Recommend me a 70-300 for a D40
Discussion
Well, not for me, but a friend wants to buy his wife a new lens of around that sort of focal length.
Not sure of his budget, but I don't think he wants to spend much and thought the AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED was a bit pricy for him at just over £400.
Sigma start at £124 up to £294 for one with OS. Tamron at £133 (these are Wh0rehouse Express prices). If he has the budget, I'll try and push him towards VR/OS as I imagine she may end up with more keepers with these small maximum apertures.
Do all these third party lenses have AF motors in? Or what equivalent AF-S or AF-I terminology does he need to look out for?
I really have no experience of this end the market and what's available, but thought maybe some of you guys might have some recommendations, experience, good or bad.
Cheers
Not sure of his budget, but I don't think he wants to spend much and thought the AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED was a bit pricy for him at just over £400.
Sigma start at £124 up to £294 for one with OS. Tamron at £133 (these are Wh0rehouse Express prices). If he has the budget, I'll try and push him towards VR/OS as I imagine she may end up with more keepers with these small maximum apertures.
Do all these third party lenses have AF motors in? Or what equivalent AF-S or AF-I terminology does he need to look out for?
I really have no experience of this end the market and what's available, but thought maybe some of you guys might have some recommendations, experience, good or bad.
Cheers
This man seems familiar...
Can't comment on the indys as I haven't used them, and the old Nikkor 70-300 ED won't AF on a D40. Was goimg to suggest the 70-300 G but apparently that's not suitable either.
Is second-hand an option?
AF-S in Sigma-speak is called HSM for hypersonic motor; don't know what Tamron etc call it.
I guess if you throw £100 at it you get £100-worth of lens!
Can't comment on the indys as I haven't used them, and the old Nikkor 70-300 ED won't AF on a D40. Was goimg to suggest the 70-300 G but apparently that's not suitable either.
Is second-hand an option?
AF-S in Sigma-speak is called HSM for hypersonic motor; don't know what Tamron etc call it.
I guess if you throw £100 at it you get £100-worth of lens!
Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 12th July 19:15
Afraid I haven't used any of them, I do know the bottom of the range sigma isn't worth bothering with, the one for 175 is much better.
According to the reviews, the tamron is fairly close to the middle sigma, and the new OS sigma is now pretty close (if not better in some areas) to the nikon/canon equivalent in terms of optical quality, certainly much better than the older models.
Oddly Sigma didn't put an HSM motor in the new OS lens so it has the normal af motor, which is a bit of a shame.
According to the reviews, the tamron is fairly close to the middle sigma, and the new OS sigma is now pretty close (if not better in some areas) to the nikon/canon equivalent in terms of optical quality, certainly much better than the older models.
Oddly Sigma didn't put an HSM motor in the new OS lens so it has the normal af motor, which is a bit of a shame.
OK, thanks for the replies guys. I was hoping maybe more people had some experience with this type of focal range as I imagined they would be quite popular at the beginners end of the market.
Don't worry, I have already pointed out the YGWYPF caveat and at this end of the market, I guess you pays your money and takes your choice.
The second hand idea is a good call, if we can find one. Grays have a couple of lenses at the right price but alas, only AF. Fleabay have a mint one which looks set to sell for not much less than a new one and ones from HK only save £25-50 so not worth the hassle with potential import duties, warranty issues etc.. I will nevertheless try to push them down the Nikon road as the difference may become more obvious when at some point they upgrade the camera.
Cheers
Don't worry, I have already pointed out the YGWYPF caveat and at this end of the market, I guess you pays your money and takes your choice.
The second hand idea is a good call, if we can find one. Grays have a couple of lenses at the right price but alas, only AF. Fleabay have a mint one which looks set to sell for not much less than a new one and ones from HK only save £25-50 so not worth the hassle with potential import duties, warranty issues etc.. I will nevertheless try to push them down the Nikon road as the difference may become more obvious when at some point they upgrade the camera.
Cheers
I had the ~£130 Tamron 70-300 for a while on a Canon 400d. It was pretty grim. Very soft unless stopped right down. Took a few good shots with it but hundreds that went the way of the delete button. Now have the Canon 70-300 IS at the ~£350 price point is infinitely better as I imagine the equivalent Nikon would be.
drinks said:
I'm a beginner with a D40x, I have the AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED I think it's a great lens for the starter end of the market.
That's the £400+ one, pretty good for the 'starter end'! I have one for everyday use (not fast enough for weddings) and it's fine.Our friend Ken shows it at www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 13th July 18:28
Simpo Two said:
That's the £400+ one, pretty good for the 'starter end'! I have one for everyday use (not fast enough for weddings) and it's fine.
My point is whilst it is not cheap it is still a compromise.You say it's fine,not great. Obviously it's not the quickest, but from that, would you want to pay less and therefore quite possibly compromise further on a cheaper lens?
Edited by drinks on Tuesday 13th July 19:23
drinks said:
My point is whilst it is not cheap it is still a compromise.
Life is compromise. I don't regard the £400 VR lens a 'starter' lens, it's better than that. drinks said:
You say it's fine,not great. Obviously it's not the quickest, but from that, would you want to pay less and therefore quite possibly compromise further on a cheaper lens?
You're picking on the wrong guy. I said it was fine because it meets all the requirements I have for it. I refrained from saying it was rip-stonkingly toptastic because I haven't tested every lens so can't make accurate comparisons. As for wanting to pay less and compromise, my general purpose wedding lens costs £1,000 - but for most people this is not the case. Horses for courses.If you read the original post, the VR has been ruled out on grounds of cost. Of course it will be beter than a £100 lens, but if it's been ruled out on grounds of cost there's no point in suggesting it.
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 13th July 19:49
Sorry Simpo, bizarrely I think we are agreeing with one another, I should have used a better turn of phrase than 'starter lens'.
Having read the original post and the fact that he was looking up to £294 for the Sigma with OS I didn't think it was that big a leap to the VR http://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Nikon_70-300_mm_f4... As such I thought it was worth giving it another vote even though it is outside budget.
I agree with what you have said and I meant 'starter' in the sense that anything more is getting much more serious. For me it was worth stretching to this lens initially as it is a decent compromise in terms of quality versus price. Whilst still lightweight and producing decent(ish) results in my novice hands and is something for a beginner to grow into.
MarkOlley's pics obviously show results that I would be very happy with so...
Having read the original post and the fact that he was looking up to £294 for the Sigma with OS I didn't think it was that big a leap to the VR http://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Nikon_70-300_mm_f4... As such I thought it was worth giving it another vote even though it is outside budget.
I agree with what you have said and I meant 'starter' in the sense that anything more is getting much more serious. For me it was worth stretching to this lens initially as it is a decent compromise in terms of quality versus price. Whilst still lightweight and producing decent(ish) results in my novice hands and is something for a beginner to grow into.
MarkOlley's pics obviously show results that I would be very happy with so...
Edited by drinks on Tuesday 13th July 20:21
OK, just got back from having a cuppa and a chat with my friends to find out their needs and budget.
They only have the stock 18-55 at the moment and just want some more reach. 300 (450 in real money) although nice to have these super zooms, will most probably be overkill. So I have suggested the Nikon 55-200 (300 in real money), with VR which I'm sure will be more than adequate for their needs. As it's DX it's also smaller and nearly half the weight and at £200 comes well within budget, so job done!
Many thanks for the contributions, samples and comments, most useful.
Cheers
They only have the stock 18-55 at the moment and just want some more reach. 300 (450 in real money) although nice to have these super zooms, will most probably be overkill. So I have suggested the Nikon 55-200 (300 in real money), with VR which I'm sure will be more than adequate for their needs. As it's DX it's also smaller and nearly half the weight and at £200 comes well within budget, so job done!
Many thanks for the contributions, samples and comments, most useful.
Cheers
Edited by Bacardi on Tuesday 13th July 23:14
They are actually a bit less than 300 for the 55-200.
Im after a 300 instead.
Link for your friend
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-NIKON-NIKKOR-55-200mm-VR...
Im after a 300 instead.
Link for your friend
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-NIKON-NIKKOR-55-200mm-VR...
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff