Looking for a new lens.

[Zach]

I'm still really new to photography and I'm wanting a lens with a little more reach over my 18-55mm. I want to shoot sports and animals from a distance, so I need a fast lens right? I've tried to do a search for this lens and can't seem to get my question answered. I've been told to stay away from the "G" lenses, but I'm not sure why. I'm using a D50.



Nikon Nikkor AF 70-300mm 70-300 mm F/4-5.6 G Zoom Lens - eBay (item 250342905153 end time Jan-13-09 06:16:48 PST)


Also, are these filters good for macro shots?

55mm Close Up Filter Lens Set +1, +2, +4 & Macro *New - eBay (item 140268606742 end time Dec-18-08 08:56:16 PST)

 

[Overread]

firstly the filters are definatly not going to help at all, far too cheap to warrent the risk, chances are they will give poor results at that price.
As for the lens its got a good focal range, but understand that its considered a budget level lens. It offers a lot of range, but its speed (the maximum aperture) is not that fast past 70mm (at which is it f4 - its f5.6 out at 300mm- not unusably slow but not the fastest) and chances are at the 300mm end its going to suffer from softness.
Its a good lens when you are on budget and need the range and quality - at least for websized images of around 1000 pixels or less with a sharpen after you resize the image - will be decent.

If your after macro you might consider the Sigma 70-300mm APO macro, which whilst its macro is not strong enough to allow you to full the frame with an insect, it will let you fill the frame with something like an open flower head. Again its a budget lens that offers a lot and is not really a master of any.

 

[elemental]

Well, do you think the f/5.6 on the long end of your kit lens is fast enough for what you're doing? I can't comment on the image quality of that lens, but I'd bet it's pretty basic. You pretty much get what you pay for with most lenses. If you just want a longer lens to play with, it looks like a good choice, but it's not going to be a 70-200 f/2.8 if you know what I mean.

 

[Zach]

Thanks. I'm still learning, so I don't need the very best, just something to play with. Would it be the best for under $200?

Would the 70-300m be able to take shots like this?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24501040@N06/2890843843/in/set-72157605090279274/

 

[memento]

the 70-300 will take good shots, presuming there's enough light.

you should watch Craig's List and wait for a cheap 70-300 to come up,
get it and then use it,, to see if you really need a thousand plus dollar lens.

if you decide you want more, sell the cheap one back on Craig's list.

 

[Overread]

Can't see the example - requires flickr account to see that content

As for the best I don't know which out of the sigma or the nikon is for image quality - though the sigma offers a little more in that it can close focus (the macro) down to 0.5m

 

[Zach]

Oh ok, so the Sigma 70-300mm has the reach and can do macro (frame flower sized objects) too? It seems like that would be the obvious choice. Thanks for the help everyone.

 

[Overread]

make sure you get the APO edition if you go for the sigma - the APO glass coatings give a noticable improvment over the older version of the lens - it worth the extra cost for the quality

 

[Joves]

Also since there is no VR you will need a good mono/tripod for the 300mm end. Unless of course you have very steady hands.

 

[Zach]

Thanks again everyone, I'm gonna try and get one tomorrow.