super zoom

[Derrel]

So am I correct in that the lens I referenced would work on a d3300? I might just get that Bigma or save up and get the 200-500. What do you think?
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens

Fast, furious & flexible: Testing the new Nikkor 200-500mm at the Belgian Grand Prix | I AM NIKON Blog

Yes, the new E-series 200-500 WILL mount,meter,and shoot at all apertures on a D3300. I verified this. The D3000, and some other lower-end bodies and older bodies, will not have full functionality with an E-series lens aperture system, but the D3300 is a full, 100% "go" with an E-series like the new 200-500mm.

I have not seen many photos from the new 200-500, but I think I would most likely rather own it than a 150-500 Sigma. The constant aperture over the entire length of the zoom is a nice feature, and it has a new Sport VR mode, plus it's a Nikkor, so I think the color rendition would be perfect for a Nikon camera.

 

[jcdeboever]

So am I correct in that the lens I referenced would work on a d3300? I might just get that Bigma or save up and get the 200-500. What do you think?
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens

Fast, furious & flexible: Testing the new Nikkor 200-500mm at the Belgian Grand Prix | I AM NIKON Blog

Yes, the new E-series 200-500 WILL mount,meter,and shoot at all apertures on a D3300. I verified this. The D3000, and some other lower-end bodies and older bodies, will not have full functionality with an E-series lens aperture system, but the D3300 is a full, 100% "go" with an E-series like the new 200-500mm.

I have not seen many photos from the new 200-500, but I think I would most likely rather own it than a 150-500 Sigma. The constant aperture over the entire length of the zoom is a nice feature, and it has a new Sport VR mode, plus it's a Nikkor, so I think the color rendition would be perfect for a Nikon camera.

Yeah, I am leaning to the Nikon 200-500. Some of the photos on Flickr are gorgeous, it has a lot of them on there, just type in Google Nikon AF-S NIKKOR
200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR flickr. I think it would be great for next year's air shows, balloon festival, and wildlife weekends. I can then hang with dannylighting and astronikon guys[emoji41]

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Peeb]

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.

Cheap. Sharp. Long. Three parameters. Choose any 2 and you have a readily available lens. EDIT: having read entire thread now, it appears you may be more interested in the telephoto end of things rather than wide angle. This helps simplify: ultra wide to ultra long introduces unavoidable compromises. Just a reality. Still pretty handy if you're walking around with a group (or the family) and you don't have time to swap lenses.

 

[dannylightning]

that nikon 200-500mm lens does look killer, just looked up some bird photos of flickr and the ones i saw were all excellent, maybe i should have got that lens lol..

 

[Mr.Photo]

All the "Di and Di II" in Tamron's naming system means is that one lens is designed for full frame sensor camera's (35mm) and can be used on both full frame (FX) or crop frame (DX) bodies.

Di = full frame sensor or APS-C camera's
Di II = Only usable on DX sensor camera's

Tamron did have an older 70-300mm lens but it does not have the VC (Vibration Compensation) capability that the newer one has. Also this lens is of the older AF (screw driven auto focus) type which requires your camera to have a focus motor built in to the camera body which the D3300 does not.

The newest version the "SP Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 Di VC USD" lens has a built in focus motor which is what the "USD" (Ultrasonic Silent Drive) stands for, and will work on your D3300. I own this very lens and tested it along side the Nikon 70-300 VR extensively before purchase. As others have mentioned both lenses are very good, but I found the Tamron to be slightly better than the Nikon, as the Nikon 70-300 VR is an older design than the Tamron. The Tamron tends to be a bit sharper than the Nikon when used wide open at the long end between 200-300mm. Other than that, both lenses are pretty much identical in performance in every other aspect.

 

[jcdeboever]

All the "Di and Di II" in Tamron's naming system means is that one lens is designed for full frame sensor camera's (35mm) and can be used on both full frame (FX) or crop frame (DX) bodies.

Di = full frame sensor or APS-C camera's
Di II = Only usable on DX sensor camera's

Tamron did have an older 70-300mm lens but it does not have the VC (Vibration Compensation) capability that the newer one has. Also this lens is of the older AF (screw driven auto focus) type which requires your camera to have a focus motor built in to the camera body which the D3300 does not.

The newest version the "SP Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 Di VC USD" lens has a built in focus motor which is what the "USD" (Ultrasonic Silent Drive) stands for, and will work on your D3300. I own this very lens and tested it along side the Nikon 70-300 VR extensively before purchase. As others have mentioned both lenses are very good, but I found the Tamron to be slightly better than the Nikon, as the Nikon 70-300 VR is an older design than the Tamron. The Tamron tends to be a bit sharper than the Nikon when used wide open at the long end between 200-300mm. Other than that, both lenses are pretty much identical in performance in every other aspect.

You would think KEH would know that.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Peeb]

So am I correct in that the lens I referenced would work on a d3300? I might just get that Bigma or save up and get the 200-500. What do you think?
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens

Fast, furious & flexible: Testing the new Nikkor 200-500mm at the Belgian Grand Prix | I AM NIKON Blog

Yes, the new E-series 200-500 WILL mount,meter,and shoot at all apertures on a D3300. I verified this. The D3000, and some other lower-end bodies and older bodies, will not have full functionality with an E-series lens aperture system, but the D3300 is a full, 100% "go" with an E-series like the new 200-500mm.

I have not seen many photos from the new 200-500, but I think I would most likely rather own it than a 150-500 Sigma. The constant aperture over the entire length of the zoom is a nice feature, and it has a new Sport VR mode, plus it's a Nikkor, so I think the color rendition would be perfect for a Nikon camera.

Intriguing- but $1,400 is pretty dear for a lens that is 5.6 wide open. Not saying it's not worth it, but you need to have a pretty sweet stack of disposable cash to make that dog hunt.

EDIT: btw, if it wasn't mentioned, on a DX body (like OP has), this lens is effectively a 300-750. Nice!

 

[Braineack]

Intriguing- but $1,400 is pretty dear for a lens that is 5.6 wide open. Not saying it's not worth it, but you need to have a pretty sweet stack of disposable cash to make that dog hunt.

that lens represents an INCREDIBLE value for a fixed aperture zoom lens.

I urge you to go look how big the price tag (and lens) is attached to Sigma's 200-500 f/2.8.

Then look at Canon's 200-400mm f/4. Again, note the price tag and size. Then Nikon's copy of the 200-400 f/4.

So unless you want to pay $26,000 dollars and rent a forklift to be able to shoot a lens, or buy a slightly shorter one for $6,000 more to gain 1 stop of light...

OR compare it to Sigma and Tamrons 150-600 5.6-6.3 lenses.

again, the Nikon 200-400 f/5.6 is a STEAL for speed and cost, plus the IQ is pretty damn top notch. Lenses like this used to be reserved for people that could drop $5-10K on a lens, to be able to get something similar for what you'd pay for a Nikon 24-70 or 70-200 -- that's amazing.

 

[Peeb]

Intriguing- but $1,400 is pretty dear for a lens that is 5.6 wide open. Not saying it's not worth it, but you need to have a pretty sweet stack of disposable cash to make that dog hunt.

that lens represents an INCREDIBLE value for a fixed aperture zoom lens.

I urge you to go look how big the price tag (and lens) is attached to Sigma's 200-500 f/2.8.

Then look at Canon's 200-400mm f/4. Again, note the price tag and size. Then Nikon's copy of the 200-400 f/4.

So unless you want to pay $26,000 dollars and rent a forklift to be able to shoot a lens, or buy a slightly shorter one for $6,000 more to gain 1 stop of light...

OR compare it to Sigma and Tamrons 150-600 5.6-6.3 lenses.

again, the Nikon 200-400 f/5.6 is a STEAL for speed and cost, plus the IQ is pretty damn top notch. Lenses like this used to be reserved for people that could drop $5-10K on a lens, to be able to get something similar for what you'd pay for a Nikon 24-70 or 70-200 -- that's amazing.

OK- the lens thus appears to be clearly worth the money.

My second point was that it's still out of range for most budgets. OP originally said his budget was 4 to 5 hundred dollars, which I would guess catches the large majority of lens shoppers. For the remaining few with the means, this is apparently an amazing lens. If one came up used is a few years and I had a few bucks stashed away and the wife was looking the other way.... who knows?

 

[Mr.Photo]

I would love to have one of these super zooms in my collection at some point but financially it's just not in the cards right now. However I seem to do pretty good at airshows and my visits to the airport with my sub $200 Tokina ATX Pro 300mm f/4 with Kenko Pro DGX 1.4x teleconverter attached. This makes a pretty competent 420mm f/5.6 setup. It's not without it's drawbacks, but with planning can produce some pretty stunning results.

 

[jcdeboever]

Those are nice Mr. Photo. I could buy the 70-300 today but I can save during the winter for the Nikon "Hubble II" tele (dannylightning has Hubble I), I am already 1/3rd the way there. Technically, I could get the 200-500 now as well but I don't want to charge the Christmas presents this year. Besides, the wife found the 2K in cash and is chomping on the bit to liquidate it. You know the saying, "a happy wife is a happy life" ... got a great bonus coming at the beginning of the year and she's probably got that spent too.

 

[jcdeboever]

Well, I am saving up for 200-500 but picked up a clean Nikon AFS 55-300 VR for under $200 to get me through until then. I also traded my clean Black Olympus Stylus Epic, case, and 6 rolls of film for a well used Nikon micro AF 60mm 2.8. Just need some cheap studio lights and I'm good for a while.

I hardly used the Epic and I bought it new in 98, can't remember what I paid for it but seem to recall it wasn't cheap. I actually lost it for a few years between moves and stumbled across it cleaning up a moving tub. It was wrapped up in a pair of work boots.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[ByronBrant]

All shot with my Nikon 200-500

 

[jcdeboever]

Those are very nice. Gonna get one next year.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...this new 200-500 Nikkor zoom seems to be a hell of a deal. The photos I've seen from it so far, mostly by hobbyists, are actually pretty impressive for a consumer-priced lens. YES, $1,400 is not chicken scratch...but it's also not $5999 of $7999 or $10,999...and multiple Nikkor single focal length lenses are at $1599 or so these days. A 58mm prime or 35mm f/1.4 or 24/1.4 is a very expensive lens. A fixed 300mm f/4 telephoto is $1100 to $1900 or so, depending on model...an actual 400mm or 500mm all-glass (meaning NOT a mirror lens type design) lens is an expensive item if it's a high-quality lens and not say, a $119, 500mm, manual focusing, long-focus design, pre-set diaphragm lens.

Keep in mind too, that once this lens has been on the market two to three years, used copies will be significantly lower in price, and I also think there will be a good number of used Tamron and Sigma tele-zooms continuing to turn up on the used market in that same time frame. This is the type of zoom lens that is very often bought, used a bit, then put away, and then sold off, often in superb condition.