IQ is plenty good enough as long as you're not pixel peeping and the OS system works great.
 
Nawty said:
I understand that the Sigma 70-210 is basically crap which may explain the results you're getting.

For little garden birdies the absolute minimum is 300mm but even with more it isn't necessarily easy.

For Nikon, the cheapest way of getting a decent 300mm new would be the Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR although a little soft at 300mm it's fine as long as you're not pixel peeping. Also, on Safari there should be plenty of light so I wouldn't be too concerned about the minimum F5.6 aperture.

Alternatively, you should be able to get a Nikon 300mm AFD prime for under £400 and they have stunning image quality, you can use teleconverters too.

Alternatively, the Sigma 100-300 F4 HSM is meant to be pretty decent and could be had for similar cash to the above.

I've just bought a Sigma 150-500 (there's one in the classifieds on here) which gives me plenty of reach, IQ is plenty good enough as long as you're not pixel peeping and the OS system works great.
Click to expand...

Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR arrived on Saturday. I think it is a lot soft at 300mm, but still to try an aperture smaller than f.8.
Below about 250 it seems to be very sharp. Here's hoping it perks up at f11.
 
arclight said:
Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR arrived on Saturday. I think it is a lot soft at 300mm, but still to try an aperture smaller than f.8.
Below about 250 it seems to be very sharp. Here's hoping it perks up at f11.
Click to expand...

Have to change my opinion on this lens at 300mm.
Stupid me :cuckoo: May have helped if I had the VR turned on. It is sharp.
 
arclight said:
Have to change my opinion on this lens at 300mm.
Stupid me :cuckoo: May have helped if I had the VR turned on. It is sharp.
Click to expand...


:gag:................:lol:
 
I have the 70-300VR too, and the only downside I have with it is that it you cant use teleconverters with it. I did consider the 18-200VR but reviews I read said that suffered from lens creep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top