Looking for a new lens around 200mm maybe 300mm

M

Mr Mike

Messages
1,018
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, my kit bag now contains sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, tamron 17-50 f2.8, nikon 50mm f1.8 so im happy except for my nikon 55-200 vr. I am considering replacing it with something faster and initially i wanted 300mm to get the extra reach but after looking around there appears to be plenty 70-200 f2.8 and very little that reach 300.

So im looking for some input to narrow my choice down with a budget of £400-£600 with pros and cons for the many different options? :help:

By the way i have tried shooting deer with the 55-200 but normally only see them nearer golden hour and so far i have failed terribly due to not having the reach and the lens being too slow, yeah i tried up'n the iso but i must admit im not a huge fan of higher iso images unless completely necessary so maybe a faster 200 followed by 100% crop would work better?

Oh and im sure i will be asked so...its for wildlife, sports and anything thats a little further away than my current max of 50mm can see
 
i've just bought a sigma 100-300 f/4 which i'm happy with, it needs good light for the best results, as most zooms do....I payed £650 s/h for it and the only issue with it is weight, it's not light!
 
In the £4-600 range I'd recommend the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D and a Kenko 1.4tc if you need the extra reach
 
c_robinson said:
i've just bought a sigma 100-300 f/4 which i'm happy with, it needs good light for the best results, as most zooms do....I payed £650 s/h for it and the only issue with it is weight, it's not light!
Click to expand...

Just took a look at that lens, its given a great review and is liked by wildlife photographers who think its fast enough having constant f4. Im really not sure what i should do regarding longer and slower or shorter and faster. I wish I hadnt asked myself the question and just replaced the 55-200vr with the 70-300vr which was my initial plan and that would of been that!

Not getting much input on this one, i thought the which zoom is best debate would have kicked off on here by now :shrug:
 
Sneaky, turn round for a 2nd hit post and...

daugirdas said:
Wildlife will need 300mm (a prime?). Portraits and general action can be done with 70-200mm quite well
Click to expand...

I cant see me moving to a prime at that length as i want the flexability for sports aswell as wildlife, its annoying cos the f2.8 keeps coming to me as the best option for sports but i really feel 300 is required to reach the wildlfe

Flash In The Pan said:
In the £4-600 range I'd recommend the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D and a Kenko 1.4tc if you need the extra reach
Click to expand...

Hey flash thanks for the suggestion, i will go take a look further into that one but again its the lack of reach although as you say i could go for a kenko to make it up. What happens to f2.8 through kenko 1.4 does that become f4? Not sure i want to have more than just the lens to carry :thinking:
 
Mr Mike said:
... What happens to f2.8 through kenko 1.4 does that become f4? Not sure i want to have more than just the lens to carry :thinking:
Click to expand...

the 1.4x is not a lens really, its a converter that goes between the body and the lens, i dont know specific sizes but they are not that deep, and not heavy at all
 
c_robinson said:
i've just bought a sigma 100-300 f/4 which i'm happy with, it needs good light for the best results, as most zooms do....I payed £650 s/h for it and the only issue with it is weight, it's not light!
Click to expand...

Mr Mike said:
Just took a look at that lens, its given a great review and is liked by wildlife photographers who think its fast enough having constant f4. Im really not sure what i should do regarding longer and slower or shorter and faster. I wish I hadnt asked myself the question and just replaced the 55-200vr with the 70-300vr which was my initial plan and that would of been that!

Not getting much input on this one, i thought the which zoom is best debate would have kicked off on here by now :shrug:
Click to expand...

Shame that your at the top end of the country as if you were local to Essex then you could have tried out my Sigma 100-300 & the 1.4x TC...
 
jalethbridge said:
The canon 200mm f2.8 L is awesome and CHEAP. Takes converters too. f2.8 is incredibly useful.
Click to expand...

But doesn't work on Nikon's as per the OP's post...

The Sigma 120-400 gets good write ups and have gotsome cracking shots (admitedly on Canon) but the Nikon version new is £600 from memory, not sure how it compares on the Nikon but can't see it being too diferent...
 
Mr Mike said:
Im lost with this, i cant work out what lens you are referring too as the 80-200 f2.8 is around £850, guessing im looking at the wrong one :shrug:

Is this an old lens i can only have 2nd hand that you are referring too?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you'd really need to go used to get one within your budget nowadays, but it depends if you want quality glass or cheap glass, you can't have both unless you go used ;)
 
Really struggling with this, here is my shortlist at the moment..

Nikon 70-300 VR £370 new
Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED AF Nikkor £760 new
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens £670 new

My only concern is should i get the extra reach and get at least 300mm or will the 80-200 crop giving same results but better than the 70-300 would uncropped?
 
Mr Mike said:
Really struggling with this, here is my shortlist at the moment..

Nikon 70-300 VR £370 new
Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED AF Nikkor £760 new
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens £670 new

My only concern is should i get the extra reach and get at least 300mm or will the 80-200 crop giving same results but better than the 70-300 would uncropped?
Click to expand...

Nikon 70-300 VR is an absolute cracker of a lens for the price; I have one and although some say its softish at the long end, I really havent found that to be the case. The VR is a big plus; it makes hand-held long focal length shooting a doddle.

Neil
 
Mr Mike said:
Really struggling with this, here is my shortlist at the moment..

Nikon 70-300 VR £370 new
Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED AF Nikkor £760 new
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens £670 new

My only concern is should i get the extra reach and get at least 300mm or will the 80-200 crop giving same results but better than the 70-300 would uncropped?
Click to expand...

You should really add a 300mm F4 AF-S into the mix will knock spots off anything you have listed here and take a converter well, if you have the money I would remove the 70-300 from the equation, not to say it is a bad lens but the 80-200 and the siggy are better although you may find them a little short the siggy 100-300mm is also a nice lens but again not a patch on the 300/f4
 
gpa said:
You should really add a 300mm F4 AF-S into the mix will knock spots off anything you have listed here and take a converter well, if you have the money
Click to expand...

On a £600 (max) budget???.....cheapest i can find is just under £1000!! Is a top lens though:thumbs: but doesnt have VR.
 
neilos100 said:
On a £600 (max) budget???.....cheapest i can find is just under £1000!! Is a top lens though:thumbs: but doesnt have VR.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed his last post then he is up to £760.00 with the siggy

So could get a very nice 300mm as-s f4 second hand, as for VR, wildlife and sports can be at faster shutter speeds so VR is not really necessary, good technique is a better idea :thumbs:
 
Cheers for the input on this, one thing that nobody has mentioned is for sports/wildlife is f4-5.6 quick enough or do we really need the f2.8? Ok the D90 is not bad at high iso but personally i am not a fan and prefer to keep it as low as i can or just not bother. I think my problem is i like razor sharp and try for it more than anything with a shot and normally feel let down with a soft image. Everyone to their own with that i suppose :thinking:

The 70-300 vr is on the list because that was my intention to replace the 55-200 for extra reach and improved quality but after seeing the guys pictures on the Sigma at the start of this thread and the price i decided to look around and ask some questions. After purchasing the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 i could not go back to a slow lens so maybe that helping me edge towards the long f2.8?

The mention from FITP regarding the Nikon 80-200 led me to review after review and its highly recommended and very very fast if not the fastest long zoom around along with razor sharp images, this ticks all the boxes even if it does push the budget....but is it too short?

Would rather buy right and never change than buy then change due to the wrong purchase
 
Mr Mike said:
Cheers for the input on this, one thing that nobody has mentioned is for sports/wildlife is f4-5.6 quick enough or do we really need the f2.8? Ok the D90 is not bad at high iso but personally i am not a fan and prefer to keep it as low as i can or just not bother. I think my problem is i like razor sharp and try for it more than anything with a shot and normally feel let down with a soft image. Everyone to their own with that i suppose :thinking:

The 70-300 vr is on the list because that was my intention to replace the 55-200 for extra reach and improved quality but after seeing the guys pictures on the Sigma at the start of this thread and the price i decided to look around and ask some questions. After purchasing the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 i could not go back to a slow lens so maybe that helping me edge towards the long f2.8?

The mention from FITP regarding the Nikon 80-200 led me to review after review and its highly recommended and very very fast if not the fastest long zoom around along with razor sharp images, this ticks all the boxes even if it does push the budget....but is it too short?

Would rather buy right and never change than buy then change due to the wrong purchase
Click to expand...

2.8 is of benefit no question especially in winter, but the 80-200 while being a cracking lens is not as sharp as the 300m..... and yes in my opinion and experience you will be forever chasing length especially if you stick to wildlife :D
 
gpa said:
2.8 is of benefit no question especially in winter, but the 80-200 while being a cracking lens is not as sharp as the 300m..... and yes in my opinion and experience you will be forever chasing length especially if you stick to wildlife :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, just not sure i could consider a long prime. Probably be my least used lens to be honest so i would like the flexibility rather than fixed. Shootin football or MTB i think i would feel too restricted :shrug:
 
Mr Mike said:
Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED AF Nikkor £760 new
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO HSM Macro Lens £670 new
Click to expand...

gpa said:
I guess you missed his last post then he is up to £760.00 with the siggy
Click to expand...

I thought it was £760 for the Nikon & £670 for the siggy? :shrug:
 
Mr Mike said:
Yeah i laughed at that too, correcting somebody with incorrect quotes :lol:
Click to expand...

Arf a dozen times I had to read thru that lot just to make sure .....:bonk:
 
Mr Mike said:
Thanks for that, just not sure i could consider a long prime. Probably be my least used lens to be honest so i would like the flexibility rather than fixed. Shootin football or MTB i think i would feel too restricted :shrug:
Click to expand...

Then you have your answer, the 80-200 is a great lens but the macro on the siggy is a real bonus just to make it more difficult :D
 
or a Siggy 100-300mm f4 ... :whistling:
 
Trig's said:
or a Siggy 100-300mm f4 ... :whistling:
Click to expand...

I have read as much as i can find regarding the above lens and theres nothing but praise for it and its possibly the best reviewed sigma lens which says alot. Almost put this to the top of the list with the Nikon 80-200 but.....

After all this reviewing i managed to get a guy at work to bring in his Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR, now this is huge and heavy! I had no idea they were quite so large and although it comes with its own carry pouch my head is now telling me to stick with my original thought of Nikon 70-300 vr. I can see any large f2.8 being left at home most of the time due to the size, they wont fit in my Slingshot 200aw which i bought for its fast access. Maybe i hadnt thought this out too well to start with but after seeing/holding/playing with the guys lens yesterday im really being put off. The Sigma 100-300 plus all the 70/80-200 f2.8 are just too big i think. Dont get me wrong i loved it, very fast accurate AF and that feeling of check me and my huge lens ( is this partly why some have it? :nono:), almost thought fck it lets just double the budget and get this but in reality i think it would get left home, lot of money for that to happen.

The nikon 70-300 vr is small and light, it will fit in my Slingshot without any problem meaning it will always be with me even in the unexpected 'Quick get the zoom out' moments which imo is probably more important than the improved quality of the larger fast zooms.

Can anybody talk me out of this decision, anyone have the 70-300VR and offer any personal opinion of it?

Raked through flickr groups of all mentioned lenses which makes it a lot closer than i first thought, its all down to technique for sure and back to the 70-300 vr this first flickr page shows what it is capable of...

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=nikon 70-300vr&w=all&s=int
 
Think that you have just answered your own question really with the Nikon 70-300mm VR....

Its within budget @ £370 (as you say) it fits your SS bag (so no need to get a bigger one) you have seen the pic's on flickr - so what more do you want apart from some "nurofen" for the headache that you've just caused yourself ;)

Go with your gut instincts - its the only way to go...

edit: I could have said buy my 100-300mm to "talk you out of" your decision.... but I didn't - gut instinct is usually the best way...
 
Trig's said:
Think that you have just answered your own question really with the Nikon 70-300mm VR....

Its within budget @ £370 (as you say) it fits your SS bag (so no need to get a bigger one) you have seen the pic's on flickr - so what more do you want apart from some "nurofen" for the headache that you've just caused yourself ;)

Go with your gut instincts - its the only way to go...

edit: I could have said buy my 100-300mm to "talk you out of" your decision.... but I didn't - gut instinct is usually the best way...
Click to expand...

Agreed get it bought and stop fannying around LOL
 
Having read through the thread there have been many good suggestions. I will not comments on motorsports as it's not something I photograph, but for wildlife you may need to clarify what types you tend to photograph. You mention deer, so if its larger animals and you need some extra reach above what you already have, and you seem to imply 300mm is what you are after then to simplify things ask the following:

  • Will I ever need to be shooting in low light for some or most of the time? If so then f2.8 is a must. These will be expensive but perhaps within budget second hand. A s/h Nikon 300mm f4 can be had for around £400 for the older version and £600ish for the AFS version
  • You seem sold on the 70-300 VR, I have this lens and it is extremely capable and superb value. Sharpness is very good and I've never really noticed it being overly soft at 300mm. The VR is fantastic, it's not a heavy lens and is quick to focus 'in good light'. Much to my surprise, some people have used a Kenko Pro300 1.4 Teleconverter with the lens, but in poor light this may not be an ideal solution, but in favourable light an option to give more reach if you ever need it.
  • If your hobby ever leads you to extend your "wildlife" photography into birds then 300mm ain't enough unless you are close.
To give you an idea the following photo was taken at 300mm (450mm equivalent on my D80) in good light:

 
I'll give you some hints...

#1 the 70-300VR is a good lens for the money. Possibly the best value lens in Nikon's range.

#2 Best value does not equal "best lens". Its good, but not exceptional.

#3 Its f5.6 from about ~220mm. F5.6 is not much use when the light is poor or your subject is in shadow. Few animals stand in the bright sun being perfectly illuminated for all their predators to see them better. Just in case you don't understand, f5.6 is one stop down from f4 and f4 is one stop down from f2.8. Each stop down (down being a bigger number) halves the amount of light your camera has to focus with (because it always focuses using the maximum aperture before closing down to whatever your photo is to be taken with). This is why you want the widest aperture long glass for wildlife photography.

#4 The longer the lens and the wider the max aperture, the heavier the lens will be. Its just plain physics.

#5 There isn't a crossover really between top notch kit and portability. When you move up to the high quality gear it becomes very heavy and bulky and not something you take out for a casual walk. Either you make do with lesser gear and enjoy your day out, or become a beast of burden who's only mission is to take stunning photos

Oh and #6... your lovely parrot example photo is taken with a D3X at 120mm... the 70-300 will be f4 at that point and it was a lovely day and the D3X produces such vast image sizes that everything looks super smooth ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top