Telephoto zoom for D3200...

azezelic · Dec 24, 2013

I am thinking of getting a zoom lens for my D3200. The 70-200 f2.8 or f4 sound great but are unfortunatly out of my budget !!! I am therefore thinking of the 70-300 f4.5-5.6...any suggestions/ideas?
BTW, I just got into photography a little while ago and this would be my first zoom lens. Also, I'm thinking this acquisition should be usable on a full frame, should I decide to upgrade the FX body in the future??!
Thnx.

Braineack · Dec 24, 2013

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-equipment-products/347680-telephoto-zoom.html

robbins.photo · Dec 24, 2013

azezelic said:
I am thinking of getting a zoom lens for my D3200. The 70-200 f2.8 or f4 sound great but are unfortunatly out of my budget !!! I am therefore thinking of the 70-300 f4.5-5.6...any suggestions/ideas?
BTW, I just got into photography a little while ago and this would be my first zoom lens. Also, I'm thinking this acquisition should be usable on a full frame, should I decide to upgrade the FX body in the future??!
Thnx.

I own the Nikkor 70-300 mm F4.5-5.6, VR and it is definately one of the "go to" lenses in my bag. In good lighting your hard pressed to beat the IQ on this particular lens. The focus is fast and accurate, and frankly it's just about impossible to beat in it's price range. Almost everything in my flickr account was shot with a D5100 and the Nikkor 70-300 mm, the link is in my signature in red if you'd like to peruse some shots taken with that actual lens. I've always been very impressed with the image quality it provides. I paid about $300 for the Nikkor used, definately got my moneys worth out of it already.

I I also just recently purchased a Sigma F/2.8 70-200 mm with OS. It just arrived this morning so I haven't really had a chance to do anything more than a couple of very quick test shots but so far it looks very impressive as well. Fast autofocus and it works excellent even in low light conditions. I'll get a chance to test it a little more over the next few days and be able to give you a little more of an idea as to how good the lens is overall. I paid a little over $700 for it used (I got extremely lucky on an ebay auction), the generally run around $900-$1000 used or about $1200 new.

Both of these lenses will work on an FX body.

azezelic · Dec 24, 2013

Thnx for you reply robbins.photo

I have been told by a few already that I sholud go for the 70-200 (f/2.8 or f/4), but given my amateur off/on use, I can't see it being justifiable spending 3 or 4 times the cash ?!?!

robbins.photo · Dec 24, 2013

azezelic said:
Thnx for you reply robbins.photo

I have been told by a few already that I sholud go for the 70-200 (f/2.8 or f/4), but given my amateur off/on use, I can't see it being justifiable spending 3 or 4 times the cash ?!?!

No problem at all - happy to help. The advantages of the F/2.8 or the F/4 will be that even as the light level gets low you'll still be able to get enough light in the lens to maintain a higher shutter speed. So really if your looking at shooting say basketball or volleyball games, for example, inside of a gymnasium then the F/4 or F/2.8 would give you a significant advantage, allowing you to keep your shutter speed much higher and your ISO lower.

If most of what you'll be shooting is going to be in better lighting conditions, ie outdoors during the day, then the higher aperture lens (4.5-5.6) will work just fine. It will be smaller, lighter and cheaper than it's F/2.8 or F/4 cousin as well, making it more portable. So really it sort of depends on what sort of shooting situations you'll find yourself in most often as to whether or not the heavier, more expensive F/2.8 would really be worth the additional investment.

Or you can always do what I did, get a good used 70-300 mm to start, and add the F/2.8 70-200 mm later.

hamlet · Dec 24, 2013

What is your budget and what are you trying to photograph specifically?

azezelic · Dec 24, 2013

...around 700 Eur.

hamlet · Dec 24, 2013

azezelic said:
...around 700 Eur.

If you can't wait and you need a zoom lens now then get the nikon 70-300, robbins has shot many wild animals with it, you can look at his pictures. But if you wait a little longer and save up a little more, then you can buy the 70-200 tamron vc. Its optically a much better lens.

robbins.photo · Dec 24, 2013

azezelic said:
...around 700 Eur.

A couple of quick points of clarification, the Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 with VC has some pretty good reviews, but for image quality it is no match for the Nikkor 70-300 mm AF-S G VR. The advantage of the Tamron or a Sigma F/2.8 would be better low light capabilities. The 70-300 mm will give you longer reach and better image quality, but won't perform as well indoors or in low-light conditions as the lenses with the wider apertures. So if your planning on using this indoors, say like in a gymnasium often enough, the 2.8 might be a better option. If your going to be using this outdoors in better lighting conditions then the 70-300 mm would probably be your best option.