Good value lenses (primes) in the 150mm-200mm range

[cambsno]

Having changed my lineup recently I am now seeking a longer lens. Currently use my 50mm and 24-70 most of the time, with a sigma 10-20 on its way. For everyday stuff that will cover me, but feel like I need something longer. Not after a zoom as I like the quality a prime gives (unless its a 2.8 zoom).

Had thought about a 300mm for the aircraft shots but would use that once or twice a year, and its not really practical for much else - so thinking of something around 150, 180 or 20mm in length. Often will be portraits outside, and general stuff where I need longer. Budgetwise ideally £300 or less, and needs to be AF as just dont enjoy MF. Any good value lenses that fit the brief?

85mm is too close to my 24-70, and the 105/135 dc is too much.

 

[Garnett]

I'd love the Tamron equivalent of the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 in your signature. Is weight an issue? Otherwise, isn't the fixed prime you're after for £300 or less going to be playing second fiddle to that?

 

[cambsno]

Need to update sig - 70-200 sold a while back. Weight not an issue at all. Really into primes at moment.

 

[gad-westy]

Not anything obvious leaping to mind but have you considered a macro lens? Something like the Sigma 150mm would probably make a fine portrait lens (assuming that is what you're after?). Other than that, I can't think beyond the Nikon 135mm DC but I think you'd need to double your budget.

 

[TCR4x4]

The Nikon AF-D 300mm is fantasticly sharp, but the autofocus is very slow. I used it at Yeovilton, and it struggled to keep up with the fast jets. The AF-S version is much better, but twice the price. I did use it for some portraits, but its not ideal.

The Sigma 150mm, again is very sharp, and again has super slow autfocus. For portraits obviously this isnt an issue. They also have a 180mm macro which is supposedly good.

I cant think of anything else. My mind might be playing tricks, but I seem to recall sigma had a 200mm prime???

 

[woof woof]

- so thinking of something around 150, 180 or 20mm in length. Often will be portraits outside, and general stuff where I need longer.

I have a 150mm which is at the wider end of your list of possible focal lengths and I've used it for portraits outside... and one thing to keep in mind is that on an APS-C camera you'll need bus fair and a mobile phone to talk to your subject for anything other than a tight head shot.

 

[PsiFox]

If it is a prime

then how about the
Nikkor180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF

 

[gad-westy]

The Nikon AF-D 300mm is fantasticly sharp, but the autofocus is very slow. I used it at Yeovilton, and it struggled to keep up with the fast jets. The AF-S version is much better, but twice the price. I did use it for some portraits, but its not ideal.

The Sigma 150mm, again is very sharp, and again has super slow autfocus. For portraits obviously this isnt an issue. They also have a 180mm macro which is supposedly good.

I cant think of anything else. My mind might be playing tricks, but I seem to recall sigma had a 200mm prime???

I used to have a 180mm. Lovely lens but very big and heavy and also only f/3.5 max aperture. The AF is slow but I think only because it has a such a big range to work in. I seem to remember is being okay with the limiter on. Assume the 150mm is similar.

 

[PsiFox]

Alternatively the

Nikkor AF DC-135mm f/2 D

The DC (De Focus Control) allows yo to control the "bokeh".
oops forgot last line of OP!!!!

 

[cambsno]

Would love a DC !!!

Seems extravagant in a way to have a 180 type prime as a spare lens, but as things stand I only go to 70mm - fine for most of the time but sometimes need longer. When I had the 70-200 I generally shot at either end so 180 seems fine and some good stuff written about the f3.5 Sigma. This seems similar in price to the nikon 180mm (used) so probably between them - AF speed is something that is hard to judge unless you have had a play.