help with lens??? nikon

355858

355858

Messages
679
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
hey guys, looking at getting a new lens for my d90, i have a kit 18-105mm thinking of getting summin with bit more zoom for sports photography and nature shots...

was looking at this:
Nikon AF-S 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G VR IF-ED Telephoto Zoom Nikkor Lens

but is it going to be suitable? as the apeture isnt very low?
 
This is an excellent lens for motorsport and nature, there's one in the classifieds at the moment around £325 I think.


Looks like you have seen it :D
 
kool, so worth buying then?
 
yeah, sounds like a good price
 
thanks foggy, looking forward to getting one now, will i notice a massive zoom increase over my 18-105??
 
:| Sports? At f/5.6!?

I have one of these lenses and generally have very little luck getting sharp pictures out of it, once I go past 200mm and/or at apertures wider than f/8.

I don't honestly know what else is out there at that price (not much, I should think), but if you could afford something a bit faster, it's worth sacrificing the VR for, I reckon. The Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 (used) might be worth thinking about too. Even if you add a small TC, you will still get the same, or better shutter speeds than with the 70-300mm VR.

Hope that I'm not putting you off unnecessarily, but I this is the one lens I have that frustrates the hell out of me :bang:. For static shots, in good light, below 240mm focal length, it really behaves well. But, for anything that moves and in dim light, it seldom gives me sharp images and sometimes doesn't focus quickly enough to give me any picture at all.

This isn't really helping you, is it :shrug:?
 
355858 said:
thanks foggy, looking forward to getting one now, will i notice a massive zoom increase over my 18-105??
Click to expand...

It depends on distance and size of subject, I bought mine to replace kit 55-200 and it blows it away with IQ and focus speed, the VR is very handy. I used a chimney on a bungalow at the end of my garden(100ft ish) to compare 200 to 300 and it was a good improvement so 105 to 300 will seem massive to you.
 
oh ok, where could i get a nikkor 80-200mm lens at this sounds better.. looked on warehouseexpress.co.uk but they dont have them..
 
I agree you might suffer in low light for sports but its a good allrounder. I picked up a siggy 70-200 f/2.8 which is sharpe and excellent for low light and a 100-300 f/4 which I hope to add a 1.4x to it soon. Choices choices, the one in the classifieds is a good price and if its not what he expects he can sell it on without losing any money and try something else.
 
which one? as there are massive price variances...

80-200mm f/2.8 AF IF-ED Zoom-Nikkor - £399.00
80-200mm f/2.8D AF IF-ED Zoom-Nikkor N - £775.00
 
355858 said:
oh ok, where could i get a nikkor 80-200mm lens at this sounds better.. looked on warehouseexpress.co.uk but they dont have them..
Click to expand...

try a search in the classifieds for prices, there's an AF-D and a much pricier AF-S version available.
 
had a look but theyre quite expensive..

would this be a good lens ?
80-200mm f/2.8 AF IF-ED Zoom-Nikkor - £399.00
 
whats the difference between the f/2.8 and the f/2.8D ? ...

im guessing d is digital but will the 2.8 still fit my d90? if so what advantages are there having the d over the 2.8 standard?

sorry lol
 
Am suprised some of the more experienced photographers not posted but i dont shoot much motorsport under f5 so cant see the benefit of a f2.8 200mm over a f5.6 300mm, personally i would rather have the zoom over the speed.
 
yeah i see what u mean... i see ure photos have come out really well with your lens
 
355858 said:
whats the difference between the f/2.8 and the f/2.8D ? ...

im guessing d is digital but will the 2.8 still fit my d90? if so what advantages are there having the d over the 2.8 standard?

sorry lol
Click to expand...


Some people here will hate me for posting this link, as Mr. Rockwell does get a lot of stick for his opinions on this forum.

Still, in my limited time with the hobby (6 months), I've found that almost every comment he's made about the equipment, which I have bought and got to know, has had more than just a grain of truth to it :suspect:.

So, have a look at this and click on the underlined text, to see reviews of the other 80-200mm lenses,

Link ...


Speaking from experience, I would suggest that you try and get some more informed views (than mine) before splashing out on this lens, as it's trying to do something that is usually done with lenses costing three or four times as much and so the results are not neccessarily what you might hope for :shrug: - well, not for freezing sport action, or capturing tiny birds in flight etc., at any rate.
 
mikeward said:
Am suprised some of the more experienced photographers not posted but i dont shoot much motorsport under f5 so cant see the benefit of a f2.8 200mm over a f5.6 300mm, personally i would rather have the zoom over the speed.
Click to expand...

The benefit is to do with autofocus - when you look through the viewfinder what you are looking through is effectively your lens wide open, regardless of what aperture you are shooting at.

For example, say we want to shoot at f/5.6 and you have the choice of a 300mm lens with a max aperture of f/2.8 and one with a max aperture of f/5.6, in theory both should perform the task equally well, right?

If you mount each lens on an identical camera and look through the viewfinder though you will notice a big difference, the image from the 2.8 lens will be much brighter, despite the lenses both being set to the same aperture.

The reason for this is that your lens is wide open until you press the shutter button, only then does it close down to your chosen aperture. The 2.8 lens therefore allows much more light through, which in turn makes it much easier to autofocus. In practice what this means is you will be able to nail the focus much easier in lower light with the 2.8 lens than with the 5.6.

My own lens progression went like this, 70-300 VR, to an 80-200 f/2.8 and on to my current 70-200 VR and believe me, the difference between the 70-300 and 80-200 is night and day. I'm not saying the 70-300 is a bad lens, far from it, however the 80-200 and 70-200, being "pro" glass are simply in a different class.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The benefit is to do with autofocus - when you look through the viewfinder what you are looking through is effectively your lens wide open, regardless of what aperture you are shooting at.

For example, say we want to shoot at f/5.6 and you have the choice of a 300mm lens with a max aperture of f/2.8 and one with a max aperture of f/5.6, in theory both should perform the task equally well, right?

If you mount each lens on an identical camera and look through the viewfinder though you will notice a big difference, the image from the 2.8 lens will be much brighter, despite the lenses both being set to the same aperture.

The reason for this is that your lens is wide open until you press the shutter button, only then does it close down to your chosen aperture. The 2.8 lens therefore allows much more light through, which in turn makes it much easier to autofocus. In practice what this means is you will be able to nail the focus much easier in lower light with the 2.8 lens than with the 5.6.

My own lens progression went like this, 70-300 VR, to an 80-200 f/2.8 and on to my current 70-200 VR and believe me, the difference between the 70-300 and 80-200 is night and day. I'm not saying the 70-300 is a bad lens, far from it, however the 80-200 and 70-200, being "pro" glass are simply in a different class.
Click to expand...

Flash, I wish you hadn't posted that "night and day" bit :(. Now you've got me wanting to follow my own advice to 355858 and flog my 70-300 in favour of a used 80-200 :D.

eBay, here I come :naughty: .....
 
For the money, the 70-300 is a great lens and a good compliment to your D90.
 
inkiboo said:
For the money, the 70-300 is a great lens and a good compliment to your D90.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this and stress it's great for the money.
It's light and easy to handle gives good results in the right conditions and the 300mm is very useful for sports and nature. Where it's not good is in medium to low light and at the extremes. I found that auto focus started to struggle too soon for my liking.

I found the 80-200 non-AFS too slow to focus but excellent IQ and of course it hasn't got that extra reach which is important for nature.

I decided to get my hand down and buy a 70-200 VR with a x1.7tc. I've no regrets and totally agree with Flash

Kev
 
I recently changed from the 70-300mm VR to the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM and boy what a difference.
I found the 70-300 was best at F8, which for low light stuff isn't a good thing. Although the VR helped somewhat......

But anyway, had a day at Marwell recently with the 70-200 and it just blows the 70-300 out the window!

All the animals HERE were taken with the 70-200mm F2.8. It's AMAZING!
 
The 70-300 VR was a cracking bargain while they were under £300 new (or £225-£235 used) but with the price hiking at £300+ even used, I'd be looking at an f/2.8 lens.

I think the 70-300 VR is very good - especially under 200mm - but too be honest with its VR and slow aperture, its a lens aimed at particular market.

Something like a Sigma 70-200 or Nikkor 80-200 (any flavour) will trounce it for bokeh and should generally produce a more pleasing image, even if in absolute terms the 70-300 VR might not lag too far behind in sharpness around the f/5.6 mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top