Nikon lens advice.

Tractor Boy

Tractor Boy

Messages
2,179
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok good folks of TP I need some advice pleeeeeease.

Over the past few years I have found my trusty 70-300 AF-S VR to be a very good and sharp lens for my needs. However my photography has moved on a bit and I am now looking to upgrade (probably early next year) to a 2.8 lens to go with the D300. Budget is an issue hence the Nikon 70-200 is not on the horizon but I am happy to save a bit more if I need to - I guess £500+ whatever I can get for the 70-300.

I have recently started to do a bit of football (conference level) photography and also enjoy bird photography (bird hide in the garden) and portrait stuff as well as the normal family holiday bits.

I have been looking around and think I have the following options available (all s/h);

Sigma 120-300
Sigma 70-200
Nikon 80-200

So I guess my questions are along the lines of what would people suggest and why, can you use a kenko 1.4x tc with the above, have I missed anything obvious from the above list.

I guess at the moment I am split because the 120-300 would be perfect for the footie but a bit too big for the portrait/ family stuff. I can probably get away with 200 max for the footie as Braintree is not too big a ground and as long as I work within the constraints of the lens/ camera then I will be happy with what I get.

So what do ya think :shrug:
 
Last edited:
What 70+ views and no one with an opinion..........:thinking:
 
I can vouch for two of those lenses, the Sigma 70-200 and the Nikon 80-200 (af-d version).

I bought the Sigma because it was cheap (got mine £450 new) and it was fast. It did the job but it had to be calibrated for back-focussing, which was a tad disappointing. Once done (for free by Sigma) it was fine but I then just had an urge to go Nikon so sold it and got a 80-200 new from the states for about £600. Brilliant lens; very sharp, AF was speedy, if a bit noisy because of the screw system. Build quality is exceptional.

Only reason I got rid of the 80-200 was to get the 70-200 VR, because I needed VR to help my ageing D2x because I don't have crazy high ISOs to fall back on.

Optically, they've all been great. The 70-200 VR seems the best but by a smidge. The Sigma was quite warm and contrasty, the 80-200 I found quite neutral in both colour an contrast. The 70-200 VR is somewhere inbetween.

Tere is an 80-200mm AF-S version that holds a bit of a premium price and that is supposed to be very good if you want AF-S. Optically it's supposed to be pretty much idential to the AF-D version.

As for the Sigma 120-300, it seems a very popular lens with the motorsport and plane crowd. It's the lens I'd probably go for to get longer reach yet retain f/2.8 and to work alongside the 70-200 VR but there are very few in Nikon fit that come up used.

As for use with a TC, I know the Nikons work and I'm pretty sure the Kenko will but it's worth sending an email to kenko to check.

Solely for sports I'd go for the Sigma every day but if you want it more as a general purpose lens, the 80-200 is (IMO) the best all-rounder, unless you think of the 70-200mm VR. Get the twist zoom/focus version (think it's referred to as two-touch) as opposed to the older push/pull zoom.
 
Last edited:
I am in the same position as you, I was at the zoo today and the low light meant I had to use high ISO (I don't like using high ISO). I am looking at the Sigma 70-200 OS HSM.

The Nikon 70-200 is supposed to be slightly better, but it is a lot more.

I have no idea how the 120-300mm compares, but it is double the price of the 70-200mm

Don't forget you can use teleconverters on the 70-200mm, I think you can use a 1.4x or 2x. You will lose F Stops though, I think the 1.4x makes it a 98 - 280 f/4 and the 2x makes it a 140-400mm f/5.6. You also lose some IQ.

I am sold on the 70-200 Sigma, but seeing if the OS version comes up second hand and how much, they are £999 new.
 
specialman said:
I can vouch for two of those lenses, the Sigma 70-200 and the Nikon 80-200 (af-d version).

I bought the Sigma because it was cheap (got mine £450 new) and it was fast. It did the job but it had to be calibrated for back-focussing, which was a tad disappointing. Once done (for free by Sigma) it was fine but I then just had an urge to go Nikon so sold it and got a 80-200 new from the states for about £600. Brilliant lens; very sharp, AF was speedy, if a bit noisy because of the screw system. Build quality is exceptional.

Only reason I got rid of the 80-200 was to get the 70-200 VR, because I needed VR to help my ageing D2x because I don't have crazy high ISOs to fall back on.

Optically, they've all been great. The 70-200 VR seems the best but by a smidge. The Sigma was quite warm and contrasty, the 80-200 I found quite neutral in both colour an contrast. The 70-200 VR is somewhere inbetween.

Tere is an 80-200mm AF-S version that holds a bit of a premium price and that is supposed to be very good if you want AF-S. Optically it's supposed to be pretty much idential to the AF-D version.

As for the Sigma 120-300, it seems a very popular lens with the motorsport and plane crowd. It's the lens I'd probably go for to get longer reach yet retain f/2.8 and to work alongside the 70-200 VR but there are very few in Nikon fit that come up used.

As for use with a TC, I know the Nikons work and I'm pretty sure the Kenko will but it's worth sending an email to kenko to check.

Solely for sports I'd go for the Sigma every day but if you want it more as a general purpose lens, the 80-200 is (IMO) the best all-rounder, unless you think of the 70-200mm VR. Get the twist zoom/focus version (think it's referred to as two-touch) as opposed to the older push/pull zoom.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Pat, good to have some hands on comments. I think that the 80-200 2 touch is what I will go for when funds permit but just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything. The sigma 70-200 has caught my eye but slightly nervous of the quality and had heard that it was bit contrasty. I am tempted to look for a cheap 300f4 for the wildlife stuff anyway if I don't go for the 120-300.

Nick
 
Dale_d3100 said:
I am in the same position as you, I was at the zoo today and the low light meant I had to use high ISO (I don't like using high ISO). I am looking at the Sigma 70-200 OS HSM.

The Nikon 70-200 is supposed to be slightly better, but it is a lot more.

I have no idea how the 120-300mm compares, but it is double the price of the 70-200mm

Don't forget you can use teleconverters on the 70-200mm, I think you can use a 1.4x or 2x. You will lose F Stops though, I think the 1.4x makes it a 98 - 280 f/4 and the 2x makes it a 140-400mm f/5.6. You also lose some IQ.

I am sold on the 70-200 Sigma, but seeing if the OS version comes up second hand and how much, they are £999 new.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dale - might keep my eye open for the newer OS version of the sigma and see what they are going for :thumbs:

I already have a kenko 1.4x but was not sure if it worked on the 80-200 Nikon but from what Pat has said the Nikon one does so the kenko should.

Nick
 
straycat said:
I would stay with the 70-300
Click to expand...

Not an option. Floodlights at conference grounds are not good enough - it is either a case of upgrading the lens and sticking with the D300 or getting a D3 to cope with the mega high ISO's needed with an f5.6 lens :thinking: I only got about half a dozen useable shots in the second half last weekend due to the lights - plus the fact that a 2.8 lens gives me far more creative options.

Nick
 
You've reached that point that most come to... the cheap 70-300 doesn't quite cut it.

I'll shortcut your meanderings and tell you that the answer is a Nikon 70-200 (the VR 1 is fine) and then add a long prime (starting point is the Nikon 300 f4, obviously its a steep curve from there on up).

Anything else will just be a step along the path to enlightenment, I've travelled the path myself...

Thats not lens snobbery, you are trying to do a job with your kit, you need stuff thats going to deliver. Save your money on pointless steps.
 
ecniv said:
Can you borrow a 50-500 sigma to see whether it would cope with the lighting conditions you need the lens for?

And I presume you need a zoom more that a prime?

The other lenses I can't comment on, never owned or used them.
Click to expand...

The 50-500 would be no better than my 70-300 as they are both slow lenses.
 
desantnik said:
You've reached that point that most come to... the cheap 70-300 doesn't quite cut it.

I'll shortcut your meanderings and tell you that the answer is a Nikon 70-200 (the VR 1 is fine) and then add a long prime (starting point is the Nikon 300 f4, obviously its a steep curve from there on up).

Anything else will just be a step along the path to enlightenment, I've travelled the path myself...

Thats not lens snobbery, you are trying to do a job with your kit, you need stuff thats going to deliver. Save your money on pointless steps.
Click to expand...

Thanks - I know exactly what you mean in terms of missing the steps and just getting what I need however I just don't have the finance to do so. The football is done on the basis that I go and if I can sell some images then all well and good. If I can get a regular outlet that I know will buy images then I could well look to source the money. From what I have read/ seen the 80-200 will deliver very similar IQ to the 70-200 and would be a sensible option for me, particularly if I can also get a 300f4.

scottthehat said:
if you want it for birding and sport get a 120-300mm f2.8 for sport and then add a 1.4 tc for wildlife, best of all.
as you said f5.6 or 6.3 is not really good enough for flood lights, i used my 50-500mm os on my d700 for rugby but thats only because it can produce pics at iso 12,800
Click to expand...

Thanks Scott - much as I would love a D700 and stick with my current lens it aint going to happen:bang: I think that the 80-200 is going to be the best middle ground for now if I can also get a 300f4 as I can use it for the footie and portrait/ family stuff. I really like the thought of the 120-300 but can't see it being too practical on family days etc as I have to push a wheelchair as well.

Nick
 
I've had a few Sigma tele's over the years, and seemed to be unluckly that apart from my 100-300 F4 I had for a few years, I never got a really sharp one. to be fair, my last Sigma lens was about 5 years ago and they could have come on leaps and bounds since then.

I did have for many years a rather splendid Nikon 80-200 F2.8 AFD (the later 2 ring version with tripod collar), and that was an absolute belter and sharp as a tack (most of the time - read on). The only issue with this lens was that it struggles to focus accurately towards the minimum focus distance end, at the longer focal lengths. Indeed I returned my lens to Nikon for a checkup and adjustment, but they said it was normal behavoir, indeed they pointed out in was in most camera manuals under the lens compatibility section (extract below from the D300 Manual)

When focusing at minimum focus distance with AF 80–200mm f/2.8, AF 35–
70mm f/2.8, AF 28&#8211;85mm f/3.5&#8211;4.5 <New>, or AF 28&#8211;85mm f/3.5&#8211;4.5 lens at
maximum zoom, in-focus indicator may be displayed when image on mattescreen in viewfinder is not in focus. Adjust focus manually until image in viewfinder is in focus

As most of my stuff at the time was done at maximum tele at mimimum focus, a lot of my images of birds etc, were coming out slightly soft.

Earlier this year then, I traded my 80-200 in for a new shiney Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR II. My god, what a lens ! Yes it does suffer from focus breathing (the FL being shorter then reported the nearer you focus), but nothing my 1.4 or 1.7x telel converter can't sort. The main thing is all images are tack sharp and full of contrast from 2.8 wide open down to about F11, where diffraction seems to creep in. Also, hand holding the lens with a converter is now not only a possibility, but a reality as I do it all the time (even with my TC20E-III sometimes).

Oh, I also have the Nikon 300mm F4 AFS, and that is so good, I sold some years ago my early copy of a Nikon 300 F2.8. OK it's a stop slower, but it's so much lighter and more manageable, and to my eyes is no less sharp than the 300 F2.8, and works well with all my converters.

Hope this helps ?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that Andrew - gives me somthing else to think about. I think to get the nikon 70-200 VR though I am going to need to work very hard to get in the OH good books!!

Nick
 
OOh.....know that feeling :lol:

Best of luck :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top