Telephoto lens

hamlet

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
2,894
Reaction score
435
Location
Belgium
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
What are some good Telephoto lenses in your opinion for the Nikon 3200? The more you can zoom in the better.
 
what price range?

I've had the 55-200mm which is a great budget len, and then I went to the 55-300mm.

With that being said I'd recommend the 70-300mm if you needed the reach.
 
Not familiar with the 3200, that said, I am quite happy with the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 on the D7000, every bird photo I've posted here was taken with this lens.

Be well,

Anthony
 
Why would the 70-300 be a better lens over the 55-300?
 
Why would the 70-300 be a better lens over the 55-300?

The 70-300 is an FX lens so if you think you might be upgrading your camera to a Nikon full frame at some point, that's what you should probably go with. The 55-300 is DX.
I don't know anyone who owns the 55-300 but I know a lot of 70-300 VR II owners and they're all happy with it.
 
Nikon's current 70-300 VR is one of the best values on the market these days. Yes, there's better lenses, but not in that price range.
 
Why would the 70-300 be a better lens over the 55-300?

the focus is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO slow. I can produce good imagines from it, and I'd expect the 70-300mm to have similar IQ, but a lot of people say the 70-300mm focuses really fast and you have the instant MA override to bring it back if need be. That alone would be worth it to me.

I've had plenty of situations where I missed a shot cause the focus took too long, or it got so far off that it just quit focusing and I'd have to remove the lens from the body and reattach and go again or switch it into M, get it closer, then back to A to focus. Even in spot focus mode, sometimes it will walk right by something that should have been easy to focus on.



here's samples from this weekend with the 55-300 I took:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/...ms/5923601633464658849?authkey=COPbjdWYs43PYA

Just the crabs and pumpkin patch were with my 17-70mm.
 
Absolutely the 70-300mm VR
Gorgeous lens, up to 200mm you are looking at sharp, sharp pics, when you are getting close to the 300mm things get just a bit soft but still very good.
I LOVE my 70-300mm VR and use it a lot (much more then I expected I will).
On your D3200 taking the crop sensor into consideration you are actually looking at 105MM-450mm which is A LOT of zoom for its price.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
On your D3200 taking the crop sensor into consideration you are actually looking at 105MM-450mm which is A LOT of zoom for its price.

no, you're actually looking at 70-300mm, you're just unable to capture the same amount of scene as a FF sensor. What happens if they double the size of the current FF sensor, will you start saying 300mm = 900mm?
 
Why would the 70-300 be a better lens over the 55-300?

70-300 lens on a DX body is equal to a 105-450 lens on 35mm or a FX body.
 
no, you're actually looking at 70-300mm, you're just unable to capture the same amount of scene as a FF sensor.

No. With the 1.5 crop factor of the sensor the field of view and the image you capture with the 70-300 on a DX body - is equal to a 105-450mm lens on a 135 film or FX sensor camera.

ps ~ From Nikon... The Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens... "When used with cameras with an APS-C size sensor, the equivalent focal length is 157.5mm", that applies to every FX format lens on a DX body.
 
Last edited:
Something about the 70-300 is confusing me. This here picture was taken with the 70-300:

$41T8osveyGL.jpg


And i'm sorry form my ignorance. This is a picture taken of a insect, but aren't these lenses meant to capture small to larger things far away?
 

Attachments

  • $61xM5UiKm1L.jpg
    $61xM5UiKm1L.jpg
    68.4 KB · Views: 126

Most reactions

Back
Top