Need more zooooom:)

D40 · Jun 8, 2007

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080901nikonafs70-300vrlens.asp

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449087-USA/Nikon_2162_18_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_ED_IF_AF_S.html

You know when you are shooting on the street and want to get a shot and just cant get close enough or don't want to make it odvious that you are taking his or her picture. Or when you are at a portrait shoot and need to get in closer but don't want to stick your camera in the persons face

What have you (those who have used a few zooming lenses) found to be the most used or practical? I don't whant to spend $350 on the 18-135mm and find I still wish I had more zoom abillity? Thanks for your 2 cents

I have the D40 (Duhhh) So need the AF-S.

Mike_E · Jun 8, 2007

Or you could keep an eye on this Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD... http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-80-200-F2...ryZ48556QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

16 hours left and still only$46. Hey, you never know!

Johnboy2978 · Jun 8, 2007

It's not a great piece of glass, but for the money, it will serve you well. Besides you really aren't going to get a great lens for less than $350. The Tamron has served me well in the past. Works well outdoors, wouldn't use it for anything professional though and you'd never get by using it for sports or indoor weddings.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423727-REG/Tamron_AF017N700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html

benan · Jun 8, 2007

what about using extension tubes? i've done some work recently using a 50mm prime and a kenko 2x teleconverter..
beth

JIP · Jun 9, 2007

What lens do you currently have?. If you have the kit lens I really don't think the 18-135 is going to be enough jump to make it worth it. Personally I would go with the 70-300.

panocho · Jun 9, 2007

benan said:
what about using extension tubes? i've done some work recently using a 50mm prime and a kenko 2x teleconverter..
beth

teleconverters, actually

extension tubes are used to get macro capabilities with a "normal" lens

D40 · Jun 9, 2007

Ya, I have the kit lens 18-55mm. I was trying the 70-300mm lens out and really loved the zooming but did find it a bit slow. For indoor shots you would reall need a flash. What is the general portait taken at as far as zooming goes or is there not a spacific lenth?

Mike_E · Jun 9, 2007

For indoor portraits 50mm f1.x are being used to great success. On a Nikon D you won't want to go more than about 70mm indoors- maybe 85-90mm.

300mm is for the birds! No really, it's for shooting things you can't really get anywhere near- birds, ravenous beasts, angry wives- you catch my drift.

If you get the -300mm do yourself a favor and get the VR.

mike

D40 · Jun 9, 2007

Yes deffinently the VR

Mike_E · Jun 9, 2007

D40 said:
Yes deffinently the VR

:lmao: It really helps when you're running away! :lmao:

mike

D40 · Jun 9, 2007

LOL

Is this any good?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/23440-REG/Hoya_520203_52mm_Linear_Polarizing_Glass.html

or would this be better

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/480757-REG/Cokin_CC16452_52mm_Circular_Polarizing_Glass.html

Can anyone explain the differences? I thought they got rid of reflection from not reflecting serfaces, is this correct?

Mike_E · Jun 9, 2007

Umm no not really, you need a circular polarizer so that you can both move around the horizon and adjust the strength of the polarization.

Oh btw, that 80-200mm f2.8 Nikon AFD went for $305, I hope somebody on here got it. mike

JIP · Jun 9, 2007

For Auto-focus you need a circular polariser a linear will not work.

sabbath999 · Jun 9, 2007

For the money, I think the best "buy" on the Nikon scene right now is the new 55-200 VR (not the older 55-200 non-vr).

It doesn't have the exact same VR as the 70-300... that is a "Gen. 2" VR lens as opposed to the older technology used in the 55-200... the difference? 4 stops on the 70-300 vs. 3 stops on the 55-200... but still, you are talking about a lens that RETAILS for $250 bucks... a lot of bang for the buck.