most affordable route to 400mm

A

alexsmith

Messages
418
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all,
my current setup is d40 with 18-200. I love the lens (and the d40) but like taking pictures of wee birds... 200 mm isn't really enough and i'm told 300 isn't close enough either but and heres the rub... is there any affordable route to get 400mm. by affordable i mean £600 for body and lens or bit less for just lens?
I don't want to lose vr or equivalant and i don't want to have an old lens that only works manually..
Should I have gone with a sony type with built in IS?
I'm open to blue sky thinking here:)
Al
 
£600 might just get you a sigma 100-300 f4 and a 1.4x tc.
 
Well, I've just bought (but am still waiting for delivery of) a Nikon AF 300mm F4 lens and with a x1.4 teleconverter that would become a 420mm F5.6.

it won't have VR and it won't zoom, but at around £300-350 for the lens and somewhere in the £100 range for the TC, that's pretty affordable.

you ain't gonna get VR for this kinda money, but that doesn't have to be a huge problem, just tripod mount it or make sure your shutter speed is fast enough (1/500 or faster) for hand holding.

as for if you should have got a sony, well, that's your call but I'd not worry about it too much :)

dave
 
sigma 70-200 f2.8, and a 2x tele is a good combo, giving you 400mm @ f5.6, and is probably on a par with 120-300 + 1.4x tc for image quality.
 
Bump of a rich relative, just make sure your in the will. :p
 
So, you want long reach with IS/VR for about £600.

I think this is your safest bet
 
It seems to be quite easy to get up to 300mm, with some good and affordable options. But at 400mm there's a big jump in cost, and it gets rapidly worse the longer you go.

For the budget, you might pick up a used 100-400 L. It's a popular choice before you need mega money. Or stick with 300mm and get a hide ;)
 
 
Philx1979 said:
I`ve seen these lenses on ebay that are 500mm for a nikon for £89 now i should imagine they would be terrible but looking at all the feedback people seem to say they are great?!?!??!?!?!?!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/500mm-f8-0-Lens-for-Nikon-D100-D70s-D70-D50-D40X-D2X-D2_W0QQitemZ390048625137QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN?hash=item390048625137&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1690%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7C301%3A1%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50
Click to expand...

I personally wouldn't touch anything like that with a very long barge pole.
 
Chumpalot said:
I personally wouldn't touch anything like that with a very long barge pole.
Click to expand...


If it was a bit longer you could use it as a barge pole.
 
famas said:
tokina also do a 80-400, might be worth looking at.
Click to expand...

if you can stretch your budget a bit then you could look out for a second hand nikon 80-400mm VR. but then it's not AFS so it wouldn't autofocus with your D40. but then you wanted to upgrade to a D90 anyways didn't you :)

dave
 
arclight said:
£600 will get a Sigma 120 - 400mm f4.5 - 5.6.
Click to expand...

I have a 120-400 and initially wasn't too impressed but actually when I went out to do some test shots as I was thinking of selling it I was so impressed even at 400mm that I have kept it! And this also has OS so even with the shaky hands it will still take a pretty mean shot!

Couple of examples here:

400mm

3338761062_d6ae1a4e1a.jpg


100% crop

3338761866_3c2d250b1a.jpg
 
itsdavedotnet said:
sigma 70-200 f2.8, and a 2x tele is a good combo, giving you 400mm @ f5.6, and is probably on a par with 120-300 + 1.4x tc for image quality.
Click to expand...

Not even close bud, not even close.

I had a Canon 70-200 F2.8 and bloted a 2x on the front and while usable the results where nowhere near what my 120-300mm could put out. I moved my forst 120-300mm on because I believed images from a 70-200mm +2x would be acceptable - big mistake.

IMO 70-200mm +2x is a combination to be used when there is no other option and not relied upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top