Long lens... recommend me one

[pupp]

I want a 'long' lens... maybe a prime, maybe a zoom. For those occasions when my 18-200 (on digital Nikon) is too short... should I stick with Nikkor and pay the premium, or is there a nice sharp bargain out there. Should it be black or white?

[megy]

pupp said:

I want a 'long' lens... maybe a prime, maybe a zoom. For those occasions when my 18-200 (on digital Nikon) is too short... should I stick with Nikkor and pay the premium, or is there a nice sharp bargain out there. Should it be black or white?

I think the sigma 50-500 gets reasonable write ups, and with the sensor it works out to be considerabley more, quality is a 'little' off(against top quality lenses), and slow, but if you can live with them, then agoodlens.

[GetCarter]

the 80-400 Nikkor is fab (but expensive), pin sharp and good in low light (due to the VR)

This from about 35 yards in dull conditions

[-DeaDLocK-]

pupp said:

I want a 'long' lens... maybe a prime, maybe a zoom. For those occasions when my 18-200 (on digital Nikon) is too short... should I stick with Nikkor and pay the premium, or is there a nice sharp bargain out there. Should it be black or white?

Have you considered using a teleconverter? Cheapest way to get additional reach, and the Nikon 1.4 and 1.7 ones don't degrade image quality by any noticeable margin (or so they say), whereas the 2x degrades slightly but the results are still satisfactory (this one I have).

1.7x will give you an effective focal length of over 500mm on your camera.

[Gemm]

-DeaDLocK- said:

Have you considered using a teleconverter? Cheapest way to get additional reach, and the Nikon 1.4 and 1.7 ones don't degrade image quality by any noticeable margin (or so they say), whereas the 2x degrades slightly but the results are still satisfactory (this one I have).

1.7x will give you an effective focal length of over 500mm on your camera.

I don't think teleconverter is a good idea on f5.6 lens. (I believe 18-200 is a f5.6 lens?)

Edited by Gemm on Thursday 28th September 11:38

[TonyHetherington]

Gemm, why would it not be?

[megy]

TonyHetherington said:

Gemm, why would it not be?

A convertor reduces the ammount of light passing through and into the camera, so with the slower lenses you will probably lose autofocus, I sometimes use one, and on an F4 lens i still have use of AF, on my F5.6 lens i dont.

[TonyHetherington]

Ah so loss of Autofocus is the only downside (which isn't a huge negative but important to consider).

So, if I may ask another question, assuming with something like a 17-85 F4-5.6, does that mean that at 85mm (and thus able to get only F5.6) AF will not work, but at the other extreme(17mm) where you can get F4, it will work?

Please forgive my newby questions!!!

Thanks very much

[Gemm]

You also lose a stop with 1.4x converter (2 stops with 2x converter). 200mm f5.6 will become 280mm f8, which really isn't ideal.

[mr noble]

Converters only work (on nikon) with Af-s and AF-I lenses which are the more expensive ones.

You only loose AF if your putting a converter onto an AF-D or other cheaper lens.

They tend to produce worse results that a crop and resize on all but the most expensive lenses.

I have just bought a 70-200 f2.8 VR and am considering getting the 1.7x TC but this would make it an F4 lean and may retard the image quality. I am now thinking of gettinga 300mm f4 prime instead. Not sure what the real world difference would be.

There is no point in putting a TC onto a leas thats shorter than say a 200mm as you would be far better off getting a longer lens.

HTH
Greg

[franv8]

I think you'd need to give it a try. A friend of mine has the D50, with I think there something to 300mm lens, that works fine as far as I know with the 1.4X converter he has (non Nikon).

My Canon 350D's AF works fine even in fairly low light at F6.7 and 400mm.

[poah]

sigma 100-300 f4 is a fine lens