Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Good Lens For Nikon  
User currently offlineLukasMako From Austria, joined Feb 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5707 times:

Hi,

I consider to spent some money for a new lens. The one I use now is a 180€ Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm. It is a solid lens but a lot of pictures are unsharp, strong lights on dark objects often appear violett when the apperture is open which forcese me to set it higher and use higher ISO in order to get good shutterspeeds.

It should be max. 500€ and Telezoom. Would be nice if it goes from 100mm up to 400mm.

Can you give me any recommendations. The camera is D50.

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5701 times:

I'll let Royal handle this one, but you better raise your budget a bit! (biggrin)

User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5695 times:

At that price, (new) Nikkor lenses will be out of reach.

Have a look at used Nikkor, or new Sigma.

[Edited 2006-04-18 15:00:32]


Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineLukasMako From Austria, joined Feb 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5695 times:

Quote:
I'll let Royal handle this one, but you better raise your budget a bit!

That is not possible for a student like I am...


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5687 times:

Well, I don't know if you travel to the US or know someone who does, but at the current EUR-USD exchange rate you could buy the splendid $800 Nikkor 80-200 F/2.8 and only pay around EUR 675. Still a bit over EUR 500, but definitely worthwile! You could buy one online of course but shipping (and duties potentially) might ruin the cheap price... You can try finding this one second-hand in Europe as well of course, but I assume you want a new one really.

It seems like you are looking for very high quality, so that is what I would recommend. With a max aperture of 2.8 throughout you could later on add a TC without losing too much light.


User currently offlinePtrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4005 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5678 times:

Quoting Edoca (Reply 4):
splendid $800 Nikkor 80-200 F/2.8

 checkmark 

In a reliable store you can find a really good used one, as people buy hot new VR lenses.

Peter



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9664 posts, RR: 68
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5674 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Yes I think a 80-200 f/2.8 would be a good option.

User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5669 times:

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 6):
Yes I think a 80-200 f/2.8 would be a good option.

Def, $800US and a teleconverter should do the trick.


User currently offlineLukasMako From Austria, joined Feb 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5658 times:

Hi,

Thanks for your help. The lowest price for that lens in the german speaking region (Swiss, Austria, Germany) is more than 1100€. More than twice I can afford and without TC 200mm in LOWW is not really optimal.

Of course I will consider buying used. But it is still a bit hard to get optimal lenses which optimaly fit Digital Photography.

What about Tamron and Sigma. Is there such a differenc to Nikkor lenses?


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4722 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 5650 times:

Allthough I'm not a Nikon shooter (Canon here) I can still recommend the 50-500 from sigma. Allthough it's not the greatest in less then optimal weather it's still usable, and it's a super lens in sunny weather. Range and price are good as well!


For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5644 times:

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 8):
The lowest price for that lens in the german speaking region (Swiss, Austria, Germany) is more than 1100€.

That's $1320 for something worth $800 (in USD)... Terrible. I would never ever buy any photo equipment in Europe any more...

Quoting JRadier (Reply 9):
the 50-500 from sigma. Allthough it's not the greatest in less then optimal weather it's still usable

I have seen similar reports, this might be a better option then for you, haven't used it though. But I just wonder if it is going to be significantly better than your current Nikkor 70-300.

I also have an old Nikkor 75-300, predecessor to your 70-300, which is optically better according to some reviews. But of course it's bigger and heavier and not different on paper... I used it quite often before switching to the 80-200 /2.8. Let me know if you want more info on that 75-300 though.


User currently offlineLukasMako From Austria, joined Feb 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5640 times:

There would be other options in my mind.

The 70-300mm is also sold in ED version for under 400€ (do you think that brings a significant advantage?)

And Sigma has also a 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG. That is 800€. Can you tell me why the Nikkor which is pretty much the same costs that much more? Just becaus its a Nikon?

And what about the TC: Nikon's TC are in the 500€ range while some of Tamron and Sigma are way less. Why?


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5637 times:

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 11):
And Sigma has also a 70-200mm 2.8 EX DG. That is 800€. Can you tell me why the Nikkor which is pretty much the same costs that much more? Just becaus its a Nikon?

Quality! and yes, because it's a Nikkor/Nikon. I've owned a Sigma 70-200/2.8 and while it's a great lens I do find the Nikon to be better (IMO) in build and quality. However, I don't think you'll go wrong if you end up with the Sigma, it's not a bad lens at all.

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 11):
And what about the TC: Nikon's TC are in the 500€ range while some of Tamron and Sigma are way less. Why?

Same as above.

Mike


User currently offlineEdoca From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 688 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5633 times:

An opinion I trust in these matters is www.kenrockwell.com
Have a look, you'll probably find the info you're looking for over there. I know Mr Rockwell may have some controversial views to some, but I find his reviews very informative usually.


User currently offlineLukasMako From Austria, joined Feb 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5625 times:

Well,

This statement is completly wrong after my experience:
I would really like to have more ISO settings on my D50.

Quote:
ISO: I use 200. If the light gets dim and my images would get blurry from slower shutter speeds I increase the ISO to 400, 800 or 1,600. I never bother with in-between settings like 250 or 640. The D70 looks fine at ISO 1,600 if you need it. I'd much rather have a slightly grainy but sharp image than a less grainy but blurry one. Unlike film, the D70 looks great at high ISOs, so I use them anytime I need them.

About the TC:
All Nikon TC cost about 500€ while the Sigma only costs 150-200€. I simply cannot imagine why the Nikkon costs 2-3 times more just because it isbetter in quality.

And BTW: what does "quality" in photography refer to? Is it performance or simply well made and it can take rough conditions like water, heat, cold. etc. ...


User currently offlineJRadier From Netherlands, joined Sep 2004, 4722 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Quoting Edoca (Reply 13):
An opinion I trust in these matters is www.kenrockwell.com

Another source is www.fredmiranda.com wich has user reviews.

Quoting Edoca (Reply 10):
I have seen similar reports, this might be a better option then for you, haven't used it though. But I just wonder if it is going to be significantly better than your current Nikkor 70-300.

If you make sure you get a good one it is significantly better then a 70-300. And I agree, it isn't a prime, but for the price and range it is far ahead of the competition.

But I would suggest trying out some lenses, preferebly at the airport. So perhaps a meetup with some other photographers?



For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and ther
User currently offlineLukasMako From Austria, joined Feb 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5595 times:

Do I lose the AF when using a TC?

User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5593 times:

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 14):
And BTW: what does "quality" in photography refer to? Is it performance or simply well made and it can take rough conditions like water, heat, cold. etc. ...

When referring to lenses it could be both but I guess lens/glass quality (sharpness, color, etc.) would be more important. But usually the more expensive "quality" glass usually comes in a "quality" build as well.

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 16):
Do I lose the AF when using a TC?

What lens were you referring to? If the 80-200/f2.8 or 70-200/f2.8, no.

Mike


User currently offlineLukasMako From Austria, joined Feb 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5551 times:

Hi,

What about the new VR version of the 70-200 2.8. Is the price difference worth the VR funtion. And does it make sens to buy such a Lens for a D50?


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5548 times:

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 8):
But it is still a bit hard to get optimal lenses which optimaly fit Digital Photography.

Any lens that designed for a film SLR and the fits your digital SLR will give full coverage of the sensor.

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 8):
What about Tamron and Sigma. Is there such a differenc to Nikkor lenses?

There is a difference in quality, but the best SIGMA are close to Nikkor.

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 11):
Nikon's TC are in the 500€ range while some of Tamron and Sigma are way less

Nikon's TCs are far superior.

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 16):
Do I lose the AF when using a TC?

Not with a Nikon TC.

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 18):
What about the new VR version of the 70-200 2.8. Is the price difference worth the VR funtion. And does it make sens to buy such a Lens for a D50?

Yes and yes.

Bottom line: You get what you pay for.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineOlegShv From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 5510 times:

Quoting LukasMako (Reply 11):
The 70-300mm is also sold in ED version for under 400€ (do you think that brings a significant advantage?)

I use the ED version that you talk about. I noticed that it handles CA better than the less expensive G version. I have never used 80-200 f/2.8. However, from the sample pictures and reviews I've read and on various websites, 70-300 ED is not up to par in terms of sharpness with 80-200 f/2.8. I'm saving money myself for that one. Also a student here  Smile
70-300 ED is OK, I managed to get a couple shots with it into DB, and I think I have a bunch more that are of reasonable quality to be accepted here. As Viv mentioned above, you get what you pay for.

Also, I heard rumors about the upcoming 70-300 ED VR version due sometime this year. I can't afford 80-200f/2.8 +TC right now, so while I save money, they might release that one and I think I would be tempted to try this one out.

Regards,

Oleg.


User currently offlineMikephotos From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 2923 posts, RR: 54
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 5508 times:

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 20):
However, from the sample pictures and reviews I've read and on various websites, 70-300 ED is not up to par in terms of sharpness with 80-200 f/2.8.

I have used both the 70-300 ED and 80-200/f2.8 and can confirm the above. The 70-300ED can produce some very nice results but it's just not as consistent as the 80-200.

Mike


User currently offlineLukasMako From Austria, joined Feb 2006, 88 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 5493 times:

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

Just would wonder if a VR 5,6 is superior to a normal 2,8.
I just would like to have a lens which I also can under low light circumstances and also for motion blurs. Just wonder how a VR exactly works. Can you give me some data ...


User currently offlineOlegShv From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 5470 times:

From what I understand, VR is useful for shooting static subjects under low light. It essentially allows you to use slow shutter speeds, like 1/10-1/20 sec. Those who have VR lenses may tell you how slow can you go to get a decent shot. If you want to freeze motion in low light, then f/2.8 is your best friend since wide aperture allows more light, which, in turn, results in faster shutter speeds.
Hope that helps,

Oleg.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Would Be A Good Lens For Me? posted Mon Dec 20 2004 18:18:07 by ArmitageShanks
Lens For Nikon Body posted Mon Apr 19 2004 04:53:49 by ChrisThurtell
Lens For Nikon D70? posted Wed Mar 3 2004 20:57:57 by Mdwalkman
Lens For Nikon F70 posted Mon Dec 31 2001 15:50:30 by 747 4-ever
Help - Lens For Nikon N90S posted Sat Oct 13 2001 00:29:03 by Round_engine
A Good 50MM Lens For Canon posted Sun Dec 14 2003 09:31:28 by Paulinbna
What's A Good 28-200mm Lens For Canons posted Thu Feb 28 2002 15:29:18 by Hkg_clk
Good Camera Gear Bag For Nikon F5 posted Mon Nov 27 2000 19:59:50 by Ghymes
Good Aviation Lens For A Pentax Body? posted Wed Sep 20 2000 16:05:04 by Bodobodo
Camera And Lens For A Novice Photographer... posted Sun Sep 17 2006 22:11:06 by Longhornmaniac