simple 70-200 question. i think.

A.Gibson

A.Gibson

Messages
400
Name
Anthony Gibson
Edit My Images
Yes
basicaly im looking for a quick lens for bird, portrait, candid sort of shots but mainly bird togging i thought i was sold on the sigma 70-200 2.8 but is it much better than the tamron 70-200 2.8 and is it worth the extra cash? i own a couple of siggy lenses annd i love them to bits but never had anything tamron.
please help.lol

thanks
Gibbo.:help::thinking:
 
What about a Nikon 80-200 f/2.8? It's far superior to either of those and around the same sort of money...
 
A.Gibson said:
basicaly im looking for a quick lens for bird, portrait, candid sort of shots but mainly bird togging i thought i was sold on the sigma 70-200 2.8 but is it much better than the tamron 70-200 2.8 and is it worth the extra cash? i own a couple of siggy lenses annd i love them to bits but never had anything tamron.
please help.lol

thanks
Gibbo.:help::thinking:
Click to expand...

OK for portrait shots, yes the 70-200mm is ideal and the sigma's a good lens and a cheaper alternative to the nikon 70-200mm f2.8, however as a wildlife/bird lens, tooooo short.

For wildlife especially birds unless its a EMU then you're looking at 400mm minimum, a 300mm f4 prime and a 1.4x TC would work, maybe even a 1.7x TC, although manual focus on your D90, but unfortunately, if you want quick (f4 / f2.8) and 300/400mm + you're looking at big bucks i.e. £1000s for something like sigma 120-300mm f2.8 or the nikon primes.

You could look at a sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 (£600) as this would meet your wildlife wishes, but its not a quick lens or the sigma 100-300mm f4 which is a great lens for the money (£1100), but it depends on your budget.
 
I had the some problem not that long ago. I wanted the Nikkor (Nikon) 70-200mm f2.8 VR but could not afford the price. From what people told me both the Sigma and Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 were perfectly good but I was warned the AF was slow on the Tamron. I ended up getting a used sigma for under £300 and am over the moon with the thing. 200mm is quite short for some things though.
 
well if i was to use it for wildlife i would also invest in a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. wise or not so?
 
A.Gibson said:
well if i was to use it for wildlife i would also invest in a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. wise or not so?
Click to expand...

A 1.4x TC yes, although autofocus speed would significantly reduce, you would lose 1 f-stop of light, so f4 and it would become a 280mm lens, still not long enough for wildlife/birds

Definitely would not recommend a 2x TC on this lens, autofocus speed reduced even more, image quality reduced, 2x TC on any of the 70-200mm lens just does not work, 2x TC can only really be handled by fast primes like the 300mm f2.8 in good light. You would get better IQ's from the sigma 120-400mm than a 70-200mm + 2x TC
 
pete.rush said:
a 300mm f4 prime and a 1.4x TC would work
Click to expand...
You don't even need the 1.4x TC on a D90, it's a DX format sensor so you're essentially getting the FOV of a 450mm lens. I've shot all kinds of wildlife including tiny little birds and bugs to big birds and bigger alligators on my 300mm f/4 AF-S on either a D100 or D200. Never really felt I had much of a reach problem.

I was looking at the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 for a longish zoom though. I felt it was better than the competing manufacturer 70-200 f/2.8 offerings. In the end though, out of pure impatience having rejected an offer on an 80-200 lens (this particular one was a bit soft with bad CA) I ended up just going and buying a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and love it. Took me about 2 weeks phoning around 20 different stores to try and find one. Since the announcement of the VRII, nobody's got the original left any more.
 
its a d80 not a d90 still a dx sensor.lol and i cant really afford a vr i would love one but its either that or pay the mortgage. my is about £500-£600 and i would prefer to buy new rather than second hand to be honest.
ive gotten some good wildlife shots with both my 18-200 and 70-300 and in all honesty i dont really want a fixed focal length of 300 at f4 when ive got the 70-300 at f5.6 at the 300 end i would prefer at 2.8.
Thanks.
 
70-200 no good even with a 1.4 TC for birds wildlife.
However it is a fantastic portrait canded lens.

A good compromise might be the Sigma 100-300 DG f4 which you could add a TC at a later date.
There is a mint one for sale on here for £550 which is a good price..
 
A.Gibson said:
its a d80 not a d90 still a dx sensor.lol and i cant really afford a vr i would love one but its either that or pay the mortgage. my is about £500-£600 and i would prefer to buy new rather than second hand to be honest.
ive gotten some good wildlife shots with both my 18-200 and 70-300 and in all honesty i dont really want a fixed focal length of 300 at f4 when ive got the 70-300 at f5.6 at the 300 end i would prefer at 2.8.Thanks.
Click to expand...

If I understand you last statement, you want xxx-300mm f2.8, well that would cost significantly more than £500/600 you've budget'd.

As you stated for your budget the closest lens is 70-200mm f2.8 tamron, sigma, or a used nikon 80-200mm f2.8 as suggested in post 2, I know from reviews that the sigma is a good lens.

I personally would not recommend a 2x TC on the 70-200, issues with autofocus speed, DOF and image quality, there are more affordable options like the sigma 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 (£600) which would be better at the 400mm end, however it is an affordable way of doubling your focal length and would fit your requirements, althought the TC does adds another £200 to your budget on top of the £600/650 for the lens, perhaps a purchase for a later date.

The 70-200mm as a lens for birds, is still too short, unless you're taking images in your garden of the bird table, but as a general purpose/portrait low light lens it will meet the requirements very well and isn't far off the mark of the nikon offerings.

Peter
 
As Peter said. I just got my self a used tatty super cheap 2x TC and it works but auto focus is slower. I was shooting today there was a clear sky but found my self annoyed with the slow shutter speed I had to use even shooting at ISO 800. The little birds would not stay still long enough for a exposure so most of the shots the birds came out as a blurred mess like this.

4.jpg


I did get the odd ok shot you can see them in this link http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=185662
 
As for the bird togging it will mainly be in my garden as ive recently set up a stage for the birds and converted the old shed into a little hide. Lol. For some reason im still swayed towards the siggy, with it being a little bit smaller than the tamron and nicer looking. Lol i think im going to place my order this weekend for one. Thanks for all the helpful words of wisdom.

Gibbo.
 
ive just found the lens for £579 @ www.martinscamerashop.co.uk has anyone ever heard of or used this site before? just want to check before i order?
Thanks
Gibbo.
 
A 70-200mm can be a little short for bird photography but it depends on your technique and field craft as much as anything else. Your garden set up sounds good and should lead to some interesting shots. I have even seen some great shots of red kites taken with a 70-200mm. It's not always about reach.

Arron
 
the 70-200 can be used as a great lens for birds, simply hang a birdfeeder from the end of your lens hood and voila! seriously, i don't find my 70-200 to have very much reach at all for that sort of thing. i'd say it's perhaps workable with a 1.4x in your garden, depending on the light.
 
from were ill be sitting taking shots ive tried out the 200mm end of my 18-200 siggy n its about the rite amount of reach to get nice and close to the feeders. esppecialy when the jays land i need to zoom out.lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top