1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hi all,

    I am looking for an 'upgrade' to my Nikon 55-300 VR lens. This is pretty much a kit style lens and whilst i have gotten some good results i could do with something a little quicker and perhaps a lower aperture figure.

    I predominately shoot Motorsport - Historic and GT's.
    I shoot at close up venues like Goodwood and Brands Hatch where length is not an issue, and also European circuits like Le Mans and Zandvoort where there are larger catch fences and gravel traps in places.

    I understand i might not be able to find a lens that can do everything, and all the focal lengths required but thats fine.
    Alot of my shots from Brands GP are no more than 100mm as its closer up, and most of the indy circuit can be shot at 200mm without too many issues.
    The european stuff often requires the full 300mm.

    Some of the races often go into the evenings, so having a slightly lower aperture figure might be of use. Think my current lens is f5.6-6.3 ?

    I have a 16-85 for closer up work which seems to work fine.

    I understand all of the 'whats wrong with your lens etc etc' - I am simply asking for lens suggestions that suit my needs.
    Dont worry about budget for the time being, (within reason) - i would just like to examine my options as the lens can be shared in the family.

    What do you use?
    what do you recommend?

    Thanks!
     
  2. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,605
    Edit My Images:
    No
    By looking at your lens, I would assume you are shooting with DX Nikon body. When you say fast lens, do you mean fast focus, fast aperture (i.e 2.8) or both?

    70-200 f2.8 is good option but if you don't need 2.8 and weight is an issue, maybe 70-200 f4? Since you mention about needing the 300mm range as well, may need a extender on the 70-200 f2.8.
     
  3. Hertsman

    Hertsman

    Messages:
    2,613
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    See my longish Nikon lens thread in the equipment section,I asked the same thing.....
     
  4. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Both would be ideal, but its whether the budget will stretch that far! - i shall see.
    Would have to prioritise a fast focus due to the speed of the cars. Sometimes its nice not to have to focus into a corner and wait!

    I shoot with a D5500 so yes its DX.
    I find the 55-300 a bit weak once past 250mm.

    Weight isnt the biggest issue.
    Im young and fit, and also carry a rucksack around at events. When shooting im often leaning on a fence post to steady the shot IF im not using a mono pod.

    Will check out that thread, thanks!
     
  5. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    1,294
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    its hard to suggest without knowing how much weight and money you are willing to put up with.
    I assume you want a zoom lens or are you willing to use two (prime) lenses?
    You options could be (but not limited to):
    70-200mm f/2.8 (tamron/nikon) with TC as already mentioned
    Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 - lens that I drool over if you can afford it and put up with its weight. Also very good with TCs.
    Sigma or Tokina 100-300mm f4 - can be found for a decent price used (think its out of production). Also seems to cover your focal range very nicely.

    If you just need a lens fast at 300mm end then a nikon 300mm f4 might do also or 300mm f2.8 if you can swallow the price and weight.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  6. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That thread is a real minefield! lol

    I was just about to type most of that above... :)

    I think just having a 300mm is too much. i need the shorter end for tracks like brands hatch GP.
    Would prefer a zoom lens over a prime too.

    i will have a nose at the sigma section, as the 70-200 with TC seems to be the best option so far.
     
  7. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    1,294
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I don't if 70-200mm with TC is a better or worst option than buying a 100-300mm f/4.

    But the new Nikon 70-200mm is £2K and sigma 120-300mm f2.8 is £2.6K ;):D
     
  8. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    1,060
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you're not going for the Nikon (mega £) then the Tamron 70-200 is the one to go for. There is the new G2 version which means there is likely good deals on the earlier G1 (new or second hand) to be found - though the newer version is improved and offers tweaking and firmware upgrade possibility with the Tamron USB dock.
     
  9. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    is the tamron better than the sigma 70-200 f/2.8 ?

    Both of these are a step up from the 55-300 although neither offer the length. a TC would help with that though.
     
  10. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    1,294
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes in terms of sharpness at 200mm and f2/.8. Also in my experience Sigma has some sample variation with their 70-200mm.
    But I know sigma have their own TC for their lenses. I don't know if there is any for tamron or if Nikon's TCs will fit. Something to consider before jumping on either.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  11. Liam1901

    Liam1901

    Messages:
    75
    Name:
    Liam
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I've always found the sigma 70-300 2.8 to be great never had an issue with it!
     
  12. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    1,060
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yes Tamron have their own teleconverters ... though you will need to check which version you need. The newest version is for the G2 70-200 as well as working on the 150-600. The new 70-200 is (reportedly) very close to the Nikon 70-200 VR MkIII; while the earlier one and the Sigma was very good for their price.
     
  13. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,605
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR1 is pretty cheap used. I would explore the used option if you ok with used equipment.
     
    Eloise likes this.
  14. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    isnt the tamron designed for FF? - i know it will still be fine with DX but there isnt anything i need to consider?

    no issues with buying used gear at all. As long as its looked after.
     
  15. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    1,294
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    yes its a FF lens but so are the rest of the (70-200mm) lenses mentioned here. Only thing you need to consider is the crop factor of 1.5x which I assume you have already thought of.
     
  16. Shak

    Shak

    Messages:
    865
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Any 70-200 lens is designed for FF. Any FF lens will work fine on DX. DX lens won't work well on a FF camera.

    Nikon 70-200 mk1 is still an amazing lens. I had one for many years and was faultless. Only reason I sold it was because I just wasn't using it, any more.
     
    badboy1984 likes this.
  17. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,605
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I also had one and use it for well over 4-5 years doing sports. Sold it to MPB recently due to moving from Nikon to Fuji. Apart from that, the Mk1 version is robust and reliable.
     
  18. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,605
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I also don't think the crop factor will bother the OP too much, he been using the 55-300 and mainly shoot around 100-200mm range. the 70-200 with crop factor won't affect too much?
     
  19. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,974
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I didn't like the colours of the Sigma, and AF was slow in comparison to the Nikon (can't comment on Tamron as not tried it).

    OP, from what you've mentioned the 70-200mm f2.8 is a no brainer imo. The 70-200mm f2.8 VRII is the best lens I've ever owned and if AF speed and accuracy is important then I would suggest the Nikon over 3rd party still. There's the new Nikon 70-200mm VRIII (E FL something or other) which by all accounts should be better than the VRII (so can imagine it's amazing) and it eliminates focus breathing, but it's serious dollar and they've swapped the focus and zoom rings around for some reason.
     
  20. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I think its the best option for me too, i do shoot occasionally at 300mm, but i would think having a much better lens would just allow me to crop in slightly eradicating some of the need for the extra 100mm.
    Should i find myself coming up short, theres always a TC. something like a 1.4 would give me 280mm which would cover everything.

    I certainly couldnt afford the latest mkiii, but perhaps a used mkii - not sure what they go for used. I will have a trawl.
     
  21. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,605
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Used VRII is around 900-1000k i think, I might be wrong. The MKi is around 600-800.
     
  22. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,974
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Maybe for an average condition private sale one. If you want excellent used from a store you're around £1250-1300 :eek:
     
  23. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    looking at around £1k for a private sale it seems. mirrors those thoughts above.
     
  24. badboy1984

    badboy1984

    Messages:
    2,605
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I personally would go for the MK1 version if price is decent.
     
  25. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    1,294
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    well graysofwestminster has one for £1195 in mint- condition, fully boxed. They also provide good after sales support. Of course you can get it £200-ish cheaper on a private sale but with little after sale support :)
     
    snerkler likes this.
  26. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,974
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Sounds a very good price (y)
     
  27. Kaolin

    Kaolin

    Messages:
    884
    Name:
    Gareth
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    On a DX camera I would suggest a Mk1 rather than a Mk2 (you won't see the improved corners and you can get a 1.4tc with the differential saving.
     
    snerkler likes this.
  28. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,974
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Agreed, unless they plan on swapping to FF at some point.
     
  29. Kaolin

    Kaolin

    Messages:
    884
    Name:
    Gareth
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Even on full frame the Mk1 is not a bad lens, I have never felt it to be a problem.
     
  30. rob-nikon

    rob-nikon

    Messages:
    4,045
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thought I would clear up a possible misunderstanding, the £1195 mint- 70-200 f2.8 at greys is a VR1 version not VR2. Their VR2 prices are £1525 for exc+ and £1635 for mint-. They have one of the latest version for £2495 if you are feeling flush

    MPB are always worth looking at along with aperture uk. MPB have a couple of VR2's for £1100-£1300 depending on condition.

    Prices on here seem to be around £650-£750 for the VR1 and £1000-£1100 for the VR2 (all depending on condition). To be honest you can't go wrong with either the VR1 or VR2. The VR1 I used with a D7100 was fantastic, it was a huge step up in IQ and AF speed compared to the 70-300 I previously used.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
    snerkler likes this.
  31. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,974
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thanks for clearing that up. £1195 for a used VR1, are they having a laugh? :eek:
     
  32. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thanks for the info and clarification.
    Not such a good price now eh? !!!
    I am not in any rush, so i will hover on the classifieds and see what comes up.
    I would rather wait for something to be in near mint condition on here. Wont be too long.
     
  33. nick16

    nick16

    Messages:
    293
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Also - what about considering the Nikon 70-200 F4?
     
  34. rob-nikon

    rob-nikon

    Messages:
    4,045
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I did think £1195 for a VR2 from Greys of Westminster was a little strange. I've never visited, it sounds like an ideal place as a Nikon user but I've always noticed their used prices are a little higher than others though that is probably because you are also pay for their expertise, knowledge and help.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  35. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,974
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I don't mind paying a bit extra for that, but not those prices :eek:
     
  36. Hertsman

    Hertsman

    Messages:
    2,613
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    And the huge Central London Tax.......
    See also - Calumet...
     
  37. rob-nikon

    rob-nikon

    Messages:
    4,045
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    and that too, plus building rent/purchase etc. I'm sure their overheads (due to location and an actual shop)are more than online used sellers.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  38. wack61

    wack61 I've got an itchy hatch

    Messages:
    7,448
    Name:
    Darren
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you don't want to spend £1000 + the 70-300VR is a capable lens and a definite upgrade from the 55-300 vr
     
  39. Hertsman

    Hertsman

    Messages:
    2,613
    Name:
    Mark
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Whilst its a step up from the 55- the 70- is not in the same league as a 2.8 or f4.....
     
  40. stuartm1

    stuartm1

    Messages:
    119
    Edit My Images:
    No
    For customer service Grays are in different league to Calumet.

    Gray's 2nd hand prices are a bit much though, however when you have an issue they deal with it professionally and it's fairly hassle free... unlike that retailer in Drummond St.

    Calumets stock lists are always out of date, their online courier service (Fedex) is hopeless, if you're product is faulty and they can't replace it in shop you really have to fight for a refund (even within 14 days of purchase).
     
    chuckles likes this.

Share This Page