Need help on which lens

[abhishekdg]

hi friends,
To cut long story short looking forward to get into nature and wildlife photograph. Have a nikon D90 and a 35 mm 1.8 g prime lens. Now feel like its time to get a zoom lens as I do get frustrated not to be able to reach out to beautiful nature and bird shots with the 35 mm lens. I know nothing better than a telephoto prime but doesn't have that high a balance. So was trying to list down my preferences and here's the list :-

1. Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Telephoto Zoom lens
2. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS Telephoto Zoom for Nikon AF Digital SLR Cameras
3. Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLRs & 35mm Film Cameras

Also would like to know the macro capability of these lenses..

My budget is up to 600USD . So if you know of any old Nikon lenses that would be great for nature and wildlife do list them down here please..

 

[LizardKing]

You probably have several reviews comparing these 3 if you do a quick search in Google...

 

[abhishekdg]

Yeah did some study but it seems I am torn between the Tamron and the nikon. Well Nikon is a different class all together but the Tamron is about a 200 USD less and many claim that the VC is better than the VR on Nikon. so wanna know any first hand experience if could have helped me.

 

[rick93]

Hi,
I got the Tamron and I am very happy with it. I don't have any experience with the Nikon lenses so I can't help with that.
The VC on the Tammy works extremely well + I really like the quality of the whole lens. Here some pics that I took with my Canon 450D and the Tamron.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions please ask!

 

[rick93]

About the macro.... I don't really know much about macro photography..
The minimum focusing distance for the Tamron is 150 cm or 1.5 m in inches that would be 59 inches.
I took some 'macro' pics of some bugs;

1.

2.

The first one is not cropped

 

[emoxley]

I have the Tamron lens you mentioned. As said, the VC on it is very good. Tamron makes a 70-300mm with macro also, but it's not the one you listed. I have the Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 macro, and like it a lot. It does not have the VC on it. I wish it did. Here are pics I took with the 70-300mm............

 

[abhishekdg]

It seems I am sold to the Tamron.. It would have been great to see a few pics from the nikon version. However, just a couple of questions more :-

1. How is the lens performance in low light condition? I know its gonna be slow at focussing but how is the image quality?
2. Did you guys notice any image quality degredation at either ends of the lens?

 

[rick93]

I didn't notice any large quality loss shooting in low light. Here two pics I shot in very low light. Aperture f/5.0, at 1.0sec, ISO 1600 and Focal lenght; 175.0mm. 1# with VC on and 2# without (second shot was actually at 0.8sec). As you know, it does focus very slow.
About degradation; the image quality gets a little "softer" when you get to the 300mm but is still very outstanding. See pic #3, shot zoomed in at 300mm.

1.

2.

3.

Hope this helps.

 

[Bukitimah]

With the f4.5 to 5.6, you will be challenged under low light. This is more so with wildlife when they are hiding somewhere among the bushes or shaded area. You can clearly see emoxly's f2.8 stands out. Of course we are talking of a different budget.

I am using the Nikon 70-300 and am happy for the price I paid.

 

[emoxley]

You can clearly see emoxly's f2.8 stands out. Of course we are talking of a different budget.

My f/2.8 is the 90mm macro, not the 70-300mm lens. I can't afford an f/2.8 70-300mm lens. My 70-300mm Tamron is f/4-5.6, and I think it does very well in low light. But, my camera may have something to do with that. I use the Nikon D7000, which is well known for being an excellent low light camera. Below are a couple of shots I did in low light with the 70-300mm:

First picture: ISO 3200.........f/5.6............1/60 sec.
Second pic: ISO 3200..........f/5.6.............1/20 sec.

So, the f/5.6 did fine in low light, but the ISO 3200 on the d7k helped I'm sure. The D90 may not handle the high ISO as well. Buy the lens from a place with a good return policy, and if you're not happy with it, return it. Of course you can always rent the lens first, to see if you like it. You can rent lenses here: LensProToGo: LensProToGo
Good luck with whatever you do.

 

[Kerbouchard]

How about an older Nikon 80-200 2.8? It can be had for around your budget number and it is heads and shoulders above your other options.

 

[rgregory1965]

I gave up my Nikon 70-300 for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS and never looked back......glady gave up the extra reach for sharper faster photos.

I did take some very sharp ones with the Nikon......awsome lens for sure

 

[Kerbouchard]

I gave up my Nikon 70-300 for the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS and never looked back......glady gave up the extra reach for sharper faster photos.

I did take some very sharp ones with the Nikon......awsome lens for sure

I guess since it is somewhat relevent, I also haven't used my Nikon 70-300 VR since I have had my Sigma 120-300 2.8. Simply in a different class altogether.

 

[abhishekdg]

You guys are just awesome with so much info on the reviews of the 2 lenses.. Ofcourse the f2.8 lens is way out of my mere budget. So have to go with a variable aperture one.
I think the old 80-200 nikon lens is not at all a bad option for sure. Need to check that out.
Also will check out the lens rentals as mentioned. Seems to be a great idea. to judge it myself..

 

[ScubaDude]

I used to have the Tamron (Canon version) and it was a really good lens. Don't know anything about the others you mentioned. Here are a few pix I took with it.

Snowy Egret by ScubaDude1960, on Flickr


Sanderling by ScubaDude1960, on Flickr


The Funky Meters' Brian Stoltz by ScubaDude1960, on Flickr