$2000 lens budget.. most/sharpest zoom???

JerryPH · Feb 23, 2009

Another vote for the 70-200. That by itself is already awesome on a D200 (have that combination myself), and if you are using the Nikon 1.7X TC, I cannot tell you whether it degrades image quality or not... becuase I sure had a VERY hard time seeing that degradation even when pixel peeping.

Tripods do become almost mandatory when using it, but if it is bright enough and shutter speeds are quick, it can be hand-held easily enough.

The VR does work, that I can vouch for. I tested this Nikon TC but ended up not buying it... rather I decided on keeping the Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8 fund going.

DigiJay · Feb 23, 2009

I"m really not convinced on the 70-200 nikkor... I know its far superior to the sigma version, but it can't be THAT much better can it?
Would a 1 piece 300mm f4 not be better that a 2-piece (70-200 + 1.7TC)

I think I like the idea of the 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC the best, but I'm aiming for quality.. so that's my goal, is to figure out which is going to produce the best image at the end of the day.

dEARlEADER · Feb 23, 2009

DigiJay said:
I"m really not convinced on the 70-200 nikkor... I know its far superior to the sigma version, but it can't be THAT much better can it?
Would a 1 piece 300mm f4 not be better that a 2-piece (70-200 + 1.7TC)

I think I like the idea of the 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC the best, but I'm aiming for quality.. so that's my goal, is to figure out which is going to produce the best image at the end of the day.

I didn't even see you already had a 2.8 70-200 with 2xtele ... in this case definitely 300 f4 with 1.4 or 1.7 tele

Sabbath must have a great 1.7 copy because the detail loss for my 70-200 1.7 is quite noticable.... but i'm a pixelpeeper....

all reviews of the 300 f4 that I've read proclaim it to be very sharp.... f4 being it's biggest weakness because after you add a tele and stop it down a couple of stops for sharpness you are into slow territory...

kundalini · Feb 23, 2009

These examples aren't songbirds fifty feet away, but it might help (or not).

I like the 300mm f/4. My 1.7 TC isn't that bad for degradation IMO.

Moonshot taken while drinking moonshine. 300mm + 1.7 TC (cropped)

kundalini · Feb 23, 2009

Oh yeah...... and if the rumor mills are true about another price increase, I'd make a decision by the end of the month.

djacobox372 · Feb 23, 2009

You can buy a mf 300mm f2.8 lightly used for about $1500... that would be my choice.

You can also find af versions for that price on the used market as long as you're willing to live with some cosmetic blemishes.

anubis404 · Feb 23, 2009

When I recommended the 80-200, I assumed that you either would be shooting in zoos or that you were good with animals. If you're thinking about running off to some obscure African country to shoot some giraffe, then I wouldn't settle for anything less than 400mm (which is out of your budget).

DigiJay · Feb 23, 2009

anubis404 said:
When I recommended the 80-200, I assumed that you either would be shooting in zoos or that you were good with animals. If you're thinking about running off to some obscure African country to shoot some giraffe, then I wouldn't settle for anything less than 400mm (which is out of your budget).

Funny you say that.. I haven't been to a zoo in over 15 years... and I first got into photography after a trip to Madagascar, South Africa and Uganda where I was lucky enough to play with a Nikon dlsr setup (I didn't even know what I was using at the time).

Anyway, to me, wildlife is just that WILD. Zoos don't count for me, and even sanctuaries are border line. I love to shoot raptors, and large mammals. Of course, during the slow times, I'll shoot anything that moves.

I actually want to build a website, and eventually (long term) put together a book on urban wildlife in my city. My job keeps me driving around the city at all hours of the night so I see so many different types of wildlife that most people would never imagine walk through their back yards.

DigiJay · Feb 23, 2009

djacobox372 said:
You can buy a mf 300mm f2.8 lightly used for about $1500... that would be my choice.

You can also find af versions for that price on the used market as long as you're willing to live with some cosmetic blemishes.

Please tell me where the heck would you find a 2.8 in good condition for $1500?? I've been looking! There certainly isn't much in my area, and I don't want to spend that kind of coin unless I can personally inspect the glass myself (so e-bay is pretty much out of the question). As for cosmetic blemishes, they just add character

dhilberg · Feb 23, 2009

For another $650 you could have the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 from B&H. It's $3000 at most other places.

DigiJay · Feb 23, 2009

dhilberg said:
For another $650 you could have the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 from B&H. It's $3000 at most other places.

Unfortunately, I deal with Canadian currency.. that puts me at about $3300 cdn, plus duty and taxes assuming that they are added on.. so BH isn't an option..
If I could afford the extra $1000, then I can get it for $3000 here anyway.. but it's just not going to happen anytime soon.

Kinz · Feb 24, 2009

I would think with a $2000. budget you should be able to get a nice lens. I'm in the US though. And like Reel1, I'm saving now for the Sigma 120-400 with O.S. It looks like a really nice lens from all I've seen as I've checked the many reviews.

dhilberg · Feb 24, 2009

DigiJay said:
Unfortunately, I deal with Canadian currency.. that puts me at about $3300 cdn, plus duty and taxes assuming that they are added on.. so BH isn't an option..
If I could afford the extra $1000, then I can get it for $3000 here anyway.. but it's just not going to happen anytime soon.

Oops, sorry I didn't realize you were in Canada.

Joves · Feb 24, 2009

Well I have the 80-400VR myself and lover it. Granted it is a bit slow due to not having its own AF motor. But I have learned to work around it too. I am fairly quick at going from manual focus and getting close then throwing it to AF. It is also soft wide open but gets good at f/8 and up. But it is a long range budget lens after all. It does the job though and isnt that what counts.
Here is a sample shot at ISO800 f/9 handheld. I could have esily shot at ISO400 and got the same results but, I was stalking something in the shadows, that got away and this was a target of opportuntiy.

djacobox372 · Feb 25, 2009

DigiJay said:
Please tell me where the heck would you find a 2.8 in good condition for $1500?? I've been looking! There certainly isn't much in my area, and I don't want to spend that kind of coin unless I can personally inspect the glass myself (so e-bay is pretty much out of the question). As for cosmetic blemishes, they just add character

Well I guess you're out of luck since you fear ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-300mm-f2-8-ED-LENS-nikkor300mmLENS-Film-Digital_W0QQitemZ190289457356QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item190289457356&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1234|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50

Nikon MF 300mm f2.8 AIS lens w/Case 60 DAY WARRANTY - eBay (item 330300317458 end time Mar-13-09 09:52:24 PDT)