In the market for a telephoto. Reccomendations?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by anubis404, Jan 20, 2009.

  1. anubis404

    anubis404 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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?
     
  2. Phranquey

    Phranquey TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Dayton, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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
     
  3. iflynething

    iflynething TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South Carolina USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I'd suggest the lightest one possible, for you.........

    ~Michael~
     
  4. anubis404

    anubis404 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2009
  5. Dao

    Dao No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    418
    Location:
    St. Louis
    "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.
     
  6. smyth

    smyth TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  7. iflynething

    iflynething TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    South Carolina USA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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~
     
  8. TUX424

    TUX424 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    The 80-200 is a nice lens but not VR
     
  9. tirediron

    tirediron Watch the Birdy! Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    37,391
    Likes Received:
    10,665
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     
  10. djacobox372

    djacobox372 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    129
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  11. Phranquey

    Phranquey TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,527
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Dayton, OH
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    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.
     
  12. anubis404

    anubis404 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    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.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

telephoto 105-300,m