Nikon Lens Help

MrBook2

I am now the proud owner of the Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm Nikkor kit lens. I love this camera and I think that the kit lens is a really good solid performer. Now I need something with a little bit more reach.

I tried digging through the "Nikon Lens" formum over at dpreview, but since I haven't really been following that forum, I don't really know who to listen to over there.

I am looking for a good telephoto zoom lens. Not a great lens, just a good solid performer. (I got a chance to use the 70-200 VR ED lens for about 5 minutes at an airshow over the weekend. It was great, but I don't have $1500 to drop.) I am tempted by the 70-300 G lens, but I have heard mixed reactions about its quality. I don't have a lot of cash to drop right now, but if I can get a much better lens by saving my pennies for a couple of months, I think I would be better off in the long run.

Thanks for any advice you folks can give. I don't know enough about the non-Nikon brands to know if they are worth it. My understanding is that just about all the lens makers have some real gems, you just need to know which one to get. (They make some real dogs too, so it goes both ways.)

--Aaron

PS: Sorry if this has been covered before. I did a quick search, but didn't really find what I was looking for. Basically, this is a "What should my second lens be?" thread.

jwear

MrBook2 wrote:

I am now the proud owner of the Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm Nikkor kit lens. I love this camera and I think that the kit lens is a really good solid performer. Now I need something with a little bit more reach.

I tried digging through the "Nikon Lens" formum over at dpreview, but since I haven't really been following that forum, I don't really know who to listen to over there.

I am looking for a good telephoto zoom lens. Not a great lens, just a good solid performer. (I got a chance to use the 70-200 VR ED lens for about 5 minutes at an airshow over the weekend. It was great, but I don't have $1500 to drop.) I am tempted by the 70-300 G lens, but I have heard mixed reactions about its quality. I don't have a lot of cash to drop right now, but if I can get a much better lens by saving my pennies for a couple of months, I think I would be better off in the long run.

Thanks for any advice you folks can give. I don't know enough about the non-Nikon brands to know if they are worth it. My understanding is that just about all the lens makers have some real gems, you just need to know which one to get. (They make some real dogs too, so it goes both ways.)

--Aaron

PS: Sorry if this has been covered before. I did a quick search, but didn't really find what I was looking for. Basically, this is a "What should my second lens be?" thread.

the 70/200 vr is the next thing to sliced bread pm Ben and ask him about the 70/300 he is using it now

bfjr

I can recommend to 70-300G as a starter lens. Most of my recent bird shots have been with this lens, most recent is here:

300mm shots

MrBook2

Thanks
Thanks for the input guys. Ben, I had a look at your recent bird shots and they look great. So it looks like the G might be a safe bet for a first second lens. I suspect I will upgrade in a year or so, but it should get me through my transition to dSLR.

Now if only B&H or Adorama had the G in stock. Looks like it is back ordered at B&H and Adorama only seems to have it in a gadget bag bundle.

--Aaron

jthomas

I have the regular (non-"G") 70-300 and I'm pleased with it. I bought it used for $200, but you can get a new one at B&H for $260 plus shipping. Look here.

luckyrwe

The 70-300G is a dog compared to any other lenses of that range by Nikon. Save the extra $100 and get the non-G version, you will be glad you did!

bfjr

Lucky's right just checked mine is the non-G version

cheaper yet go with that !!

bfjr

MrBook2 wrote:

Thanks for the input guys. Ben, I had a look at your recent bird shots and they look great. So it looks like the G might be a safe bet for a first second lens. I suspect I will upgrade in a year or so, but it should get me through my transition to dSLR.

Now if only B&H or Adorama had the G in stock. Looks like it is back ordered at B&H and Adorama only seems to have it in a gadget bag bundle.

--Aaron

One more thing checked Ebay there on sale all over the place, try there
hope that helps.
Let's see some piccies

photocat

lenses
I have the 70-300 sigma and after a long wait finally started to use it.
At first I had a hard time getting unblurred pics, but all of a sudden I found a working way of holding it steady and now it has become one of my fav lenses. Especially when I focus manually I now have sharp shots with nice blurry backgrounds.
I can officially tell you that I LIKE this lens...

MrBook2

Ok, I think you guys may have convinced me to go with the non-G version.

Just of out curiosity, does anyone around here actually have the 70-300G that can post a few pics?

--Aaron

JohnR

I don't know about the above lenses, but I can attest that the 80-200mm f/2.8 ED lens is outstanding!

You never said how much you are wanting to spend...so that's why I'm throwing this lens in the ring.
B&H has it for $819.95 after rebate

Here are some samples:

donek

I have a D2H and the 70 to 200mm lens. It's great, but since I bought the Sigma 50 to 500mm, I almost never use it. It may just be an initial love lust thing. I think the overall value for your dolar is better with the sigma.


Taken with the Sigma
http://donek.smugmug.com/gallery/620738/1/26939084

Taken with the Nikon 70 to 200
http://donek.smugmug.com/gallery/621094/1/26321961

JohnR

The 50-500mm lens is VERY tempting.

How is it in low lighting or shade? Can you take a photo right now (it's 740pm eastern time) and show me?

david_h

Hey Aaron, as you will have noticed there are a ton of options for your next lens.

One that I came sooooo close to getting was the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM. I had narrowed my search to three lenses for my Nikons, the 70-200 VR, the 80-200 AF and the Sigma.

I ended up rating them as follows:

1. 70-200 VR, mega lens although I couldn't afford it. (I bought it anyway)

2. Sigma 70-200. Very nice lens, great optical quality and fast HSM focusing. Can be bought for about $850 for the newest DG version)

3. Nikon 80-200. This is $900 - 1,000 bucks (as mentioned, there's a rebate as well) and from the time I spent with it is optically superb, as good as the 70-200 VR. Bit slower to focus than the Sigma.

I ruled out the 80-200 because of the older design, but it was real close between the Sigma and the VR.

I also have the Sigma 70-300 APO Super2 (or whatever it's called). Nice lens for the money and would keep you going until you save for one of the others.

GREAPER

I also would not rule out the tamron 70-300 macro.

I love mine.

donek

JohnR wrote:

The 50-500mm lens is VERY tempting.

How is it in low lighting or shade? Can you take a photo right now (it's 740pm eastern time) and show me?

Sorry it took so long. I haven't been around when it was darker for a couple days. I took this inside at about 6:15pm, no lights on but the shades were half drawn with the 50 to 500mm sigma. ISO 1000. Aperture priority, F4.8, 72mm, exposure time 1/60, exposure bias -2.00. The exposure bias was a mistake (forgot to check it before taking the photo). In the end it helped a bit as it will decrease the exposure time. With an auto contrast and auto levels in photoshop elelments 3 this is what it looks like.

MrBook2

A lot to think about here
Thanks for your comments everyone. Right now I am leaning heavily toward the Sigma 70 - 300 f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super II. From what I hear it is a good lens for the money. It isn't a great lens and can't compete with lenses twice the price, but that is to be expected.

I had a chance to borrow an older Nikon 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 zoom lens. It has convinced me that I really need to get more reach. It is a bit heavy and quite loud when on autofocus but the reach is nice.

--Aaron