Best D300 Telephoto Lens For Under $1,000.00

Tom Potter

Hey All,

Can you suggest the best Nikon Telephoto Lens for the D300, for under $1,000.00?

I currently own the 12 - 24mm, and the 18 - 200mm. I am considering selling the 18 - 200mm, and replacing it with with a more powerful, better quality lens; a used 800mm or 1000mm, perhaps. (You could not pry the 12 - 24mm from my dead, cold hands :O) ).

I have come to read , and to realize, from personal use, that the 18 - 200mm is NOT the best quality lens around. Quality results is, to me, as it should be for EVERY photographer, the prime directive. Hence, my desire to replace this so-so, albeit immensely versatile, lens.

My desire, linked to that prime directive of getting great quality shots, is to acquire a lens more powerful than the 11X capability of the 18 - 200mm. So, can anyone suggest a REALLY good quality 800m or 1000mm fixed lens, that I would buy used, whose price tag would not be in the stratosphere?

Finally, whereas one can conveniently sit tight in one location while happily zooming in and out with a zoom lens, with a fixed lens, one MUST, I presume, quite often, and quite inconveniently, shift position, to shoot that mobil elk, or bird, or wolf. So, my question on this matter is, is there a particular technique, set of rules, or whatever, one abides by, when shooting with a fixed-focal lens?

Thanks you very much

Tom

ziggy53

Tom,

First thing is that with the longest focal length lens come several liabilities:

Camera shake becomes critical. A very sturdy tripod and head need to be used.
Environmental conditions like haze, humidity and pollution can degrade the image significantly.
Very long lenses are either very expensive or very slow apertures (and still pretty expensive.)

Nikon has a couple of excellent long lenses for nature/wildlife, the Nikkor 500mm, f/4G AF-S ED VR and 600mm, f/4G AF-S ED VR.

The 500mm is around $8400USD and the 600mm is around $10,300USD.

If you can handle used there are some wonderful older Nikkor lenses like:

Nikkor 500mm, AF-S f/4D IF II (I think around $5500-$6000 used)

To get back to reality, and closer to your price range, the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm, f/4-6.3 EX DG APO HSM is available new for just above your price and is "not bad" in image quality and it's very versatile. It works best in good light and it's pretty heavy as well. A tripod is highly recommended. I have one of these lenses (an older non-"DG" version) and it really is a pretty good value in long lenses.

Tom Potter

Appreciate the info, Ziggy. I fully understand the critical importance of a sturdy tripod. Can you offer an opinion on using a teleconverter lens? Should they be avoided because they degrade image quality too much?
Also, might I ask: I understand the power of the 18-200 lens is determined by dividing the 200 by 18, resulting in approximately 11X. However, if you have a 200mm - 400mm lens, what would it's magnification power be?

Thanks again!....Tom

ziggy53 wrote:

Tom,

First thing is that with the longest focal length lens come several liabilities:

Camera shake becomes critical. A very sturdy tripod and head need to be used.
Environmental conditions like haze, humidity and pollution can degrade the image significantly.
Very long lenses are either very expensive or very slow apertures (and still pretty expensive.)

Nikon has a couple of excellent long lenses for nature/wildlife, the Nikkor 500mm, f/4G AF-S ED VR and 600mm, f/4G AF-S ED VR.

The 500mm is around $8400USD and the 600mm is around $10,300USD.

If you can handle used there are some wonderful older Nikkor lenses like:

Nikkor 500mm, AF-S f/4D IF II (I think around $5500-$6000 used)

To get back to reality, and closer to your price range, the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm, f/4-6.3 EX DG APO HSM is available new for just above your price and is "not bad" in image quality and it's very versatile. It works best in good light and it's pretty heavy as well. A tripod is highly recommended. I have one of these lenses (an older non-"DG" version) and it really is a pretty good value in long lenses.

ziggy53

Tom Potter wrote:

Appreciate the info, Ziggy. I fully understand the critical importance of a sturdy tripod. Can you offer an opinion on using a teleconverter lens? Should they be avoided because they degrade image quality too much?
Also, might I ask: I understand the power of the 18-200 lens is determined by dividing the 200 by 18, resulting in approximately 11X. However, if you have a 200mm - 400mm lens, what would it's magnification power be?

Thanks again!....Tom

The 18-200mm lens has a "zoom range" of approximately 11x. It is not a magnification factor.

A Nikon D300 is a crop 1.5x camera and a "normal" lens for that camera is around 35mm. Use that for calculating the "telephoto magnification" factor.

For instance a 200mm lens mounted on the D300 would have around 200/35, or about 5.7 times normal "magnification". A 400mm lens would therefore be around 11 times normal.

The Sigma 50-500mm I mentioned before is really a pretty good lens. It takes a lot of money to get a really "great" lens of 500mm or longer and you will also need to spend several hundred more dollars to purchase a suitable tripod (legs) and a couple of heads, depending on the wildlife.

See this thread for more tips on wildlife lenses:

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=39768

Tom Potter

Thanks again, Ziggy - you have been extremely helpful & I very much appreciate it! :O)

ziggy53 wrote:

The 18-200mm lens has a "zoom range" of approximately 11x. It is not a magnification factor.

A Nikon D300 is a crop 1.5x camera and a "normal" lens for that camera is around 35mm. Use that for calculating the "telephoto magnification" factor.

For instance a 200mm lens mounted on the D300 would have around 200/35, or about 5.7 times normal "magnification". A 400mm lens would therefore be around 11 times normal.

The Sigma 50-500mm I mentioned before is really a pretty good lens. It takes a lot of money to get a really "great" lens of 500mm or longer and you will also need to spend several hundred more dollars to purchase a suitable tripod (legs) and a couple of heads, depending on the wildlife.

See this thread for more tips on wildlife lenses:

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=39768

rookieshooter

I second the Bigma recommendation. You will not find another lens at that focal length and price and it's pretty good for the money.

Mitchell

Sadly, you can't really get quality and focal length for little money.

At $1000 your options for quality are really limited. I question the quality of the Bigma at longer focal lengths.

Your best bet might be a Nikkor 300mm, f4 lens which can be had for about $1000. Sharp lens wide open, but I'm not sure if it will give you the reach you need.

ban25

If you want a longer lens, you might want to reach a bit further into your wallet and go for the Nikon 80-400...

rookieshooter

For what it's worth here's some shots with the Bigma at 500mm. I think it does a pretty good job for the money.

Manfr3d

Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 EX HSM hands down. It's very sharp and fast focusing. It is even more affordable on the used market.

Tom Potter

Rookie gotta say, those shots do look quite good.

rookieshooter wrote:

For what it's worth here's some shots with the Bigma at 500mm. I think it does a pretty good job for the money.