Telephoto lens for Nikon D90

TheRightMoments

TheRightMoments

Messages
275
Name
Helen
Edit My Images
No
Hi All

Can you please advise me on what telephoto lens you use (and is best) for a Nikon D90?

I use Canon so dont know anything about Nikon and im asking for a friend.

Thanks

Helen :thumbs:
 
Hi Helen,

What is their budget?
What are they going to use it for?

I have a 55-200mm VR which is a nice cheap lens, a friend has a70-300 VR which is also a good lens but a lot more expensive.
 
Last edited:
I don t think they want to spend a fortune but they want something quite decent that will do the job of sports photography mainly rugby. He isn't a pro or anything but just wants to take pictures of the kids
 
Should consider the 55-200mm VR and perhaps a non-nikon 1.4 teleconverter.
 
Chrisbie said:
70-300VR without doubt a great combination
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm a big fan of this lens. Sold my first one and had a whole host of expensive 2.8 telephotos before ditching them all and going back to another 70-300 and I don't feel like I'm missing out much at all.
 
You mention 2 things a telephoto lens and rugby, That leads me to think about an f2.8 lens straight away but they come at a price unless you can get hold of an older version of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Nikon fit which I have and use.
Otherwise as aready recommended the Nikon 70-300 f 3.5-5.65 VR or even the NON VR which can be got on ebay for less than £100.
Without a price guide it is very hard to recommend any particular lens but maybe this link will help

http://camerapricebuster.com/

Realspeed
 
70-300 VR. I use mine for rugby on a D90 and have always been delighted with it.
 
Tamron 70-300mm vc if on a budget,I preferred this to the nikon equivalent or if they have a bit more to spend I can highly recommend the 80-200mm 2.8.Can be had for about 5-600 second hand.
 
realspeed said:
You mention 2 things a telephoto lens and rugby, That leads me to think about an f2.8 lens straight away but they come at a price unless you can get hold of an older version of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Nikon fit which I have and use.
Otherwise as aready recommended the Nikon 70-300 f 3.5-5.65 VR or even the NON VR which can be got on ebay for less than £100.
Without a price guide it is very hard to recommend any particular lens but maybe this link will help

http://camerapricebuster.com/

Realspeed
Click to expand...

As always, just my opinion but at least I've owned and used both the older non-VR and the newer VR 70-300, although (I'll be quick to point out!), I don't shoot rugby! The VR version is way better optically than the older lens, and IMO is well worth the price, Copies are quite often available 2nd hand (check the ads in the back of Amateur Photographer and MPB, who advertise on this site.) rather cheaper than new ones!

I'm told by a rugby shooter that a 70-200 f/2.8 is better for rugby since the light is often (?usually) low but even 2nd hand and Sigma, one of those is likely to be above budget.
 
Phil Young said:
Why does the 70-300 get so much better reviews over the 55-200? OK, AF if quicker...but at 300mm wide open its not really useable unless stopped down a bit...

Something the OP should bear in mind.
Click to expand...

Whilst it's true that it benefits from being stopped down (I've never used a lens that doesn't), to say it's unusable wide open is way off the mark in my experience. I've had two of them now and would never shy away from shooting wide open at 300mm if need be.
 
Considered the AF 300mm F4 prime? Very sharp wide open and the AF is fast enough for rugby. The newer AF-S model is far more expensive though.
 
gad-westy said:
Whilst it's true that it benefits from being stopped down (I've never used a lens that doesn't), to say it's unusable wide open is way off the mark in my experience. I've had two of them now and would never shy away from shooting wide open at 300mm if need be.
Click to expand...

Different standards most likely but it is noticably softer than I would be happy with...
 
We've got a d90 in the office and I can second the 70-200 f2.8G VR II - it's a great combo.

Never photographed rugby though as mainly follow motorsports.
 
Phil Young said:
Different standards most likely but it is noticably softer than I would be happy with...
Click to expand...

Maybe I have low standards, though I always felt I sat more in the pixel peeper camp :)

Out of interest would you say this shot is is unusable? I know it's not going to win me wildlife photographer of the year but I would say that it's in the realms of usable, maybe you wouldn't?. I've had a few lenses that I simply wouldn't use wide open unless left with no choice, this is definitely not one of those.


GAD_9920 by G.A.D, on Flickr
 
Phil Young said:
Why does the 70-300 get so much better reviews over the 55-200? OK, AF if quicker...but at 300mm wide open its not really useable unless stopped down a bit...

Something the OP should bear in mind.
Click to expand...

It's a better lens Phil. The 70-300vr too 200mm is quicker to focus and is optically better than the 55-200. Performance does drop off the the closer you get to 300mm but less so than the reviews would have you believe. Before replacing mine with my Sigma 70-200 O.S, I was more than happy with my 70-300vr. Most of my favourite shots were taken with it.

Reviews etc do rate the Tamron 70-300 a little better than the Nikon between 200-300mm and the vc is supposed to be very good so it is another good cost effective option. I miss my Nikon 70-300 a bit and kind of regret selling it now but I could not justify keeping them both at the time. While I love the I.Q of my Sigma and its low light ability the 70-300 does have advantages in terms of weight etc. At some point I might even pick up another one for the days I can't be bothered to cart the 70-200 around.
 
I have and use both a 70-300 VR and a (Sigma) 70-200 f/2.8 (non OS). Which one lives in the bag? The 70-300. I'll take the 70-200 if I'm expecting to need the extra stops of light but prefer the extra flexibility that the longer lens gives me. Like others who own and use the 70-300 VR, it's plenty sharp enough for me - and I like big prints, where softness will stick out like a cold nipp sore thumb! As I've already admitted somewhere (probably on the other thread asking much the same question), I don't shoot rugby - I don't really do cold and wet any more - old age is creeping (or galloping) up on me!
 
gad-westy said:
Maybe I have low standards, though I always felt I sat more in the pixel peeper camp :)

Out of interest would you say this shot is is unusable? I know it's not going to win me wildlife photographer of the year but I would say that it's in the realms of usable, maybe you wouldn't?. I've had a few lenses that I simply wouldn't use wide open unless left with no choice, this is definitely not one of those.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/56722309@N04/8040320933/
GAD_9920 by G.A.D, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Nope, looks good.
 
TheRightMoments said:
Hi All

Can you please advise me on what telephoto lens you use (and is best) for a Nikon D90?

I use Canon so dont know anything about Nikon and im asking for a friend.

Thanks

Helen :thumbs:
Click to expand...


The best would be the 70-200 VRII, but it's pricey. There is an f/4 version on the way, but who knows when exactly. Look to the likes of Sigma or Tamron for good alternatives. Sigma have an OS version for a very reasonable price atm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top