How do I get longer? Lens thread...............

[mr noble]

Morning folks.

Ok, so I know I am still just learning and am not brilliant at this lark yet, but I have always liked to have tip top quality kit and am slowly getting there.

I have,

Nikon D70 (soon to be a D200)
Sigma 10-20mm
Nikon 18-70mm kit (soon to be 17-55 f2.8)
Nikon 60mm F2.8 micro
Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR


My question is, how do I get longer.

a) get a 1.4 and 2x Teleconverter for the 70-200. £550

b) get a lovely Nikon 200-400mm VR £3000

c) Get a Nikon 80-400mm VR £600

d) Gat the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR prime and a 1.4 x TC


I think then Imight be happy with my kit for a long time to come. But being that I am mainly into motorsport, wildlife, airshow photography. I do need more than the 200mm reach I have now. Just not sure the best way to get there.

Greg

[mr noble]

Actually reading this back, I wonder if I would have been better off getting the 80-400 VR instead of the 70-200!!

Hmmmmmmm.

Edited by mr noble on Tuesday 10th October 10:31

[mr noble]

Or, should I just crop and resize the 200mm VR shots?

[-DeaDLocK-]

mr noble said:

Or, should I just crop and resize the 200mm VR shots?

As great as that lens is, this is probably the worse option.

Cheapest way to go would be the TC, and you still have AF on the 70-200 even with the 2x TC.

If you can afford it I would get something longer (like a 300mm lens), but I wouldn't lose the 70-200. Within range, it is simply epic.

[Gemm]

mr noble said:

Actually reading this back, I wonder if I would have been better off getting the 80-400 VR instead of the 70-200!!

Hmmmmmmm.

Nah, you can't beat a good f2.8 lens.

I'd go for 1.4x converter.

Edited by Gemm on Tuesday 10th October 10:58

[rhubarb]

You could always get athe Sigma 120-300mm f2.8. Apparently a cracking lens, and as it's f2.8 a 1.4 teleconverter shouldn't hurt it too much - would give you 420 at f3.5 - quite nice. They're a bit bulky though.

[megy]

I have seen some good quality shots from the Sigma 50-500, although it is a little slow at 500, f6.3 i think, weighs a ton, but jack of all trades.

[CVP]

mr noble said:

My question is, how do I get longer.

a) get a 1.4 and 2x Teleconverter for the 70-200. £550

b) get a lovely Nikon 200-400mm VR £3000

c) Get a Nikon 80-400mm VR £600

d) Gat the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR prime and a 1.4 x TC

a) could be good, I have used the 1.7* converter with mine and quality is OK but only use in good clean light

b)Now being recognised as a belting lens but don't forget on top of the sheer expense of the lens this is one heavy heavy piece of kit. At the end of a day you're really going to know you've been carrrying it around. Also as it is heavy you're not going to be able to hand hold for long periods which makes a decent head and tripod necessary. Add £100-£200 for Wimberly type head and £200 for a tripod which can take the weight and still be light enough to carry.

Having said all of that it is a great lens and the compositional opportunities with the 200-400 zoom are great for doing wildlife where you may not be able to move easily without distrubing the animals.

Final thing, list is over £4k on this. Grays have one in at a tiny discount so it's just under £4k. Massive investment.

c) Nice lens but I have found it not quick enough to keep up with the movement of wildlife, esp smaller birds. On the flip side I found it a great travel lens. Maybe Nikon will AFS this in the near future?

d)300mm F2.8 AFS now many available second hand, even some of the AFS VR ones now coming through and a much much cheaper option than the 200-400. Yes it's still a 2kg lump of glass but can be handheld for short periods and you can get away with a lighter tripod and head than you will need for 200-400 zoom. Quality is brilliant on the lens and it's the one I use most for my wildlife stuff. I also use this with 1.7* converter and quality is still good in good light but in low light it can hunt a bit more and you really need a steady tripod here as your effective focal length is 300*1.7*1.6 = 816mm (lens plus converte plus crop factor for Nikon's smaller sensor) and so good technique is a far more important factor in getting good images.

If you're really mad about wildlife and want to make the commitment then the 200-400 is a great option but is massively pricey and without good technique you may not get the images you think you will.

Just my 2p worth but I'd make the change from D70 to D200 first as that will be a real change you will notice immediately and then maybe invest in the 1.4* converter and add this to the 70-200. See how you get on and then reconsider the 300 v's 200-400 option.

Cheers

Chris

[mr noble]

Thanks so much Chris, just what I needed to hear.

I think I will take your lead and just get a TC 1.4 to start with. This will give me a 200mm x 1.4 x 1.6 (i thought nikon crop was 1.5 actually) which is 450mm (420 at 1.5 crop) which I think will be fine for what I need to start.

Then I should use the kit and get good with it all, and maybe even wait till the D200 is replaced in a couple of years before upgrading the camera.


And at the same time, I'll keep an eye out for a good 2nd hand 300mm VR.


Right, thats the plan then. Thank you.

Greg

[CVP]

mr noble said:

Thanks so much Chris, just what I needed to hear.

Greg

Oh christ don't listen to just me I do talk a lot of cobblers more oftern than not

If you're looking for a 300mm, don't discount the older 2.8 AFS without VR. It's a superb lens you just need a little more care with it.

Cheers

Chris

[matthew_h]

How about (as a curve ball) the Sigma 120-300 f2.8? I know they make these in Canon AF fit and I would presume that they do them for Nikons too. From what I have seen and read it appears to be a cracking lense.

[CarMac]

While on the subject.....

Just got myself a D50 which came with the stock lens (18-55mm).

What would be a good lens to look out for which would give me a bit more zoom?

[mr noble]

CarMac said:

While on the subject.....

Just got myself a D50 which came with the stock lens (18-55mm).

What would be a good lens to look out for which would give me a bit more zoom?

Nikon 70-300 ED without doubt, the best zoom lens to get started with. £200 odd. (don't get the cheaper D one, its not anywhere near as good)

Greg


Funnily enough, I have just found a Nikon 300mm AF-S II F2.8 ED going for a song. (hopefully that will join my armoury soon!)

[CarMac]

What do all the letters mean? It's all a bit confusing is this lens lark.

[GetCarter]

80-400 is V good (VR good in fact)

This from about 50 yards this morning:

[levron73]

I've got the D70 with 24-120Vr and the 80-400VR and the 80-400VR is v.good (even without a tripod and my shaky hands!)