Good Nikon telephoto lens?

[PapaMatt]

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

I think the Nikon 80-200 is a great lens but it is a Tank and on a dx camera I did not like it. Why not got to a Camera or Pawn Shop and see what you like. Pick it up try it out and see what feels right in your hands.

I would opt for the sigma or Tamron> Do you have a wide angle for landscapes or is it just this one lens?

 

[jriepe]

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?

We all look at images differently and I will be the first one to admit I am not the nit picky type and most others will see things that I tend to overlook. To me the images look acceptable but to you they may look like garbage but that's fine. Maybe you're a perfectionist whereas I'm not. I've seen many images on this board as well as others that look like crap to me but are receiving high praise from others. But really the only important thing here is what Deandra thinks. They were posted for her benefit and she may feel the same way as you. If so she definitely will not buy the lens and that is one lens she can mark off her list if it was ever on her list. So you have the right to voice your opinion but honestly in this particular situation it doesn't mean much.

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.

≈

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?

We all look at images differently and I will be the first one to admit I am not the nit picky type and most others will see things that I tend to overlook. To me the images look acceptable but to you they may look like garbage but that's fine. Maybe you're a perfectionist whereas I'm not. I've seen many images on this board as well as others that look like crap to me but are receiving high praise from others. But really the only important thing here is what Deandra thinks. They were posted for her benefit and she may feel the same way as you. If so she definitely will not buy the lens and that is one lens she can mark off her list if it was ever on her list. So you have the right to voice your opinion but honestly in this particular situation it doesn't mean much.

Jerry

Sorry if i am offending you, its not my intention. Like i said its something in post processing, the halo's are VERY distracting. When you are trying to prove one lens or one product is better than the other why not post an unaltered image? Iam sure your lens is great and produces stunning results, but those images are not the best representation of that.

 

[412 Burgh]

used Nikon 80-200mm AF-S

I second this, they typically sell for around $850-900 used.

Really? Why can't I find any one ebay for that price lol

Rare Nikon AF-S AF ED Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D 80-200MM 1:2.8 D Zoom Lens & HB-17 | eBay

 

[zamanakhan]

used Nikon 80-200mm AF-S

I second this, they typically sell for around $850-900 used.

Really? Why can't I find any one ebay for that price lol

Rare Nikon AF-S AF ED Nikkor 80-200mm F/2.8 D 80-200MM 1:2.8 D Zoom Lens & HB-17 | eBay

prices have gone up for the 70-200 because of supply, which made the price of 80-200 go up as well. the 70-200 vr1 brand new used to sell for 1500 when the vr2 came out the vr1 sold for 1500 still, now the vr1 sells for 1600-1700 used and the vr2 for about 2200 new so iam guessing supply is affecting prices. I purchased my 80-200 afs for 700 but it was supposed to be a an Af-d and they sent me the wrong lens i purchased a d7000 to buy lenses that didn't have motors, it turns out i got sent a lens that has one built in. Its great and it amazes me how sharp it is wide open. now the 80-200 sells for about 1200 used, if u find a good deal jump on it.

 

[matthewo]

i had a 70-300 for a while, and it was a good lens for the price. i just needed a larger aperture for more light. i had to always use it wide open and almost tacked out a 300mm most of the time, and it got kinda soft there.

i just bought a sigma 70-200 F2.8 hsm II, and im hoping its a good upgrade...

from some of the photos i have seen and some compairisons i think the sigma should be nice... i will know tomarrow...

 

[rgregory1965]

I just got the Sigma 70-200 OS last week and found it to be superior to the Nikon 70-300 I had.....less tele range but better color and sharpness

 

[manaheim]

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

Jerry

There's weird ghosting in those... did you do that?

 

[jriepe]

Manaheim,

You're the second person to mention that and I do see some ghosting on the third image but I see nothing on the first or second. I'm not questioning whether its there just that I don't see it. Is it because I don't know what I'm looking for or is it not showing up on my screen? Is it the lens or did I screw up in PP? Wish I had answers but I don't. Maybe I should stick with macro.:blushing:

Jerry

 

[keene]

Does anyone know where you can get a lens adapter for pentax 75-300mm lens to fit on a nikon d 40 camera

 

[manaheim]

Manaheim,

You're the second person to mention that and I do see some ghosting on the third image but I see nothing on the first or second. I'm not questioning whether its there just that I don't see it. Is it because I don't know what I'm looking for or is it not showing up on my screen? Is it the lens or did I screw up in PP? Wish I had answers but I don't. Maybe I should stick with macro.:blushing:

Jerry

I see it on all of them, but then I also have a crazy good monitor so I wonder if I wouldn't see it on a lesser display... I wonder what would happen if you printed it.

 

[cgipson1]

Manaheim,

You're the second person to mention that and I do see some ghosting on the third image but I see nothing on the first or second. I'm not questioning whether its there just that I don't see it. Is it because I don't know what I'm looking for or is it not showing up on my screen? Is it the lens or did I screw up in PP? Wish I had answers but I don't. Maybe I should stick with macro.:blushing:

Jerry

I see it too...

#1 Look around the neck of the goose.. ghosting.. halos.. etc...

#2 slight ghost / halo around the tree and the birds

Just trying to help.. not trying to start a flame war!

 

[zamanakhan]

Manaheim,

You're the second person to mention that and I do see some ghosting on the third image but I see nothing on the first or second. I'm not questioning whether its there just that I don't see it. Is it because I don't know what I'm looking for or is it not showing up on my screen? Is it the lens or did I screw up in PP? Wish I had answers but I don't. Maybe I should stick with macro.:blushing:

Jerry

definitely something in post. Out of curiosity, you are processing raw files, not jpegs right? and if i had to guess, i would say the culprit in order of likelihood is either saturation and contrast control, possibly even sharpening.

 

[tailofspence]

i had a 70-300 for a while, and it was a good lens for the price. i just needed a larger aperture for more light. i had to always use it wide open and almost tacked out a 300mm most of the time, and it got kinda soft there.

i just bought a sigma 70-200 F2.8 hsm II, and im hoping its a good upgrade...

from some of the photos i have seen and some compairisons i think the sigma should be nice... i will know tomarrow...

+1 vote on the Sigma 70-200 f2.8; works well for the price!

 

[digital flower]

Not to hurt anyone's feelings but none of the pictures posted in this thread seem especially sharp to me.

If I was going to Alaska next week I would choose a wide angle lens for the trip. It would probably be more useful for more shots.