Got a question about budget lenses

ScottWy · Jul 1, 2009

I have a Nikon D50. I replaced the lens with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I like this lens, and it works for me.

Recently I have been taking photos at the local speedway. The 2.8 is great for when it gets dark, but the 75mm is not long enough for the cheap seats.

I was reading about the Sigma 80-300. The 300mm part is what I need, but the aperture is not.

I was wondering what a teleconverter would do for me. How much aperture do you lose with one, and what would the focal length end up at. Say a Tamron or Kenko 2x. Possibly you have other suggestions?

Would I be better off with the Sigma or a teleconverter? What i would like is a Nikon 20-200 f2.8, but this is just a hobby for me. I cannot spend even $800 for a used one right now.

Ideas, anyone?

Phranquey · Jul 1, 2009

ScottWy said:
I have a Nikon D50. I replaced the lens with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8. I like this lens, and it works for me.

Recently I have been taking photos at the local speedway. The 2.8 is great for when it gets dark, but the 75mm is not long enough for the cheap seats.

I was reading about the Sigma 80-300. The 300mm part is what I need, but the aperture is not.

I was wondering what a teleconverter would do for me. How much aperture do you lose with one, and what would the focal length end up at. Say a Tamron or Kenko 2x. Possibly you have other suggestions?

Would I be better off with the Sigma or a teleconverter? What i would like is a Nikon 20-200 f2.8, but this is just a hobby for me. I cannot spend even $800 for a used one right now.

Ideas, anyone?

Unfortunately, you're in a bit of a pickle. I am not positive on this, but I don't think that a TC will fit on the back of the 28-70mm because the rear glass element sticks out too far, and the 80-300 is way to slow to shoot in darker conditions at 300mm. You could crank up your ISO, but the D50 is not known for it's high ISO performance....which means you are going to get a lot of grain.

Dao · Jul 2, 2009

a 2X TC usually will rob 2 stops of light. Even if it fit, you will back to square one, not enough light. (F/2.8 -> F/5.6)

This is really tough since fast telephoto lenses are not cheap

bigtwinky · Jul 2, 2009

I believe a 1.4x converter will remove only 1 stop of light. So your Tamron would be an f/4.0. Still doesn't give you much focal lenght, but just thought I'd throw that tid bit in there.

Not sure about the Nikon lenses (I shoot Canon), but Canon has a 55-250mm with IS (Image Stabilisation, equivalent to VR for Nikon) which might be a decent buy. I think BH has them for about $250. You still only have a max of 5.6 at the long end, but the IS might help.

If you really cannot stretch your budget, I think you should settle for an entry level lens and just make sure you show up to the event earlier

Dylan-Fishman · Jul 2, 2009

^^^ Nikon has the 55-200mm VR also. Not very good in low light though f/4-5.6

table1349 · Jul 2, 2009

Save your money that you would waste on the converter and put it toward buying something like the 70-200 f2.8VR.

Teleconverters do not play well optically with focal lengths less then 100mm. A teleconverter will magnify the action/view. A teleconverter will also magnify every flaw or failing of that lens. Optically that lens was not made to act like a telephoto lens and a TC will not turn it into one. It will just magnify the characteristics of that lens.

TC's were also designed to work with long primes,(100mm or more) not zoom lenses. A good quality TC on a top quality zoom lens can produce good quality photos. To get that kind of qualtiy you need a zoom lens with near prime sharpness. The 70-200 f2.8VR has that kind of sharpness. A Nikon 1.4 TC pairs nicely with the 70-200 f2.8VR.

ScottWy · Jul 2, 2009

I was curious about the teleconverters. They are obviously intended for something other than what I need!

The D50 works pretty good up to 800 ISO, and has a 1600 ISO setting that is serviceable. Does anyone know about the ISO settings on the D80?

It looks like the only answer to this is to somehow come up with a long f2.8. Is there a brand other than Nikon that could be had in the $500 neighborhood? I really like the Tamron lens I have, and I have used it at f4.0 in the settings I described, at 800 ISO, with good results.

Perhaps a fixed focal length at or above 200mm, and at least f4.0?

Phranquey · Jul 2, 2009

ScottWy said:
It looks like the only answer to this is to somehow come up with a long f2.8. Is there a brand other than Nikon that could be had in the $500 neighborhood? I really like the Tamron lens I have, and I have used it at f4.0 in the settings I described, at 800 ISO, with good results.

If you can save up some lunch money and add it to your $500, I would highly recommend the Nikon 80-200mm AF-D f/2.8. I had one for a couple of years before picking up my 70-200, and it is a great lens. Here is an ebay link to one...this is an average price. I have seen them go cheaper, and I have seen them go higher...depends on your patience.

@EX@ NIKON Nikkor AF 80-200mm/F2.8 ED D 3rd version - eBay (item 110409977483 end time Aug-01-09 08:58:41 PDT)

table1349 · Jul 2, 2009

ScottWy said:
I was curious about the teleconverters. They are obviously intended for something other than what I need!

The D50 works pretty good up to 800 ISO, and has a 1600 ISO setting that is serviceable. Does anyone know about the ISO settings on the D80?

It looks like the only answer to this is to somehow come up with a long f2.8. Is there a brand other than Nikon that could be had in the $500 neighborhood? I really like the Tamron lens I have, and I have used it at f4.0 in the settings I described, at 800 ISO, with good results.

Perhaps a fixed focal length at or above 200mm, and at least f4.0?

You might take a look at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 Sigma | 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF Lens | 579-306

I was impressed with the Canon version. It's $800 but that is better than the $1700 Nikon wants.

ScottWy · Jul 18, 2009

As you can see, the light is pretty poor. This is the D50 at 800 ISO, and the Tamron lens at f2.8. I think the shutter speed ended up at 1/30th. Too slow, judging by the blurriness.

I have found I can get away with some under exposure, and improve it is PS Elements 4. Would a newer version of Elements be more effective?

Here I am at 2.8, 1/50th shutter, and 56mm focal length. There isn't much DOF at max aperture!

I am not zooming much past 50mm after dark, so I got to thinking about the 50mm 1.8 lens. I read it is not too slow in auto focus. I have been using manual focus after dark, in order to get successive shots quicker.

What would that 50 f1.8 do for me in this situation?

The Tamron works pretty well during the day. This is cropped down, and taken from 80 or more yards away.

The numbers here are 66mm, f5.0 at 1/200th. Is there a lens of any focal length that could come close to this in the horrid lighting we get after dark?

I know these shots aren't exactly rare art, but the guys running the cars like to see them!

What do you think about that 50mm f1.8, if you please? I am saving with that Sigma f2.8 in mind, or a used Nikon, but it's far enough off that I would like to try something else in the meantime.

Sachphotography · Jul 18, 2009

My suggestion would be to go with an older Manual focus lens. Being that you are so far away your DOF will be a lot wider. You can find older 300mm Fast lens for around 200-300.
I think that would be a better way to go.
KEH Camera: Nikon Manual Focus - Fixed Focal Lengths - 300 F4.5 ED INTERNAL FOCUS AIS (72) 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS

That lens would be good for what you need. If you used a TC you would have a 600mm at f/9. All things considered that is not all that bad. I think this would be a better way to go. Plus it is more cost effective.

benhasajeep · Jul 18, 2009

I have third party teleconverters, and Nikon teleconverters. All of my lenses are Nikon f/2.8's except 1 which is a Tokina f/2.8. Although I do occasionally use the teleconverters they are not that great of an option. They lower the contrast and soften the pictures. Even the Nikon TC's I have lower the picture quality. And as stated above, you loose light with them.

I would suggest you look for a new or used fast lens. Even a third party lens will look better than the best Nikon glass with a TC. Since you have a D50 that gives you a little more leeway on used lens choice since it can use older D-type AF lenses (Nikon and third party) and the newer ones of course AF-I and AF-S lenses (or third party with lens motors).

As for manual focus lenses. Unfortunately the D50 will not meter on MF lenses unless its a lens that has a chip (AI-P mf lenses). The D50 will only allow manual focusing of course (the focus confirmation light works though), and the camera has to be used in manual mode. It can be done though. I used to use a 300mm f/2.8 mf lens on mine (use it still on d300 now).

Basically I would save the money to be spent on a teleconverter and put it towards a fast 70-200 f/2.8. Especially the less expensive teleconverters. I have one that was a bait and switch job from a NY store before I wised up. It's now a $150 paper weight. I call it the "grain master" as even though it's multicoated, its just plain horrable!

Sachphotography · Jul 19, 2009

Hey... Look up a tokina 70-200 f/2.8 they have older models that sell for about 250

ScottWy · Jul 21, 2009

I was wondering about the Tokina lenses. I think I saw a used 50-150 I could almost afford right now. Has anyone had any experiences with them?

I also am thinking about the suggestion to find an old ai manual focus, and just leave it at infinity, because I am not sure the focus indicator in the viewfinder would work.

I was at the track last Saturday, and there was a guy with a new D300. He had a Sigma 150-500, the AF-S 20-200 Nikon f2.8, and a wide lens I don't remember the details of.

He also did not have the flash shut off (he was in auto mode), and the AF assist light was turned on(!) He was getting better photos in the horrid light than I was by sunlight. I asked him what ISO he was at, and he told me wherever the camera set it.

On second thought, he was not getting better photos than me. While all the action was going on, he and his son were in their own little world, looking at the replay in the viewfinder. Wow. Maybe it is true that the camera doesn't make the photograph, the photographer does.

Maybe what I need is a camera that has more useable ISO. I sure would like to get a longer lens first, though.

UUilliam · Jul 21, 2009

Rule 1. Use canon
Rule 2. Bin the Nikon
Rule 3. Buy a 75-300mm... much cheaper than nikons 70-200 vr (75-300mm f4.5-5.6 is only £200.. sure it is 2 - 3 stops more than the 70-200 but i find it still gets a decent speed)
Rule 4. Set your White balance unless you like it the yellow tinge

Fun Fact 1. Canon = Better and cheaper than nikon (with the exception of Nikons Body design)

Yup thats right im a Canon Fanboy, in honesty though... nikon is a pretty decent make... heck they are one of the top sellers but they are a little on the pricy side...
you'd be better to get a decent canon FF sensor camera and a 400mm f4.5 L IS AF lens

the one thing about i like nikon is (although i have never used nikon so dont know much about the way the camera functions.) i have seen the body and it looks and feels much better than canons plastic and that little red triangle sets it off well

Maybe if i use a nikon one day i may feel differently but i have a canon now and spent around £2000 on it so im not gunna change to nikon now... Maybe if i decide to change later in life when i: make more money or if i sell my camera and get a good ammount back on it or if i ever have photog buddies who decide they like to swap kits every now and then

I actually got my 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 for £45 as the AF wasn't working but im not shooting anything i need af for tbh.. it would just be a convenience if it worked.. i may pay to get the AF fixed depending on the cost...