Best zoom lens for the money

T

timboellis

Messages
282
Name
Tim Ellis
Edit My Images
No
I am really struggling looking over all the forums to get what i want and within my budget.

I am at the point of buying a D300 however I was looking at a D200 which is half the price which is cutting into my budget so looking for a lens for it.

I would love a all round lens but mosty for wildlife / birds / landscapes my dogs etc. however it needs to give me a good fast shutter speed and also i like to get the shallow DOF look on most of my photos.

But the biggest issue i have is budget but I am looking at the 2nd hand market ideally a 300mm zoom but even a 200mm if i get better bang for my buck.

Budget will be tops at £200, but the thing in the back of my mind is if i get a D200 that will give me an extra £100 or so but not sure where the comprimise is.

Also if it means i get a cheapish kit 18-55mm if needed i can do .

Any help.
 
pete.rush said:
To be clear. You want either a D300 or D200, separate budget and.......
You have £200 to spend on a lens like a 70-200/300mm lens which could increase to £300 if you buy the D200 and you also want a 18-55mm if you get D200.

For your budget if you bought the D200 you could get the following

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-lenses/used-nikon-fit-lenses/ 18-55mm £55

Nikon AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR £55
Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 SP Di VC USD Lens - Nikon Fit £244
Click to expand...
Yeah that more or less what i mean however I am in no hurry for the 18-55 as of yet so would the tamron work with the d300 and d200 the same?

Also seen these Nikon 70-300mm F4-5.6 ED AFD and Nikon 55-200mm F4-5.6 G AFS DX VR which are a fair bit cheaper however does the more expensive Tamrom make it worth it?
 
You get what you pay for. The Tamron is a superb lens and the D300 is a legendary so that would be my choice. FWIW, the price you're getting the D300 for in the classifieds is a bargain so saving a little more for the Tamron is worth it imo.

Having said that, I can't save for toffee so I understand your predicament. :LOL:
 
timboellis said:
Yeah that more or less what i mean however I am in no hurry for the 18-55 as of yet so would the tamron work with the d300 and d200 the same?

Also seen these Nikon 70-300mm F4-5.6 ED AFD and Nikon 55-200mm F4-5.6 G AFS DX VR which are a fair bit cheaper however does the more expensive Tamrom make it worth it?
Click to expand...

The D300 the better body, the D200 was a bit quirky and the tamron 70-300 a good budget lens. Add another £120 and you could get the sigma 70-200mm f2.8

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...-200mm-f-2.8-ex-dg-ii-hsm-macro---nikon-fit-1
 
in between the price of the D200 and the D300 is the D90 which IMO will serve you a lot better than the D200..

this for me is in the middle of what you are thinking, it will mean only an extra £50 to go to a lens, but it will be well worth it to get a D90 over a D200
 
pete.rush said:
The D300 the better body, the D200 was a bit quirky and the tamron 70-300 a good budget lens. Add another £120 and you could get the sigma 70-200mm f2.8

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...-200mm-f-2.8-ex-dg-ii-hsm-macro---nikon-fit-1
Click to expand...
I did look at the even before i posted but not sure it would make all that much difference.

Can you advise me in a real life situation ?

For example i have just taken a few shots of my dogs in the last 5 mins on an old 350D with kit 18-55 set at AP 5.6 withe the light as it was i struggled to get a decent shot at 1/50 on iso 1600?

Also i bought the D300
 
The wider the aperture the quicker the shutter speed will be. The trade off is a shallower depth of field (which is usually a bonus to most people!) but if you're a decent distance away this will increase if that makes sense?
 
Maybe that's a poor explanation.

If you want the whole dog to be in focus you can use f2.8 but just distance yourself from it so the DOF increases. The closer you get to the subject the less of it will be in focus.
 
You'll be lucky to get to 1/1000 of a second with a useable iso in the evening imo. In the daytime it will be fine though. I was shooting at 1.8 the other day and was at 1/5000 for the most part.
 
minnnt said:
Maybe that's a poor explanation.

If you want the whole dog to be in focus you can use f2.8 but just distance yourself from it so the DOF increases. The closer you get to the subject the less of it will be in focus.
Click to expand...
Okay i am aware of that but what i was trying to see is if i fork out £200 more than i was originally going to go for and if i go from the ability to shoot at 1/50 with a poor kit lens to a decent zoom lens ie from a f5.6 to a 2.8 and with the 2.8 i will then get 1/1000 (The ability to freeze action) I amy b e not making my self clear sorry as i know what i mean but just trying to explain it...:-(
 
I'd go for the sigma 70-200 over any 70-300 zoom.

Miles better quality and the ability to shoot at f/2.8 at 200mm as opposed to f/5.6 at 300mm.

Buy a 1.4 TC to go with it and you'll have a 280mm f/4 lens.
 
It'll be worth it.. As per your last question, you won't get 1/1000 in the same lighting conditions, as the f/2.8 lens is two stops faster than a f/5.6, so you'll get 1/200th if it was the same light and same ISO, but at f/2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top