In the market for a telephoto. Reccomendations?

[anubis404]

Even still, I would prefer a more professional lens. One that I'm going to keep for a very very long time.

 

[Phranquey]

Even still, I would prefer a more professional lens. One that I'm going to keep for a very very long time.

Professional = $$

Not to rag on you..seriously. But, you are him-hawing about the build quality of what is in your budget, but you want the quality that is a bit out of your budget....one of the two needs to give.

This kind of equates to the tripod triangle....sturdy / lightweight / cheap. You get to pick two...you don't get all three.

 

[iflynething]

Professional = $$


This kind of equates to the tripod triangle....sturdy / lightweight / cheap. You get to pick two...you don't get all three.

I guess you might know about the tripod triangle wouldn't you? Did you ever even decide on what to do about taking one?

Another note is, if you got a nice longer lens, and had a mount on the lens, you could just take a monopod with you and not have to worry about a tripod at all

~Michael~

 

[tirediron]

if you got a nice longer lens, and had a mount on the lens, you could just take a monopod with you and not have to worry about a tripod at all

Sorry, that's just plain bad advice. Tripods and monopods are completely different animals and meant to be used in totally different ways. A monopod is meant primarily for applications where minimal support is required, and rapid changes in shooting position are commonplace. I by no means claim to be an expert in wildlife photography, but that which I have done has been marked by long periods of sitting quietly with the gear mounted firmly on a tripod, waiting for the animal to show.

 

[Crazydad]

Professional = $$

Not to rag on you..seriously. But, you are him-hawing about the build quality of what is in your budget, but you want the quality that is a bit out of your budget....one of the two needs to give.

This kind of equates to the tripod triangle....sturdy / lightweight / cheap. You get to pick two...you don't get all three.

Totally agree, sucks to have champaign taste on a beer budget.

Seriously though, if you are shooting wildlife, I would wonder about the reach of a 200mm. Yes, a 200 = 300 on DX, but the that means the 300 = 450. First thing I would do is borrow or rent a 200 to make absolutely sure it has enough reach. If it is, then go for the best you can afford. But if 200 isn't enough, then the lens is useless for what you want, no matter how good it is.

I completely understand where you are coming from, I wanted the 70-200VR in a bad way for my son's soccer but the budget wasn't there. So I went ahead and got the 70-300VR and haven't regretted it. While not a "pro" lens, it is well built and has very good optics.

 

[anubis404]

I know that professional lenses cost more money than I'm willing to spend, that's why I'm going for a line of older professional lenses. Namely the 80-200 F2.8. Any 70-200 zoom is a good lens to have, for anything from weddings to portraits. A 100mm-300mm (equivalent) is all I can afford right now, and I believe it will serve me well in the long run. I don't believe it is a decision I'm going to regret, because chances are I'm going to need that lens sooner or later. Most probably sooner. Where I am, the birds get and animals are more comfortable than usual, and get very close (10-20ft).

My main reason for steering clear of the 70-300vr is because of the possibility of outgrowing it. It may be a great lens, but sooner or later I'm probably going to want to upgrade. This is much less likely with an 80-200 lens, because the only thing to upgrade to is VR, which IMO isn't worth all the extra money.

The reality is, I don't really have the money for that sigma 150-500, even though I may want it. Its hard to justify spending an excess of $600 on a lens, at least for me it is. I have tons of other things I should be saving up for, college being the first and foremost. Teleconverters are always an option too, which would give me a maximum zoom of ~400mm. I believe a 80-200 would suit me best at this time. I also plan to try one out at my local camera store.

 

[anubis404]

I guess you might know about the tripod triangle wouldn't you? Did you ever even decide on what to do about taking one?

I'm still undecided about landscapes. Definitely a tripod for wildlife though, although I always want the option of handholding.

 

[iflynething]

Sorry, that's just plain bad advice. Tripods and monopods are completely different animals and meant to be used in totally different ways. A monopod is meant primarily for applications where minimal support is required, and rapid changes in shooting position are commonplace. I by no means claim to be an expert in wildlife photography, but that which I have done has been marked by long periods of sitting quietly with the gear mounted firmly on a tripod, waiting for the animal to show.

No, not poor advice, but advice given on other thread that anubus404 has had, most notably this one: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all

You have posted there. I'm just talking abou a monopod to help keep the weight down but nothing more. A tripod is great just to have it sit on there while you wait. I just suggested the monopod for light[er] weight.

~Michael~

 

[tirediron]

No, not poor advice, but advice given on other thread that anubus404 has had, most notably this one: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/subscription.php?do=viewsubscription&folderid=all

You have posted there. I'm just talking abou a monopod to help keep the weight down but nothing more. A tripod is great just to have it sit on there while you wait. I just suggested the monopod for light[er] weight.

~Michael~

Your link isn't working for me; I'll track down the thread in a bit, but I'm afraid while I understand your reasoning, I can't agree with it. Based on the OP:

I am looking for something with fairly high optical quality, and I've had my eyes on a variety of 70-200s. My budget is $650, $700 if needed, and if its damn good (a superzoom or VR) $750. I'd prefer an FX lens so I would get a 105-300 instead of a 70-200. I'm going to be using this for bird/wildlife photography. It ...

A monopod will definitely save weight, BUT IMO will be totally unsuitable for the stated purpose.

 

[anubis404]

A monopod is better than nothing, but I think a tripod would be best. I've made up my mind on the 80-200 F2.8 AF-D Nikkor. I've heard its optics are phenomenal, its build quality solid, and its FX. Any comments on this lens?

 

[Phranquey]

A monopod will definitely save weight, BUT IMO will be totally unsuitable for the stated purpose.

While you normally have sound advice, I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I won't argue that a tripod is definitely the best option, but I have used a monopod with my 70-200mm & 500mm for birding on numerous occasions. Just look at the sideline of any NFL game or race track, venues with lots of fast action, and most of the big lenses are on monos.

 

[tirediron]

While you normally have sound advice, I'll have to disagree with you on this one.

That's fair - after all that's half the reason we're here...

...I have used a monopod with my 70-200mm & 500mm for birding on numerous occasions. Just look at the sideline of any NFL game or race track, venues with lots of fast action, and most of the big lenses are on monos.

Couldn't agree more, which is why I posted this earlier in the thread:
"A monopod is meant primarily for applications where minimal support is required, and rapid changes in shooting position are commonplace."

 

[Phranquey]

That's fair - after all that's half the reason we're here...



Couldn't agree more, which is why I posted this earlier in the thread:
"A monopod is meant primarily for applications where minimal support is required, and rapid changes in shooting position are commonplace."

:thumbup:

See, we can all play nicely in the same sandbox....

:lmao::lmao:

 

[ksmattfish]

I dunno, the 70-300 is more of a cheap plastic consumer lens.

That's the same cheap plastic they are making airplanes and cars out of. The cheap consumer zooms of today will blow the pro zooms of yesterday out of the water. Zoom lens technology is still coming into it's own; you don't have to go back many years to find out why zooms have a bad rep.

I've got the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I think it's about $700. The AF is old school, but in prints and pixel peeping it's doing a great job. I have no experience with the Sigma version, but I've seen several reviews that say go with the Sigma if AF is most important, or go with the Tamron if optics are most important. According to the fancy lens testing software the optics of the Tamron are on par with the Canon L version. I'm sure the Nikon or Canon versions combine great optics and great AF, but they are twice the price.

 

[iflynething]

A monopod is better than nothing, but I think a tripod would be best. I've made up my mind on the 80-200 F2.8 AF-D Nikkor. I've heard its optics are phenomenal, its build quality solid, and its FX. Any comments on this lens?

Exceptional. I don't have any bird watching experience with this lens, but I have used it for dance competitons. It's super sharp and enough reach for me. With that, I would consider at least a 1.4 teleconverter for it for out in the woods.

I still suggest the monopod for weight savings while hiking

~Michael~