Another Lens VS. Lens Thread (Wildlife)

grey.squirrel

grey.squirrel

Messages
731
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm really hoping I could get everyones advice on a lens mainly for shooting wildlife. I currently own a Nikkor 55-200mm F5.6 lens but I'm hoping to upgrade it to the Sigma APO HSM 70-300mm F5.6 lens. My main reason for upgrading is for that extra 100mm reach but after some research (though granted not actually having a go) that extra reach doesn't seem to mean too much.

Is it worth the upgrade because quite frankly, I'd like a Playstation 3 and it's a tough choice between the two at the moment?

I can't really afford a F2.8 before anyone suggests that, I know it's useful for wildlife but I need the cheapest of the cheap at the moment lol.


My second question and one which I'd really like some help on is about teleconverter, I'm tempted to get the Sigma 70-300 and also a 1.4x converter but after reading that some don't work with certain lenses I'm totally confused about what combo I could use. If it helps I have a Nikon D40, so would the auto-focus from any teleconverter work? Preferably a cheap sigma one.

Thanks for your time cause I'm really stuck in confusion :bonk:
 
Cheers markyboy but that lens is waaaaaaay out of my price range, to be honest I don't wanna be spending any more than £250 second hand. I know this limits me to a near stand still but I just can't afford any more for the time being.

In hindsight I shoulda bought a Canon for the cheaper lenses and to get away from this bloody autofocus nonsense on the D40.
 
I think you are getting confused about the reason why a TC will not work with a f/5.6 (at 300mm) lens. A lens focuses with the aperture wide open, then stops down to the aperture you have chosen. A 1.4 TC will turn f/5.6 wide open aperture into f/8 wide open. This will not allow enough light in for the AF to work reliably. This is true for all cameras, although some high end bodies can focus with less light.

The Sigma 70-300 APO is a good budget lens, there is a built in motor version that will AF on your D40. Ken Rockwell has some comparison shots between 200mm and 300mm in his 70-300VR test (scroll down).
 
For just a little above your budget (I saw one on here recently for under £300) you should be able to source a Nikon 70-300AF-S VR. When I was looking for this I spent a long time looking through here, Flickr etc for comparisons and it seems that most people end up with the Nikon. It is a cracking lens and far out performs it's price tag.

This was taken at 300 on a D40.

4086616431_494fccdcf7.jpg
 
grey.squirrel said:
Cheers markyboy but that lens is waaaaaaay out of my price range, to be honest I don't wanna be spending any more than £250 second hand. I know this limits me to a near stand still but I just can't afford any more for the time being.

In hindsight I shoulda bought a Canon for the cheaper lenses and to get away from this bloody autofocus nonsense on the D40.
Click to expand...

What wildlife?

if Birds, then 400mm a minimum, really 300/400mm a minimum for wildlife of any type and £250 ain't going to get you much.

If I was you, buy the play station 3, as you won't get anything in the lens department worth its salt 2nd hand for £250. Even 2nd hand sigma 120-400mm is £500, new just over £600 and thats at the bottom of the pile of lenses I would suggest.
 
Cheers for the input everyone. I think I may get the 70-300 or hold off for one to come up on here, and just accept that I'm never going to get a bigger lens for a long time. I just can't justify spending more than my cars worth on a hobby at the moment. Thanks anyway though :D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top