In the market for a telephoto. Reccomendations?

[anubis404]

I am looking for something with fairly high optical quality, and I've had my eyes on a variety of 70-200s. My budget is $650, $700 if needed, and if its damn good (a superzoom or VR) $750. I'd prefer an FX lens so I would get a 105-300 instead of a 70-200. I'm going to be using this for bird/wildlife photography. It would also be nice if it fit in my Tamrac Adventure 7. I probably wont have scraped together the dough for this lens until around April-ish, so that's something to consider. So far I've been considering the Sigma 70-200, the Tamron 70-200, the Nikkor 80-200, and if by some miracle it fits in my bag, I find it at the right price, and its optical quality is on par or nearly on par with the 70-200s, the Sigma 150-500 or 120-400. Note that the Tokina 50-135 is not quite long enough for me.

Any thoughts on these lenses or other reccomendations?

 

[Phranquey]

I would stay away from the Tamron. The Sigma isn't bad, but I would recommend the Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-D. These can be had for some pretty good deals, and are optically fantastic. I had one for a couple of years, and it yielded some great bird shots.

If you are going to try birding with this, you will also want a 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter, but realize that you are going to lose that f/2.8 when you do that. With a 1.4, you will have a 280 f/4, which can get you some decent shots, but you are going to have to learn to get very close to birds to get any kind of good quality shots.

Case-in-point....these were taken with a 500mm f/4, and they were still cropped. This will give you an idea of how patient you will need to be with anything less than 400mm to capture good bird shots.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...er-curious-visitor-pic-heavy-c-c-welcome.html

 

[iflynething]

I'd suggest the lightest one possible, for you.........

~Michael~

 

[anubis404]

I'd suggest the lightest one possible, for you.........

~Michael~

Is it necessary you follow me around and spam my threads? Grow up.

For those who aren't spamming this thread, is the Nikkor 80-200 Non AF-s non VR any good?

 

[Dao]

"I'd prefer an FX lens so I would get a 105-300 instead of a 70-200"

I believe if you are talking about field of view (FoV). Any 70-200mm lens will give you the same FoV whether it is a FX lens or not.

Members from this forum often mentioned that 200mm is not long enough for bird photography. Sorry, I do not know much about Nikon Lens. But Sigma and Tamron do have a F/2.8 in 70-200mm range. But after reading the review, I prefer Sigma over Tamron.

 

[smyth]

the 80-200 nikkor is a very good lens. In fact I,ve heard that there are quite a few people who like their 80-200 better than the 70-200 vr.

 

[iflynething]

Is it necessary you follow me around and spam my threads? Grow up.

For those who aren't spamming this thread, is the Nikkor 80-200 Non AF-s non VR any good?

I mean that seriously. I would second (or third?) the 80-200 2.8. Big lens and not that heavy, but definitly lighter than the 70-200VR, which is also a nice lens. In the budget you have, I think you could definitly get away with the 80-200

~Michael~

 

[TUX424]

The 80-200 is a nice lens but not VR

 

[tirediron]

the Nikkor 80-200 Non AF-s non VR any good?

The 80-200 is an excellent lens, optically almost the equal of the 70-200 2.8VR. The only major difference, aside from the obvious slight difference in FL and and lack of VR is that because it's not an AF-S lens, it's slightly slower in focusing. Agree with others, this, on it's own is NOT long enough for serious birding. You'll need at least a 1.7TC which will bump you up to an f4.5 lens; still reasonably fast at almost 400mm.

 

[djacobox372]

If you want to go a $$ saver route look for a 70-210mm f2.8 LD tamron on the used market. They can be had for around $350, sometimes less.

It's a little slow at focusing due to the weight of the glass and fact it's not AFS, but it's iq is very good.

 

[Phranquey]

For those who aren't spamming this thread, is the Nikkor 80-200 Non AF-s non VR any good?

Both the AF-S & AF-D are great lenses. Optically, both are nearly identical. The main difference is the AF-S has the silent-wave motor, so focusing is a little faster, but not by a whole lot. The AF-D will likely be more in your price range. It is possible to find an AF-S in your budget, but it may be a bit on the dinged-up end of the used scale.

 

[anubis404]

I mean that seriously. I would second (or third?) the 80-200 2.8. Big lens and not that heavy, but definitly lighter than the 70-200VR, which is also a nice lens. In the budget you have, I think you could definitly get away with the 80-200

~Michael~

Weight is not an issue. Size is.

I can't seem to find the 80-200 F2.8 AF-D in my price range. All have been $800+, although I spotted one for less on ebay. The old 80-200 has serious focus problems from what I hear. The 70-200 Sigma looks great, but it doesn't reach quite far enough. I've been eyeing the Tokina 100-300 F4. Does the IQ on the Tokina compare with the 70-200 array of lenses? I will be using this for general wildlife shots, not only birds.

 

[Crazydad]

Nobody has mentioned the 70-300VR. While it may not be as fast as a 2.8, it is very sharp on DX cameras and the VR is good for at least 2 stops. Plus, it is only $479-$549 new.

I have this lens and have to say it focuses very fast (and quietly) and the VR works well. Got a lot of great pictures of my son's soccer games, even though it is not a 2.8 (granted the games are during the day). For the money I don't think you can get a better 300mm lens.

But don't take my word for it (I really don't know anything....)70-300mm AF-S VR Lens Review by Thom Hogan

 

[anubis404]

I dunno, the 70-300 is more of a cheap plastic consumer lens. I'm looking for something a little more professional. My dilema is that the Sigma 70-200 2.8 doesn't reach quite far enough, the Tokina 100-300 doesn't get the greatest reviews and is big and bulky, the Nikon 80-200 is slightly out of my price range and so is the Sigma 100-300. I've heard the Sigma has some sharpness problems in the long end. I'm currently trying to snag a Nikkor for a low price on ebay.

 

[Murray Pastko]

The 70-300vr is not a cheap plastic len. It has a very good feel. It may not be long enough. The birds up here don't get very close to people. This shot is cropped from my D300 70-300vr.