Good Nikon telephoto lens?

[Deandra]

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

 

[fsquare]

used Nikon 80-200mm AF-S

 

[Patrice]

$1000 is a bit limiting when looking at top shelf Nikon telephotos. A couple hundred more dollars could get you a new 80-200, while a new 300mm f4 is around $1400. The second hand market will have more to offer in that price range but still won't get you into the 300mm and longer fast primes.

But we forgot to ask - for you, what constitutes a good telephoto lens?

Nikon variable aperture 28-300 is $1200, Nikon 70-300 variable aperture is about $500, Nikon 18-200 variable aperture is about $800. All depends what you expect from the lens.

 

[kundalini]

I didn't realize the Nikkor 300mm f/4 had gone up so much in price, but I love mine. If I'm trying to shoot backyard birds and such, I prefer it over the 70-200mm f/2.8. It accepts the 1.7TC better and I can only think it is because of being a prime. It's not too much to lug around for size and weight. Isolates the subject nicely and provides good color and contrast.

 

[djacobox372]

used Nikon 80-200mm AF-S

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

 

[Patrice]

used Nikon 80-200mm AF-S

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

These are pretty rare on E-bay and are offered at a few hundred dollars more than $900. AF-D's are way more common and thus their prices are a bit lower. Same great optics but not as fast to focus and won't auto focus at all with the baby nikons.

Lately I have noticed a fairly steady increase in the price of good used lenses. With the newer Nikon's with Nano coatings being so expensive while quite a few people have migrated or thinking of changing over to full frame has put upward pressure on the price of good older full frame lenses.

 

[jriepe]

Is your choice limited to Nikon lenses or would you consider Tamron and/or Sigma?

Jerry

 

[MK3Brent]

Is your choice limited to Nikon lenses or would you consider Tamron and/or Sigma?

Jerry

Yeah, I have a Tamron 70-300 F4 that performs pretty well.
I bought it new for $350 with a rebate. You can get them online now for much less.

 

[rgregory1965]

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

1.

2. cropped

3. cropped extremely

 

[fsquare]

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

 

[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

 

[djacobox372]

used Nikon 80-200mm AF-S

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

These are pretty rare on E-bay and are offered at a few hundred dollars more than $900. AF-D's are way more common and thus their prices are a bit lower. Same great optics but not as fast to focus and won't auto focus at all with the baby nikons.

Lately I have noticed a fairly steady increase in the price of good used lenses. With the newer Nikon's with Nano coatings being so expensive while quite a few people have migrated or thinking of changing over to full frame has put upward pressure on the price of good older full frame lenses.

One 80-200mm AF-S sold very recently for as little as $775--only missing the lens hood. They're rare, but with a month or so of searching I'm certain that it could be had for less then $900 (got mine for less then half of that, but only when I sold off the rest of the lot that was included with it).

I also suggest the older AF models--especially the older single ring which is can be had for $400 in great condition! sure the AF is slow, but not everybody shoots action.

 

[chuasam]

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.

 

[Robchaos]

I second the old 80-200 2.8d AF Single ring. You can find the push pull on Adorama for $460 shipped in E-, and if you are patient, possibly less on ebay or craigslist. This lens is optically the same as the newer 2 ring versions. There is a good reason why Nikon has kept the same optics since 1988! The lens is great, and the slower focus speed should not be that limiting....hell its what the pros used for years until the 2 ring came out, and thats not THAT much faster then the push pull. Not like the AF-S at least.

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.

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:

 

[digital flower]

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

I have this lens and it only works if there is a lot of available light. From the couple of trips I have taken to Alaska I don't remember too much sun.

The 80-200mm/2.8 (push-pull) I have blows the 70-300mm out of the water. I paid around $800 from Calmuet (sp?) in E+ condition. When the lens arrived it looked brand new and had a nice leather case.