Options

What zoom to get for Nikon?

PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
edited March 22, 2011 in Cameras
As many of you know, I recently switched from Sony to Nikon and am filling out my kit.

I've settled on the 35 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, 85 f/1.8, and the Tokina 12-24.

Where I'm struggling is the zoom. It's by far my least used lens and so I didn't want to spend a ton of money on it. Also, I had a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 on my Sony for a while and just hated how big and heavy it was. For Sony, I was able to settle on the Minolta 7-210 f/4 (Beercan) which was fantastic.

Now with Nikon, I got the 55-200 VR per Ken Rockwell's recommendation. Though you can't beat the price and weight - I'm not real happy with it. 200mm seems a bit short for tele work (shooting the moon last night, shooting birds, etc.). But more than that, the image quality doesn't seem to be there.

I'm going birding in a few weeks and will need to rent or borrow something, so I'm going to use that as an opportunity to figure out what I want. I'm open to just about any idea. I'd rather spend <$600. I will not spend more than $900.

:ear

Comments

  • Options
    newbnewb Registered Users Posts: 186 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    I use my 55-200 quite a bit. Ive got the non VR copy so Im usually on a tripod, but Ive got some VERY sharp images off it.
    D7000/D5000 | Nikkor Glass | SB600's | RF602's | CS5/LR3
  • Options
    HarrybHarryb Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 22,708 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    The folks I know who use the Nikon 70-300 VR are very happy with it and the price is right.
    Harry
    http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
    How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
  • Options
    PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    Harryb wrote: »
    The folks I know who use the Nikon 70-300 VR are very happy with it and the price is right.

    Thanks Harry. I'm going shooting with a guy from Nikon Cafe in a few weeks and he said I can borrow his. That'll give me a good chance to try it.
  • Options
    Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    Seriously look at the Sigma 70-200f2.8.......I do not shoot a lot with the VR turned on and I cannot tell any difference between my Sigma 70-210f2.8 mounted on my KM&D and my Nikon 70-200f2.8 on my D300....so yes I am not happy with my Nikon lens purchase......when it goes a new Sigma will replace it.
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • Options
    PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    Thanks Art, but I think it would be too heavy (48.3 ounces, says Amazon). If I'm going to carry something that heavy, I'd rather have length (300mm+) than speed.
    Art Scott wrote: »
    Seriously look at the Sigma 70-200f2.8.......I do not shoot a lot with the VR turned on and I cannot tell any difference between my Sigma 70-210f2.8 mounted on my KM&D and my Nikon 70-200f2.8 on my D300....so yes I am not happy with my Nikon lens purchase......when it goes a new Sigma will replace it.
  • Options
    ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 23,851 moderator
    edited March 20, 2011
    You're right, 200mm is not going to seem long enough for subjects like the moon or wild birds. For birding you can always bring the birds to you with lures, primarily foods that they like. If you work from a "blind" you can use pretty short focal length lenses effectively and not scare the critters.

    Unfortunately, 500mm is where it starts to get interesting dealing with wildlife but quality 500mm lenses can be awfully pricey. The Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm EX HSM is often available used for around/under $900USD and it's not too bad at the long end. I do like it better on a FF body but it does have extra reach on a crop body. As long as you fill the frame and don't crop you can get fairly good results. It really does take a tripod for best results when it's extended. It's also heavy, but sturdy.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • Options
    insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    why not a Nikon 55-300?

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729938-USA/Nikon_2197_AF_S_NIKKOR_55_300mm_f_4_5_5_6G.html
  • Options
    PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    Hmm. I didn't know it existed, and it's not listed in the FM reviews database either (odd). Reviews on BH are good, but now I have to read them and find someone who has actually compared it to a better lens.

    insanefred wrote: »
    why not a Nikon 55-300?

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729938-USA/Nikon_2197_AF_S_NIKKOR_55_300mm_f_4_5_5_6G.html
  • Options
    angevin1angevin1 Registered Users Posts: 3,403 Major grins
    edited March 20, 2011
    Pupator wrote: »
    Thanks Harry. I'm going shooting with a guy from Nikon Cafe in a few weeks and he said I can borrow his. That'll give me a good chance to try it.


    Your least used lens, but you need reach? I just sold my 300 f/4 and it trumps the 70-300! The older versions ( AF-ED-IF, non-AF-S) can be had for a Song: <$600 ...had the 70-300VR, and was not happy overall. You mention extra weight and glass weighs, esp. good glass...but the 300 f/4 is not real heavy.
    tom wise
  • Options
    Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Registered Users, Retired Mod Posts: 3,352 Major grins
    edited March 21, 2011
    My Sigma 50-150 2.8 DC has served me well since 2006, or whenever it came out. It has been my biggest workhorse on a D70, then a D200, then a D300 and now even sometimes on a D700 when shooting in low light where vignetting is less noticeable.

    Before I got the 50-150, I rented and tested both the Nikon and Sigma 70-200's, and the Nikon 80-200 as well, and honestly I just don't care for their added heft and size. (And price...) I like to be low-profile when shooting events, I shoot around strangers and children often (theater) so keeping intimidation at a minimum is a very good thing for me. As long as I can keep my ISO at 1600 or lower, I'd prefer to shoot those types of jobs with my D300 and the Sigma 50-150 any day versus a D3s and a 70-200 VR2. Seriously.

    Of course the f/2.8 aperture is really only necessary if you find yourself shooting in low light or fast action a lot; if you shoot in decent light or maybe landscapes / sports / wildlife, then the extra reach is a GOOD thing and I can highly recommend the 55-200 DX VR, or better yet the 70-300 VR, although they did just make a 55-300 DX VR, though I don't know how lab tests are turning out?


    =Matt=
    “My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
  • Options
    borrowlenses.comborrowlenses.com Registered Users Posts: 441 Major grins
    edited March 22, 2011
    What about the Nikon 28-300 VR? It's $919 at Amazon. Or you can rent it: http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/nikon_telephoto/28-300_nikon
    http://www.BorrowLenses.com
    Your professional online camera gear rental store

    Follow us on Facebook
    http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
  • Options
    PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited March 22, 2011
    borrowlenses.com wrote: »
    What about the Nikon 28-300 VR? It's $919 at Amazon. Or you can rent it: http://www.borrowlenses.com/product/nikon_telephoto/28-300_nikon

    Too much overlap. I don't have any interest in the 28-~175mm portion of that lens.
Sign In or Register to comment.