Best Nikon Telephoto for me

Dazzler

Dazzler

Messages
314
Name
Gavin
Edit My Images
Yes
Now I promised myself I wouldn’t really do this but I’ve managed to work myself into a state of complete confusion with all the useful info on this site!! So apologies in advance :)

I need a zoom telephoto lens (budget say £500) – I have a Nikon D200.

What do I need to do/points:
- bit of portraiture (zippy little nieces)
- would like to photo a little of the local football (mates/ mate’s lad etc)
- would like to have a go at local cricket (not Lords - but more like 50yds subject distance)
- Bit of motorsports photography would appeal
- not really into bird photography though
- I'll not be selling images, biggest I'll print is A4 probably
- I’m not really a tripod person

Now being an amateur I obviously link decent bokeh to a professional shot. As I found out recently at cricket a Sigma 80-200mm f5.6 at about 50yds subject distance produced a ‘pin-sharp’ background, bah humbug. Would f2.8 make a difference at that distance with a 200mm?

The solution I was almost set on was a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 2-touch AFD. It’s just about within my budget at £500. I could later perhaps add a TC1.4 and sacrifice a stop (I know potential sacrilege). I can’t afford the 70-200 VR though. However as usual other options/questions come into the mix.

- Is the push-pull Nikon f2.8 really really slow to focus?
- Is the AFS worth the extra money over the AFD?
- Sigma and Tamron – would an image stabilised f2.8 come into the £500 bracket?
- There is a Nikon 80-400mm VR in Sales Corner (£650 is above budget though) is this a better option?
- Or perhaps a 70-300 VR


I guess it boils down to 2 questions
- For £500 is there a better solution than a Nikon 80-200mm AFD?
- Will I be able to get passable cricket shots with it at 50yds (i.e. some Bokeh)


I’m a tough lad so give it to me straight.

Many thanks in advance

Gav
 
If what you'd really like is the Nikon 70-200mm VR (which sounds perfect apart from being out of your budget) then why not consider either the Sigma or Tamron versions of them. I don't think either come with VR/IS/OS but they are still good lenses that'll give you the right zoom range, have f2.8 and the focus speeds aren't too shabby either.
 
sigma 70-200 F2.8 :) Second hand about £400ish I'd expect and a lot of lens for the money.
 
what's the issue with the Nik 70-300 VR?
that would get my vote. I use mine for my nippy little kids and i find it excellent - the vr makes a big difference to my pics.
 
another vote for the 70-200 sigma, i use mine for some of the uni football and alot of snowsports stuff, add a 1.4tc if you need extra reach and your good to go :) its not a huge lens but its heavier than most people are used to so it takes a bit of practice to hold it steady
 
A new Sigma is about £650 now so that would be out of your price range although I'm sure there are secondhand ones out there for under £500. I use mine with a D90 and to my eye (and that of the local paper) the results are spot on. Cricket has been fine and some of the local grounds are surprisingly large - I've also 'done' most other local sports with it as well including football and both kinds of rugby.

Obviously I can't compare it lenses I haven't used but I reckon it'll more than do the job for you.
 
I recently was in exactly the same boat as you. Wanted my first telephoto for my D90 and was stuck what to buy - mainly because it would potentially be more expensive then the original camera!! After weeks of reading review, after review I went for the 80-200 f2.8 AF-D. Brought it second-hand in great condition - well within your budget.

I have mainly used it for sport (football) and portrait. The results are extremely impressive and it is incredibly sharp - really has brought the best out of my D90 and has really encouraged me to get stuck into photography more. The focus is more then good enough for my standard, and for what I use it for I don't really miss the VR - it's unlikely I would be shooting slow shutters speeds with it anyway.

If I was you, I wouldn't think twice about buying one. It is a lens made for professionals, therefore the results have to be up there with the best.
 
Many thanks for the responses Guys, I know it's been done before in different guises.

I'll have a look at the Sigma and Tamron versions too thanks.

BazEP no issue with the 70-300 VR was just looking for an f2.8. However the versatility and lightness in comparison is worth considering, especially for travel.

Frenzied Dwarf (great name), you're right, these lenses come in at 1.3kg plus 0.9kg for the D200 and it's a hefty weight.

Gingerjon - thanks for the comment - it's your thread here >> Clicky << that has convinced me that an 80-200 f2.8 is the way to go at my pricepoint, nice sharp images. Sigma (in pics) /Tamron/Nikon?? Hmmm.

Siderdib - do you have the push-pull or 2 touch?


Going to mull it over and then stick up a wtb!

Cheers all

Gav
 
The Sigma 50-150 is another option. It's lighter, cheaper and better image quality than the Sigma 70-200 (at least the older versions, don't know about the new expensive OS one). The only downside is it's DX only so no good if you might go to full frame.

The Nikon 80-200 seems like a very good choice too, especially it you want the extra focal length.
 
I love my 70-300 VR, as has been said, I really notice it when the VR kicks in. :)
 
An underrated Nikon prime is the 180mm f/2.8 - about £400 used - but it's fixed focal length.
I use a 80-200mm Nikon and it's great but it's not in your price range. I'd get the Sigma 70-200mm. Tamron do a f/2.8 70-200mm but apparently it's slower to focus than the competition. They're about £500 new
 
Budget of £500 I'm hoping will possibly be enough on the Sales thread. Last Nikon on here 80-200AFD 2-touch went for £525 and a worn one went for £395.

I will have a look at the Sigma. I'm after a used one ideally and don't mind cosmetic damage.

Specialman - the flexability of the zoom appeals to me thanks.
 
New, Nikon 70-300 VR.

2nd hand, Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. (IMO [and I have both lenses] IQ from this at least equals that from the Kikkor 180mm f/2.8 prime, not to mention the flexibility of the zoom)
 
Dazzler, mine is the two touch version. Keep an eye on MPB photography website. When I brought mine they had 4 for sale ranging from £350 to £550, depending on version and condition. Service was excellent.
 
Dont know if this would be of any interest to you, but I'm sure Darren will/would answer any questions that you may have - Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 Push Pull.... Its well within your budget - tis just a thought..
 
Another one to throw in the mix, if you need the reach of 300mm, is the Sigma 100-300 F4.

Cracking lens for the money, normally around £500 secondhand if you can find someone willing to give one up.
 
barneyrubble said:
Another one to throw in the mix, if you need the reach of 300mm, is the Sigma 100-300 F4.

Cracking lens for the money, normally around £500 secondhand if you can find someone willing to give one up.
Click to expand...


Oh yes (y) Cracking lens - sold mine to get Nikons 70-200mm VR

:thinking: Considering in selling the 70-200mm VR & getting another Siggie 100-300 f4 (I might seem to be a bit :wacky: to some there :LOL:)
 
lol - this gets more and more difficult!

Thanks for the heads up on Darren's 80-200 Nikon Trigs- looks like it's just gone. A kind member has offered to let me have a play with his Nikon 80-200 so by tomorrow I should have a much better idea ;) honest!
 
Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D.....whilst the 70-300 VR is decent enough lens the 80-200 is in a different class when it comes to both build and image quality, that's coming from someone who has owned both at the same time.
 
Another vote for the used Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM and Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 AF-S. These cost a fraction of the price of the new ones. For this sort of lens and I don't think image stabilisation is as imported there so quick to start with and most use them for action shots. If you cant get in close enough you can always add a 1.4x TC and it will still be a faster lens then the 70-300mm. Or if you shop about you may get a used Sigma 100-300mm f4.
 
Dazzler said:
lol - this gets more and more difficult!

Thanks for the heads up on Darren's 80-200 Nikon Trigs- looks like it's just gone. A kind member has offered to let me have a play with his Nikon 80-200 so by tomorrow I should have a much better idea ;) honest!
Click to expand...

No worries - seems the case that though & has happened to me alot :LOL:

Hope all goes well with the play of your mates one & that you seek one out..
 
Many thanks to all that have contributed here. I went to see Cowasaki tonight who really kindly allowed me to try out his Nikon 80-200 f2.8. A great lens, sharp and focuses fast. Think it will probably be the one for me, I'll still look at the Sigma 70-200.
 
Thanks for posting this Gavin - I found really useful too as thinking about the same problem. Still nice problem to have compared to some!
 
If you want reach, you want reach. 300mm ain't nearly long enough for some things, but 200mm's plenty worse.

Here's 2 options, both of which I've owned: A first generation Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with a decent well matched teleconverter. First gen is reputedly the best; although I haven't tried the later versions it was superb.

70-300VR. At 70mm, it's better than the Sigma 70-200, really. A stop slower, but IQ is amazing, and people forget this. Plus, it does 300mm without having to take it off the camera and fiddle. VR helps, works, saves shots.

I'd go for the 70-300VR, but that's me.
 
My vote is for the 70-300mm VR. It's my favourite lens. Extremely portable compared to a f2.8 lens for example, and has plenty of reach for most situations. Great image quality too!
 
davidch99 said:
Thanks for posting this Gavin - I found really useful too as thinking about the same problem. Still nice problem to have compared to some!
Click to expand...

Aye it is but no less frustrating! ;)

Doug said:
I use the 70-200 Sigma. It really is a cracking lens for the money. You can see examples of it:
Click to expand...

Thanks for that some great piccies there.

My vote is for the 70-300mm VR
Click to expand...

If you want reach, you want reach. 300mm ain't nearly long enough for some things, but 200mm's plenty worse.
70-300VR. At 70mm, it's better than the Sigma 70-200, really. A stop slower, but IQ is amazing, and people forget this. Plus, it does 300mm without having to take it off the camera and fiddle. VR helps, works, saves shots.
Click to expand...

This is perhaps my biggest dilema, I've never used VR but can appreciate it's uses and internet test shots bear this out. I've had a look at the 'VR vs High ISO performance vs Fast Lens' debate and whilst they all have their strengths and uses it seems that the concensus is that fast quality glass is usually the way to go - Buy the best glass you can, fast glass has more dof control and less low light focusing problems. By all accounts the 70-300mm VR is very sharp to 200mm where it drops off a little thereafter.

I appreciate the compactness and versatility of the 70-300 VR and also the fact I will not be printing above A4 but what concerns me most is not getting the shallow depth of field that I want. As I understand it the further the subject is away the greater the depth of field, only getting closer, increasing the aperture or increasing focal length will shorten the depth of field and give the out of focus effect on the background.

I'm probably in the usual place that most of us Togs find oursleves in - you can only throw a lot of money at the issue and there are no cheap short cuts! Gah!

Thanks again.

Gav
 
Hmmmm looking at this thread >> CLICKY << this is what I was after - but it was with a 300mm f2.8 + 1.4TC therefore f4.


Looks like my budget won't allow, closest I could get is a Sigma 300mm f2.8 >> CLICKY <<(was one in sales for £1400) + 1.4TC. But alas it's thrice my budget.
 
Am personally after a 70-300 VR instead of a 55-200 VR after messing about in Dixons last weekend. Was at the airport and needed to kill some time so went into the little Dixons and found that they had a D3000 powered up and also a couple of suitable lenses. I tried the 18-105 first and that was a fair improvement over my 18-55 VR kit lens. Next I tried the lens I wanted, the 55-200 VR and that was also a lot better. Then out of curiousity I tried the 70-300 VR and pretty much fell in love. I vaguely remember reading something about the 300mm end of it needing a steady hand to produce a decent result but handheld, wobbling like I have ants in my pants and the image is good :)

While I was pulling my hair out trying to keep my bank card in my pocket I thought it wouldn't hurt to try the Tamron (I think) equivalent. I found the quality of the shot to be a fair bit lower and the autofocus motor makes some serious noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top