need new longer lens

Peter69

Peter69

Messages
1,013
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I have only just bought my D5100 and it came with 18-55, 55-200 nikon lenses. After a trip out today I realise I need a longer lens to get close to some subjects (wildlife).

Any recommendations with a sensible budget?

For additional information, I will probably be buying a 70-200 f2.8 lens in the near future for a specific purpose.

As a side question, would I be right in thinking that if I have an image that was taken at 200mm whose hieght is 1500mm, if I crop that image to 1000mm high (keeping aspect) is this similar to what I would expect from 300mm lens. Just trying to get an idea if I need 300, 400 etc
 
If you are planning on getting the 70-200mm f/2.8 I would be looking to just add a teleconvertor to that when you need the extra reach.

Can't see the point in investing in another lens on top of the 70-200.
 
The 70-200 is an excellent lens and works well with TC's even the new 2x MkIII but you might also find it useful to get a 300 f4 - you would notice very little adverse effect with a 1.4 TC and it will work with the 2x MkIII but AF will be affected.
 
You would recommend the Nikon over the Sigma?
There is a good saving to be made with the Sigma who appear to produce good lenses at a better price.
Sigma x2 =£235
Nikon = £395

The sigma is slightly slower making the 70-200 a f5.6 whilst the nikon becomes f4
 
Peter, either a sigma or Nikon teleconverter would have the same effect on a f2.8 lens. A 2x converter looses 2 stops of light making it f5.6. A1.4 teleconverter looses 1 stop of light making it f4. Nikon and sigma both do 1.4 and 2 x converters. If you can afford the Nikon lens it's unbeatable really but the Sigma is a very good alternative at a much more reasonable price. You cannot use the Nikon teleconverters on sigma lenses without altering them either which is a faff you can do without. Nor for that matter will a sigma 2x converter work on the Nikon 70-200 zoom, it should do theoretically, but it won't auto focus on mine, the sigma 1.4 does however?
 
I got a 70-200mm a while ago and I have definitely found I still need more reach for wildlife so that's probably worth bearing in mind!

Been thinking about the Sigma 150-500 or maybe the Canon 100-400 for my 650d
 
I've also found a Kenko?! I searched reviews that say its as good optically as a nikon but functionally superior. Its also VERY cheap.

Been thinking about the Sigma 150-500 or maybe the Canon 100-400 for my 650d
Click to expand...

I can find the 150-500 for the Nikon but not a 100-400. The 150-500 is £750.

005269: I missed the the conversion here as the comparisons given were not equal i.e Nikon f2 becomes f4, sigma f2.8 become f5.6

I also read the Nikon x2 has problems AF. Is that because of the 2 stop drop?
 
Sigma 150-500mm is an excellent lens for wildlife- I use one and they are good value

Les :thumbs:
 
Peter69 said:
I also read the Nikon x2 has problems AF. Is that because of the 2 stop drop?
Click to expand...

That applies to any 2xTC, the physics involved are the same, you loose 2 stops of light getting to the AF sensors.

On an exotic f2.8 telephoto that is not a problem as the camera will still AF at f5.6.

An f4 lens becomes f8 and will struggle, if it AF's at all, probably fare better with the higher end bodies

With the variable f5.6 - f6.3 Sigmas I would say there is no chance of retaining AF with a 2xTC.

My D300 & D700 will AF with an f4 lens and 1.7xTC which is at f6.7, I have never tried either with a 2xTC, but I would imagine it would be slow and dependent on good light, if it still AF'd at all.
 
Peter, on a d5100 either a Nikon or sigma 70-200 f2.8 zoom lens would autofocus with the correct 2x converter on. Regarding the kenko converter, I'm sure that would too although I've never used that make, they seem to be highly regarded by those who have them. Gramps referred to using the Nikon 300mm f4 with a 2x converter, that would give you a 600mm f8 and I think your D5100 would struggle to autofocus that combo, optically though I'm sure it would be fine as both the lens and converter are first class.

I'm not sure what you mean by missing the conversion? A teleconverter is a device that magnifies the image. A 2 x converter gives the impression of doubling the focal length ie 200mm becomes 400mm but the downside is you loose the equivalent of 2 stops of light, ie a f2.8 becomes f5.6. If you use a 1.4x converter the image is magnified by 40% and effectively would make 200mm appear as 280mm but you only loose 1 stop of light ie f2.8 becomes f4. Optically the 1.4 converters are generally better than the 2x, certainly that's the case with my sigma converters, the Nikon 2x tciii however is outstanding and far better ( in my opinion) than the sigma. If you plump for a sigma lens I'd use sigma converters, if you go for a Nikon lens I'd use Nikon converters.

Regarding the Sigma 150-500, it's a lovely lens capable of producing great results in good light. I still have one and used it recently in Gambia as a break from my heavy glass. But it's slow, autofocus hunts in poor light and is noticeably poorer overall on my D7000 compared to my D700, I can't see it being any better on a D5100. At 500 mm as well, it's soft even at f8, useable but soft, at 450mm and below its good and sharp, but then your almost back in to 70-200 and 2 x range!
 
005269 said:
Regarding the Sigma 150-500, it's a lovely lens capable of producing great results in good light. I still have one and used it recently in Gambia as a break from my heavy glass. But it's slow, autofocus hunts in poor light and is noticeably poorer overall on my D7000 compared to my D700, I can't see it being any better on a D5100. At 500 mm as well, it's soft even at f8, useable but soft, at 450mm and below its good and sharp, but then your almost back in to 70-200 and 2 x range!
Click to expand...

Is the sigma worse at 400mm than the 70-200 2xTC at 400mm?
 
It's all subjective I suppose, I'd be quite happy printing to A3 off either combination. i don't print any bigger any way as thats the biggest size my epson does! I usually use the sigma at f8/f10 because it's sharper than wide open, likewise I'd be at f8 with a 70-200 and 2x because I stop down with tc's as well. In good light I can't tell any difference, you might if you zoom in and pixel peep but life's too short. I think the sigmas the most cost effective way of getting up to 500mm and second hand for £450 ish there's nothing comes close, damn sight cheaper than a70-200 f2.8 and converter thats for sure! The main draw back with the sigma is its af performance in poor light not optically, you can still use images taken at 500mm but I ended up fiddling in Lightroom and sharpening and what have you, it's just noticeably better up to 450mm. I've got other lenses that do longer work better now but the Sigma's really easy to put over your shoulder, If it's all I had still, I'd still get good images with it regardless of its shortcomings.
 
Cheers Mark :thumbs:
 
Hi Mark,

my misunderstanding was F2 + 2stops =4, F2.8 + 2 stops =4.8 :bonk:

I guess I should wait to see which 70-200 I'll end up with Although it will probably be the sigma due to cash. I notice they don't come up often second hand.

I could easily streatch to the 150-500 now @£400 second hand but not sure if I want 2 big lenses as I will definatly be getting the 70-200f2.8

Nikon TC-20eIII=£396 new, Sigma 2x apo=£269 new, 150-500=750 new/£400second hand.

Decisions, decisions.
 
Don't forget that buying a longer lens regardless of which one is an expensive way of NOT getting any closer to wildlife.

Some cheap camo clothing, lots of research and tonnes and tonnes of patience gets you closer.

You say you've only just bought your camera and lenses and with no disrespect, from your couple of posts here have 'minimal' knowledge of the gear you have.
Learn to use that gear inside out whilst saving and learning how to get really closer to wildlife, in that time you may be able to afford the lens you relly really want, without rushing into this one or that one, :thumbs:
 
Though I don't use it much, I have a 1.7x TC for my 70-200 Nikon. It'll give you 340mm f/4.8 - pretty good, as VR remains intact also with it. How much a 340mm f/4.8 VRlens would be??? A lot more than you'll pay for a brand new 70-200 VRII + the 1.7x TC

If you plan to buy a 70-200, then buy a 70-200, even if you have to save a little extra, and then some for the TC.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top