super zoom

[jcdeboever]

Not sure what to get. Been reading a lot and unsure. I got rid of my 55-200 kit, and the Tamron 70-300 di VC was not compatible on my D3300 (no focus motor), I need a di II.

I think the 200 is to short for wildlife and the 300 seem to fall off bad on sharpness at 300 range from what I read. The 18-200 vr afs seemed pretty good. The 70-300 vr AF-S f4 seemed good for reach and sharpness up to 200mm, then a big fall off. Both seemed questionable in light for indoor sports but won't do to much of that anyway.

I am looking for something in the $400 to $500 range used or new, probably used. AFS and VR is important. I am not opposed to something longer either. I assume the 70-300 vr AF-S f4 is my best choice or am I missing something? I also have concluded that spending 500 is not going to get me super sharp images at 300mm, am I correct? Sharp like dannylighting birds for example.

I currently have nikon 35mm 1.8g for street, low light, and portraits. Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS hsm for all around and close up portraits.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[astroNikon]

At $500 you're on the edge money-wise for a used (eBay) Sigma 150-500. aka "Bigma"
Which of course has more reach than your other options and is good for wildlife.
It's also much larger and heavier than your other options.

 

[SCraig]

Zoom or Super Zoom?

The Nikon 70-300 is a good lens and is sharp throughout the range.

I recently purchased the Sigma 18-300 simply because I wanted an all-in-one superzoom. I also have the Sigma 17-70 and it is probably comparable to your 17-50. The 18-300 is *NOT* as sharp as the 17-70 but I also have a lot more reach with it. It is not as sharp as the Nikon 70-300, but again I have a lot more focal length options with it. That's not to say it isn't a good lens, it definitely is, but it isn't a great lens.

It is a compromise lens in some respects but having an extremely large focal length is a huge benefit. The trade-off being a lens that is slightly less sharp throughout the focal length. I'm pleased with it and would purchase it again, but it won't replace my other lenses except as an all-in-one walk-around lens when I'm too lazy to carry two lenses.

 

[jcdeboever]

I was looking at the flickr photos for the Nikon 70-300 and was a little unimpressed and seemed to mirror what thoms was saying and not what Rockwell was saying. Still under consideration though. That's where the confusion comes in.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[jcdeboever]

At $500 you're on the edge money-wise for a used (eBay) Sigma 150-500. aka "Bigma"
Which of course has more reach than your other options and is good for wildlife.
It's also much larger and heavier than your other options.

Nice, have not looked at that one. 4.25 pounds... wow. Looks pretty good and camera labs has a good write up on it.
Do you still have yours for sale? We probably live close to each other.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ronlane]

I was looking at the flickr photos for the Nikon 70-300 and was a little unimpressed and seemed to mirror what thoms was saying and not what Rockwell was saying. Still under consideration though. That's where the confusion comes in.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

One word in this and I see why you are confused. Just saying.

 

[jcdeboever]

I was looking at the flickr photos for the Nikon 70-300 and was a little unimpressed and seemed to mirror what thoms was saying and not what Rockwell was saying. Still under consideration though. That's where the confusion comes in.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

One word in this and I see why you are confused. Just saying.

What do you mean? I tried hard to do my homework and using the web to figure things out before posting.

 

[Braineack]

I was looking at the flickr photos for the Nikon 70-300 and was a little unimpressed and seemed to mirror what thoms was saying and not what Rockwell was saying. Still under consideration though. That's where the confusion comes in.

it's a cheap, sharp, long lens, what else do you want from it?

 

[jcdeboever]

I was looking at the flickr photos for the Nikon 70-300 and was a little unimpressed and seemed to mirror what thoms was saying and not what Rockwell was saying. Still under consideration though. That's where the confusion comes in.

it's a cheap, sharp, long lens, what else do you want from it?

Thanks for responding. I see other photo's on here and they are so clear and sharp but not with that lens or that I have noticed.
That is what I want, cheap, sharp, and long... but based on what I read, it was not very sharp after 200mm according to some reviews and what I seen on flickr. I may be reading to much into it and not looking at very good photographers either. So I posted asking the question because the more I looked, the more I doubted the 70-300 f4. I have found a few used ones in the price range I want to spend. If you were to tell me go for it, I would because I respect and trust your opinion.

 

[ronlane]

jc, you did fine researching before posting. My comment is about understanding your confusion after mentioning that you listened to rockwell.

 

[Braineack]

I had it for a while. it's much better than anything else in the price range.

it was sharp in the studio when doing selfies, and decent enough at 300mm. I mean it's no 300mm 2.8, but it's better than the 55-300.

 

[jcdeboever]

jc, you did fine researching before posting. My comment is about understanding your confusion after mentioning that you listened to rockwell.

I had it for a while. it's much better than anything else in the price range.

it was sharp in the studio when doing selfies, and decent enough at 300mm. I mean it's no 300mm 2.8, but it's better than the 55-300.

Thanks guys.

That's what I suspected in regards to Rockwell. He comes up at the top in a lot of lens search's so I figured he was a photography guru. How he finds the time is beyond me. I discovered he steered me wrong on my setting up the D3300, guess that should have told me something.

 

[Braineack]

BUT. i'd rather have a 70-300 f/4 over the 70-300 4.5-5.6

 

[ronlane]

jc, you did fine researching before posting. My comment is about understanding your confusion after mentioning that you listened to rockwell.

I had it for a while. it's much better than anything else in the price range.

it was sharp in the studio when doing selfies, and decent enough at 300mm. I mean it's no 300mm 2.8, but it's better than the 55-300.

Thanks guys.

That's what I suspected in regards to Rockwell. He comes up at the top in a lot of lens search's so I figured he was a photography guru. How he finds the time is beyond me. I discovered he steered me wrong on my setting up the D3300, guess that should have told me something.

If you know SEO, then you can come up on the top of your searches, doesn't mean you are right or the expert.

 

[astroNikon]

At $500 you're on the edge money-wise for a used (eBay) Sigma 150-500. aka "Bigma"
Which of course has more reach than your other options and is good for wildlife.
It's also much larger and heavier than your other options.

Nice, have not looked at that one. 4.25 pounds... wow. Looks pretty good and camera labs has a good write up on it.
Do you still have yours for sale? We probably live close to each other.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I sold mine a while ago. Forgot I had that FS ad in TPF.

For the price , I think I paid $550 for it, it was pretty good. A lot of ppl here have/had the Bigma.