Telephoto lens selection D90

seventythree · 13 Jul 2009

Hello, since i have a D90 i'm pretty sure i dont need a lens which has an auto focus motor which opens up the possibilities slightly.I live in the middle of nowhere and would like a lens for shooting wildlife at a distance and i'm also into motorsport and occasionally attend rallies/tracks etc. From my findings it looks like a 70-300mm telephoto lens would suit me. My main question is do i need (or will i benifit from) a lens which has image stabilisation?

Trawling through Ebay throws up many options with a massive difference in Prices. Is there any lenses in particular i should steer clear of or can anyone recommend a lens?

I dont want to break the bank and i'm not looking for the best thats out there, but on a budget of say £100-200 is there anything out there new or second hand that would yield good results?

cheers, Al

Willo · 13 Jul 2009

seventythree said:
My main question is do i need (or will i benifit from) a lens which has image stabilisation?

Depends if your going to be using a tripod or not. I would personally get one with VR as it does work very well, especially at long range.

leaky5 · 13 Jul 2009

This is handheld with the Sigma 70-300 APO, straight from the camera at 300mm and at 1/800 on a fairly bright day. I was about 8-10m from the duck.

These are about £180 new or around £100 second hand.

seventythree · 13 Jul 2009

Willo said:
Depends if your going to be using a tripod or not. I would personally get one with VR as it does work very well, especially at long range.

I do have a tripod which is quite transportable, but not always something i'll take while walking the dog etc .cheers

leaky5 said:
This is handheld with the Sigma 70-300 APO, straight from the camera at 300mm and at 1/800 on a fairly bright day. I was about 8-10m from the duck.

These are about £180 new or around £100 second hand.

Great photo and roughly what i'm looking for . does this lens have image stabilisation?

thanks for the speedy replies, Al

leaky5 · 13 Jul 2009

seventythree said:
Great photo and roughly what i'm looking for . does this lens have image stabilisation?

Thanks and no it does not have stabilisation ( meant to add that to my original reply ).

Had pretty good light, ISO was 200, so could have bumped the ISO quite a bit further to get a faster shutter speed. Did'nt think about that at the time, although should'nt really matter at 1/800

seventythree · 13 Jul 2009

leaky5 said:
Thanks and no it does not have stabilisation ( meant to add that to my original reply ).

Had pretty good light, ISO was 200, so could have bumped the ISO quite a bit further to get a faster shutter speed. Did'nt think about that at the time, although should'nt really matter at 1/800[/QUOTE

So does that mean that with a reasonably steady hand and fast shutter speed and good lighting i shouldnt really need stabilisation? Low light would obviously require tripod intervention, but that doesnt bother me

leaky5 · 13 Jul 2009

seventythree said:
So does that mean that with a reasonably steady hand and fast shutter speed and good lighting i shouldnt really need stabilisation? Low light would obviously require tripod intervention, but that doesnt bother me

That is the way I see it.

sdb123 · 13 Jul 2009

seventythree said:
leaky5 said:

Thanks and no it does not have stabilisation ( meant to add that to my original reply ).

Had pretty good light, ISO was 200, so could have bumped the ISO quite a bit further to get a faster shutter speed. Did'nt think about that at the time, although should'nt really matter at 1/800[/QUOTE

So does that mean that with a reasonably steady hand and fast shutter speed and good lighting i shouldnt really need stabilisation? Low light would obviously require tripod intervention, but that doesnt bother me

Click to expand...

In simple terms, VR/Image Stabilisation is designed to help in situations where you cannot get the ideal shutter speed (i.e. low-light).

ripclaw · 13 Jul 2009

Shooting at 1/800 isn't really a situation where you'd notice or even require VR, that's more for the times when you shoot at 1/100 and below, so for motorsport you won't really need it, as you'll want fast shutter times anyway.
Wildlife on the other hand doesn't necessarily pose out in the sunshine, you might find yourself in some undergrowth, the woods or simply at dusk/dawn where the light is low. That's when it would come handy. That said, depending on the lens, VR can mean a more than hefty premium on the price. I know cause I'm currently in the market for a 70-200 VR and compared to the non VR versions it's pretty much double the price. But I want to use it indoors too (which you might as well, for portraits etc) and without a flash again VR might come in handy.

seventythree · 13 Jul 2009

Thanks for all the help. I guess i'll try a non VR lens. If it does become an issue i'll upgrade, but personally i think for a noob like me a cheap non vr lens is the way to go.

Al

Andysnap · 13 Jul 2009

If you have VR then you don't use it on a tripod as it has the opposite effect, however I would go for a lens with VR as there are many times when you'll wish you had it. I have the Sigma 70-300mm without VR and, good as it is for the price, I have found a number of occasions when VR would have allowed me to get the shot.

Andy

allanm · 13 Jul 2009

Andysnap said:
If you have VR then you don't use it on a tripod as it has the opposite effect, however I would go for a lens with VR as there are many times when you'll wish you had it. I have the Sigma 70-300mm without VR and, good as it is for the price, I have found a number of occasions when VR would have allowed me to get the shot.

Andy

Ah, but you are then looking at bumping the price up to well over £300 for a used Nikon 70-300VR.
I can recommend the Sigma 70-300 APO lens, it is very good and will provide you with some nice sharp contrasty images. By all means trade up to a VR version later if you find yourself taking pictures in low light, but I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the Sigma in good light. Its a pretty decent macro lens too!

Heres one of some wildlife taken with the Sigma 70-300 APO . 1/50th f11 at 200mm, hand held, but I was younger and steadier there. I dont think VR would have improved the sharpness much!

And one taken with the macro feature at 200mm. F5.6 with flash

Allan

Natalie_B · 13 Jul 2009

I have also got the Sigma 70-300 and got some good results
These were both taken at full zoom without a tripod

DonnaM · 13 Jul 2009

If you can afford it, go for VR. You will invariably be hand holding by the sound of things so VR comes into its own. Another thing to mention here is that there are 70-300's and there are 70-300's. To get the best out of the Nikon at 300 you need to stop down to between f/8 to f/11, the Sigma needs f/11 to f/16 and that really hits your shutter speed. So, Nikon 70-300VR or A.N.Other 70-300 + Tripod.

seventythree · 13 Jul 2009

Some stunning pictures above with the sigma lens. The more i think about it i'm often out when its not brilliant sunshine (a rare occurence in NE Scotland) and as mentioned i will probably never have my tripod on me when i need it the most.

The Dillema is, is the VR alone worth an extra £200? My choice obviously and i think i'll just save my pennies and hold out for a reasonable priced second hand VR lens to appear. In the meantime i'll try and learn how to use my new camera!

many thanks. Al

condyk · 14 Jul 2009

Best bet overall for around about your budget is a SH 70-300mm VR, stay in AV, shoot a stop down and use ISO to get the shutter speed you need. Probably the easiest and fastest way to shoot wildlife in real world situations. The Sigma is a good lens and if you pick up a SH one for around £100 you can try it and sell on with no loss if you don't like it. Again, the key is your shutter speed. My experience with it is it loses sharpness when you advance over 200mm or so but it is a fairly cheap lens and stopping down will help.