Good Nikon telephoto lens?

[jake337]

Why not tamaron or sigma 300 f2.8.

I am enjoying my nikkor 300mm f4.5 ais alot. You definitely can find one under $350.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

AF-S DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Is a great bang for the buck, very sharp indeed.......600 and your shooting

and yet people say this lens isn't sharp between 200-300mm

It isn't sharp. Let me show you sharp. a 70-200/2.8 shot at f/5.0 at 1/320 of a second, hand held.

^^^that

 

[rgregory1965]

Here is another taken with the cheap unsharp 70-300

 

[chuasam]

LOL now that is distractingly sharp...The little crusts around the nostril, the fine hairs on the corners of the mouth and on the chin...:mrgreen:

I know, eh?
Every time I use that lens, I have to spend time in Photoshop applying selective gaussian blur *LOL* oh the irony

 

[sleist]

The 70-200 f/2.8 is nice, but it won't be long enough for the OP's purposes without a teleconverter, and the lens alone is already out of the price range.
Plus, comparing the 70-200 f/2.8 shot at 150mm with a flash to the 70-300mm shot at 300mm w/o a flash is a little too "apples to oranges" to be of any use.

The 70-300mm is the most economical choice, but I would get the Tamron or Sigma, not the Nikon. The Nikon is less sharp than the 3rd party alternatives at 250mm and over.
Make sure whatever 70-300 you might choose has image stablization. There are non stablized versions that are very inexpensive, but you will be very unhappy with the results.

300 f/4 as mentioned above is excellent, but also pricy.

I have the Nikon 70-300 VR and the Nikon 70-200 VR1.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I think you should get the 70-300 VR, Ok it has it;s limitations but it is within your budget and also is light!

The 70-200 VR is a poor recommendation in my opinion, it is NOT long enough in my opinion and it is heavy aswell. The OP who is female, will have to lug this around all day for long walks in poor conditions. So again I think the 70-300 VR is a great choice, the myth that the 70-300 VR is soft at 300mm has been proven wrong on many occasions.

 

[JohnS.]

The 70-300mm is the most economical choice, but I would get the Tamron or Sigma, not the Nikon. The Nikon is less sharp than the 3rd party alternatives at 250mm and over.
Make sure whatever 70-300 you might choose has image stablization. There are non stablized versions that are very inexpensive, but you will be very unhappy with the results.

Does it matter which brand you choose or are they both pretty much the same?

 

[sleist]

Well, yes and no.

It depends on what's most important to you I suppose.
Tamron makes glass with nice image quality, but the build feels cheap and plastic (to me).
There's also sample variation to consider. Some people rail against Sigma QC, but my 3 Sigmas are very good performers. YMMV

I guess the take away is that you can pay a lot for a name and, at least in the case of 70-300mm glass, not really get much for the extra $$.

Try before you by and read reviews. I own the Nikon and have a friend that loves her Tamron.
I don't have any experience with the Sigma.

Renting is always an option.

In the end, you can take a sh*t photo with all three.

 

[IByte]

70-300mm AF-S VR 2 $600.00 8)

 

[motordrive]

Hi everyone!

I will be going to Alaska in September and am very excited about the many many photography opportunities! I was wondering what all of you Nikon people are using for a telephoto lens? I imagine I will be taking pictures of all sorts of animals (whales, bears, seals etc) as well as beautiful landscapes (glaciers, mountains, plains etc). I am looking for the best lens with not too extreme of a price (less than $1000 please). If you are able, I would love for you to post pictures you have taken with the lens you recommend! Tips on where to buy and what to look for when purchasing (if used) is also GREATLY appreciated!

Thank you!

Deandra

Look here for a review on the Nikon 80-200 2,8 AF-S...Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S

Look here for a review on the Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-D (two ring)...Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D

The focus speed between the two is something the average shooter will not really notice. Both are 2.8. One, the AF-S uses an internal lens motor to drive the focus as well as allowing the user to grab a manual focus ring for fine tuning. The AF-D uses a screw drive with power provided by the motor in the camera body. With some of the entry level Nikon body's, the AF-D is a bit slower because they don't provide as much power to the screw drive. Not so with the AF-S version. One other thing, there are a couple of Nikon DSLR body's that don't work with a screw drive zoom. Also on the AF-D you must select between AF and manual with a switch. The AF-S is no longer made but the AF-D is still produced and sold world wide. Consider your shooting requirements. If you are shooting outdoor scenes (people, animals, landscapes, etc.) usually you have enough light to allow you to add a tele-converter. A 2X converter will boost your 80-200 2.8 to a 160-400 5.6. Either 2.8 or 5.6 on these lenses can be used through out the zoom range. With all that said I prefer the old school AF-D two ring version.

 

[osirus]

I have a Nikon 80-200mm ( the older push pull verison) and its great, I slap a quantray 2x teleconverter on there and make a 400mm. I haven even double staked my nikon 2x teleconverter ontop of that and made it 800mm lol
i picked it up for $500 a few months back

 

[zamanakhan]

used Nikon 80-200mm AF-S

+1 i've got one its sick, pair it with a tele converter for animal shooting and you'll be happy.

Your budget is a little more than what i paid for mine used.

 

[motordrive]

I have a Nikon 80-200mm ( the older push pull verison) and its great, I slap a quantray 2x teleconverter on there and make a 400mm. I haven even double staked my nikon 2x teleconverter ontop of that and made it 800mm lol
i picked it up for $500 a few months back

Nothing wrong with the push/pull. I think it's just a matter of personal preference. I prefer to twist rather then push/pull. That said I do use a 35-70 push/pull!!!

 

[jriepe]

Well guys Deandra's post is dated 1/31/12. Today is March 12. So in a month and a half she has not acknowledged that she has even read nor considered any of the suggestions. Maybe she has lost interest in a new lens, maybe she has already purchased a new lens. I have a feeling we are all wasting our time suggesting a lens and trying to be helpful. But hopefully others may benefit from the suggestions.

Jerry

 

[zamanakhan]

Here are three pictures taken with my Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC lens at 300mm all hand held.

Jerry

those dont ook too great to me, they seem to also be post processed a little too much, whats with the halo's around each subject?