Need something bigger for Nikon

docwalker

I did some searching on here and I see lot of advice on Canon lenses. I need some advice from the Nikon crowd. I live in a bad place for photography equipment shopping so I do not get to handle a lot of the equipment I buy. Usually I end up ordering from B&H after researching the internet.

I trust you guys and figure that you could probably point me in the right direction.

I bought the D200 about 2 months ago and snapped up a lens from a local shop to get me by. I got the Nikon ED AF Nikkor 28-200mm 1:3.5-5.6G. It is a good lens for me offering flexibility that matches my shooting style.

Now I need to expand my lens selection a little. I used to keep a 35mm Prime, 105mm macro, bellows, and 80-200mm zoom for the Minolta 35mm. I would really like to get another macro lens, a fisheye, and what I really need is something in the 300 to 600mm range. Right now the priority is on the long side.

For the long lens I naturally want to go with the best value for the money. I cannot afford a $5,000 lens at this point. Telephoto is ok, prime would be sweet. IS would be usefull as I do a lot of handheld shooting.

What would you recommend?

Thanks,

Doc

Mitchell

Doc,
I recently purchased a Nikkor AF-S 300mm, f4. I think this lens is a great value in the longer prime range. Granted it's not the F2.8, but if you don't need the extra stops it is a great option. It can also be used quite successfully with teleconvertors (particularly the tc 1.4e).

What are you trying to shoot in the long range? The autofocus of the above lens is fast!

docwalker

I shoot just about anything I can. I have not specialized like Bird Man or Yuri.

I am hoping to use it for things a simple as catching some shots of the hummers, giant woodpeckers, and other wildlife. The autofocus would be handy but I am not against doing it manually. I was taking shots of the bees working an apple tree yesterday and worked mostly with the focus set to manual. Autofocus just does not do well at 200mm against the furry back of a honey bee. :-)

The lens you suggested would be an option. The 2.8 would be better.

DoctorIt

OK, so let's focus on the long...

There's a Sigma 50-500 in the flea market right now... several board members have this lens (Nikon and Canon), and at that price point (under $1k), no one ever has anything bad to say about it. Not fixed aperture, but fine for outdoor shooting.

On the faster side, and one price bracket up, I absolutely love the Sigma 120-300/2.8 - with a Sigma 2x TC on there, that lens is an absolute birding tool, and a silent bargain at under $2k, WITH the teleconverter. Not very small though.


You'll notice no long Nikkor's come up on the list. That's because there aren't any at a reasonable price, which you've indicated is one of your needs. The 70-200/2.8 VR is sweet (I have one), and I think in your price range, but not really "long". I have yet to try this lens with a TC, I may yet love it even more and change my mind about it being long.

docwalker

Can you use the Nikon TC with the 70-200? I was looking at the TC and they have an approved list of lenses to use with the TC. Granted approved and what will work is 2 different things.

Both that you list have peeked my interest. I will take a look.

DoctorIt

docwalker wrote:

Can you use the Nikon TC with the 70-200? I was looking at the TC and they have an approved list of lenses to use with the TC. Granted approved and what will work is 2 different things.

4labs has cautioned me against using the 2x with this particular lens, but gave me a thumbs up for the 1.4x. I have tried neither myself.

Both that you list have peeked my interest. I will take a look.

I figured the Bigma might be up your alley

docwalker

Where are you seeing the Sigma sub 2K?

docwalker

DoctorIt,

I found the lens for the price point you mentioned. Now, are you using the DG version or not? it is a $400 difference.

Doc

chuckice

FWIW...I use the 1.7TC on the 70-200 and it works ok. A little slow but usable and an easy way to turn the 200 into a 340 will minimal image degradation.

Also, not sure I saw it mentioned but don't overlook the 80-400 VR. I've seen some very nice results with it. I've never used it but the price seems right...I hear it's a little slow but just another one to investigate.

DoctorIt

docwalker wrote:

DoctorIt,

I found the lens for the price point you mentioned. Now, are you using the DG version or not? it is a $400 difference.

Doc

Ah yes, the DG issue. It's simply a difference in the coatings - now, we know that coatings are important and responsible for lots of lens improvements throughout the years, but are we willing to pay for something we can sort of fix in photoshop anyway? Color rendition mainly, the new coatings play to the way a CCD interprets the color spectrum slightly differently than film.

Blah blah blah

You want a real answer: I've used a Sigma 70-200/2.8 DG and nonDG, I didn't see too much difference. Actually, if you look up a Sigma thread by ziggy, you'll see that his experience with the new DG was actually not so good.

the 120-300/2.8 that I've used is a nonDG, and it belongs to another dgrinner: nrchris, I'm sure he'd give you the same feedback.

You are right though, you'll have to really look to find a nonDG Sigma, new, at this point. Have you tried www.sigma4less.com? I recommend them.

DoctorIt

I found the thread I was talking about... here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24116

wade through the garbage to Ziggy's test and some conclusions on that lens, as well as positive feedback for Sigma4less.

zigzag

I'll second the 80-400 VR. It's a very good value for the money. On a D200 by anecdote it focuses quite a bit faster than on my D70, but still it's not a lens you'll want to use shooting sports.

The Bigma 50-500 is also good by reputation, but I wouldn't handhold it on the long side.

I've heard great things about the Nikon 180mm 2.8 as well, and the 70-200 VR is in its own class (and does work with shorter TCs as mentioned). But your reach already covers this range with the lens you have. I'd say you've gotten quite good advice on the two mentioned above.

docwalker

Yep, I think the lens I have now covers the 200mm range well. I will look at the 50-500mm a little more. I gave it a passing glance earlier as I was looking at the 120-300.

docwalker

I am resurecting this thread as I am about to make my final decision and wanted to see if anyone has updated their opinions.

I have finally narrowed my selection down to the Sigma 50-500, the Sigma 80-400 OS, or the Nikkor 80-400 VR.

I am leaning towards the Nikkor due to the VR. But, I need to know does the VR require the lens to be shot in Auto or does it work in Manual? I hear that neither of these lenses have very fast AF. I will shoot manual if needed, but I do not want to spend money on VR if I will have to turn it off all the time. In that case the 50-500 might be better.

With the current rebate, the price is better than before. I still like the extra 100mm of the Sigma. But, I like the VR adding possibly 3 stops to the range of the Nikkor.

I have 2 trips coming up that I need to get the lens on order for so any advice would be appreciated.

Harryb

docwalker wrote:

I am resurecting this thread as I am about to make my final decision and wanted to see if anyone has updated their opinions.

I have finally narrowed my selection down to the Sigma 50-500, the Sigma 80-400 OS, or the Nikkor 80-400 VR.

I am leaning towards the Nikkor due to the VR. But, I need to know does the VR require the lens to be shot in Auto or does it work in Manual? I hear that neither of these lenses have very fast AF. I will shoot manual if needed, but I do not want to spend money on VR if I will have to turn it off all the time. In that case the 50-500 might be better.

With the current rebate, the price is better than before. I still like the extra 100mm of the Sigma. But, I like the VR adding possibly 3 stops to the range of the Nikkor.

I have 2 trips coming up that I need to get the lens on order for so any advice would be appreciated.

I have been using the Nikon 80-400 for two years now. I have a love/hate relationship with the lens. The AF drives me to distraction at times but whenever I get ready to sell it I don't pull the trigger. Its just such a handy lens to have around. It fairly light & hand holdable so you won't be teathered to a tripod as you would be with the Sigma 50-500 or the 120-300.

I get good results with the 80-400. If Nikon ever releases an AF-S version I would snap it up in a flash. Of the 3 choices you are down to I would go with the Nikon 80-400

docwalker

Harry,

Thanks for the review. Could you tell me if shooting in MF turns off the VR. I assume that it does but I want to confirm with someone that knows.

Thanks

zigzag

docwalker wrote:

Harry,

Thanks for the review. Could you tell me if shooting in MF turns off the VR. I assume that it does but I want to confirm with someone that knows.

Thanks

It does not. The VR switch is separate from the AF/MF.

docwalker

Oh dear lord, What have I done?
Ok, call me nuts. I did a lot of research here, Fred Miranda, Nikonians, Ken Rockwell, and the like. There is a lot of good information and opinions about all of the lenses I looked at.

I have the Nikkor 28-200 f3.5-5.6G and it is a great lens. But is barely usable in low light at 200.

I have a Quantaray 70-300 1:4-5.6 that is good but again very slow. In low light, forget it.

I decided to go with the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 G-AFS ED-IF VR. This is my first big expensive fast lens. It costs about what my D200 did. I really wanted to go longer. But, I think that faster might be better for now. I have read that this lens works well with some of the teleconverters. I am not sure if I will go that route or use this one until I can afford a longer fast lens.

I have already placed the order with B&H so please tell me I did not screw up. I know I could have gotten the 18-200 VR but it is also not a 2.8. The VR would give you 2-3 stops but that is still not a super fast lens. I think I might get something wide in 2.8 next that will complement the 70-200VR.

DoctorIt

I love my 70-200 VR and I certainly wouldn't call you nuts for picking one up = its quite possible one of Nikkors best VR zoom lenses. However, I wouldn't call it long, at all... you were talking about 400s and 500s, so why the sudden change? The 2x TC doesn't work well with this lens, from what I've read - I can't confirm that though.

docwalker

I agree that the 200 is not long. There were several factors leading me this direction. First, the 400 and 500 are not really fast lenses. I started weighing my need for shooting lower light against getting more reach. I did a bunch of reading and saw various opinions on the 80-400 vs the 50-500. This disagreement helped to point out a bunch of details about both lenses.

I shoot all kinds of photos. Indoor, outdoor, people, nature... you name it. I get a lot of satisfaction taking candid photos indoors. I can sit across the room from family and friends shooting and they never know it using a 200. But, I have no control over the lighting in most places. And, the flash gives me away. I have gotten some excellent photos this way. Plus one for the 2.8.

I also love to shoot flowers and birds. The minimum focus distance on the 400 and 500 was a bit long. One of the things I want to shoot is the hummers that come to my neighbors feeders. Her porch is only so big and we cannot move the feeders away as it will disturb the hummers. The 5' min on the 200 is workable.

Given the space limitations and inability to use a tripod became a big factor. So that pushed me to a VR lens. Strike the Bigma at that point.

I did some reading on the 80-400 and saw some pretty compelling discriptions that it was no where near as sharp as the 70-200 and as expected, falling behind in the 2.8 arena.

So that was some of the factors of the decision. I will see in a few days if it was justified.

I am shooting a wedding next Friday night. I have no way to scout ahead and I know little about the venue lighting. I guess that will be a good test. No worries. I am not the primary photographer on this one.

Harryb

The 70-200mm 2.8 VR is, IMHO, the best zoom made by Nikon. You won't regret your decision, it also works fine with TCs.

docwalker

Harry,

Which TC's have you used with it? I have a Quantaray 2X cheapy that I will replace with a real one. I just need to know which one to use. Most likely I will get the appropriate Nikkor. 2.0 would be great as I would get that 400 reach I would like. What does the f stop work out to on a 2.8 with the 2X? 5.6?

Harryb

docwalker wrote:

Harry,

Which TC's have you used with it? I have a Quantaray 2X cheapy that I will replace with a real one. I just need to know which one to use. Most likely I will get the appropriate Nikkor. 2.0 would be great as I would get that 400 reach I would like. What does the f stop work out to on a 2.8 with the 2X? 5.6?

I have used the 1.4 with the 70-200 and never noticed a difference with it. I used the 1.7 on my 300mm F/4 and while the pic quality was fine I noticed a real slow down on the AF.

The 1.4 will the camera down 1 stop, the 1.7 1 1/2 stops and the 2.0 two stops (5.6 on the 70-200).

DoctorIt

Harryb wrote:

I have used the 1.4 with the 70-200 and never noticed a difference with it. I used the 1.7 on my 300mm F/4 and while the pic quality was fine I noticed a real slow down on the AF.

The 1.4 will the camera down 1 stop, the 1.7 1 1/2 stops and the 2.0 two stops (5.6 on the 70-200).

So you haven't used a 2x on that lens? I'm just saying, because the previous owner of mine reported bad performance with the 2.0 (Nikkor at that).

Harryb

DoctorIt wrote:

So you haven't used a 2x on that lens? I'm just saying, because the previous owner of mine reported bad performance with the 2.0 (Nikkor at that).

Nope, I have never used the Nikon 2.0 TC. I know folks who have used it and they were happy with it. Then again even though they said they were happy with it I never saw them using it that much.

chuckice

I use the 1.7x on the 70-200 and it's fair at best. I've never been thrilled but probably because without the tc the 70-200 is so sharp...it's tough to beat.

docwalker

UPS brought the 70-200 VR today. All I can say is wow. This thing is built like a tank. I have not had a real opportunity to play with it. I will do that after work.

I did take a minute to look over the mount and tried out the Quantaray 2x extender that I have. It actually works. VR, AF, Metering... All of it. And to my suprise the few shots I tried actually looked ok. I will play with that some more.

Now I need to go read the manual.

DoctorIt

docwalker wrote:

UPS brought the 70-200 VR today. All I can say is wow. This thing is built like a tank. I have not had a real opportunity to play with it. I will do that after work.

I did take a minute to look over the mount and tried out the Quantaray 2x extender that I have. It actually works. VR, AF, Metering... All of it. And to my suprise the few shots I tried actually looked ok. I will play with that some more.

Now I need to go read the manual.

so have you found that the manual is only so thick because it's in 18 different languauges?

Pretty much the only thing you need to know is that only those of us with helicopters and chase cars will use "active" mode and don't be a dumbass and forget the lens in "inf-2.5m" mode when you're trying to sneak up on something - you'll find yourself too close to focus!!

Other than that, the normal VR/IS rules - shut if off on a tripod, don't yank it off the body while the VR is still functioning, don't shut off the camera while it's functioning (but in both those cases, you'd have to be really fast anyway).

There's your summary

docwalker

Is that not disappointing? I was going to settle in during a break and read the manual. I was done in about 2 minutes. The size is very misleading. I guess that they figure if you have bought this lens you better dang well know how to use it.

I spent more time after lunch rearranging the camera bag dividers than I did reading.

I actually need to get another bag now. Getting this beast in and out of the current bag while attached to the camera is a pain.

I may run up to the only pro shop in the region and take a look at their KATA lineup.