DeltaJet757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 243 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3341 times:
I'm going to Maui for Christmas again and I want to get some good shots while at the airport, on the plane and some general sightseeing stuff as well.
I'm thinking about getting a telephoto lens for my Nikon D40. Right now I have the standard 18-55mm lens which I don't like because it doesn't zoom in far enough (no duh).
I want to be able to take shots like these...... I find that I'm always limited to the perimeter fence like most of us are. I'm almost always too far from what ever I want to take a good picture of whether I'm actually on the plane r on the ground.
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 50 Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3326 times:
If I were you, I would contact the photographers and ask them for the EXIF data. Voila and you have all the infos you need.
A typical "aviation lens" is the 100-400 (Canon) and 80-400 Nikon or 170-500 Sigma
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3297 times:
Depending on your budget (prices in CDN dollars since I don't really know US prices):
70-300 VR just released this year has great optics for the price (about $700 CDN). Super light and very compact considering its reach.
80-400 is an older lens, has VR but doesn't have AFS focusing (about $1,500 cdn). I wasn't thrilled with the quality when I looked at it, ended up getting the 70-300 for my low-cost travel lens.
70-200 AFS VR is a fantastic lens, super sharp, good VR, big f2.8 aperature ($1,900 CDN). Works well with the 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverters.
200-400 AFS VR is one of Nikkor's flagship lenses, and you pay by the pound, about $5,200 CDN. Fast f4 considering it's a long, 2x zoom range. Works well with the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's.
If you're willing to go used, check around for an 80-200 f2.8 AF lens. Won't focus super-fast, but almost as good of optics as the 70-200 AFS VR.
Deltajet757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3264 times:
I'll check out how much that 200-400 AFS VR is. Has to be real good if it's one of the flahship lenses.
Jawed From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 482 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3258 times:
Careful, the 170-500 Sigma has terrible reviews regarding its sharpness:
DeltaJet757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3253 times:
Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 2): 200-400 AFS VR is one of Nikkor's flagship lenses, and you pay by the pound, about $5,200 CDN. Fast f4 considering it's a long, 2x zoom range. Works well with the 1.4 and 1.7 TC's.
Is this the one you're talking about? It's a bit large for taking on the plane but it must be good. Looks expensive though.
I'm looking for something that has good quality, relatively compact and has good zoom.
UnattendedBag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2243 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3249 times:
Quoting Deltajet757 (Reply 6): I'll check out how much that 200-400 AFS VR is.
I would highly suggest upgrading your camera before getting this lens. You have the least expensive Nikon DSLR and you want to get the most expensive zoom lens Nikon makes.
I would suggest the 70-300mm vr lens for your camera.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3244 times:
Quoting Diezel (Reply 3): That one won't have auto focus on the D40 as it is not an AFS lens. but otherwise CalgaryBill is spot on.
Great lens. Also the 80-200 2.8 non VR is awesome too. Gives you great results in a lot of different situations. But he is right. Hey you can always buy a D80.
Cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3244 times:
Quoting DeltaJet757 (Reply 8): Is this the one you're talking about? It's a bit large for taking on the plane but it must be good. Looks expensive though.
I'm looking for something that has good quality, relatively compact and has good zoom.
This lens is absolutely NOT suitable for travelling - it is very large and very heavy.
Maybe the Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3 EX DG HSM might be better. I've got one that I use with a D80. It could almost be called portable, but not really compact.
DeltaJet757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3238 times:
Quoting UnattendedBag (Reply 9): I would suggest the 70-300mm vr lens for your camera.
This one looks like the one I'm after. I'll just have to get slightly bigger camera bag. But that one looks suitable for me.
Thanks for the recommendation. That's #1 on my top lens' list so far.
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3234 times:
Quoting Cpd (Reply 11): This lens is absolutely NOT suitable for travelling - it is very large and very heavy.
It is a PITA for travel, but is doable. It fit in my LowePro CompuTrekker along with a D2x, D200, 70-200, laptop and other stuff. Unfortunately, I was three pounds over the 22 pound limit so I had to stow the lens in my suitcase (I had a protective case in there for just such a circumstance!). Without the laptop I would have had no problem. It fit nicely in the CompuTrekker for the hike from Axalp to Ebenfluh too, but it's a pain to hand-hold for several hours of shooting fast movers. My rationale though was, if I'm going halfway around the world and hiking up a mountain to shoot airplanes, I want to shoot them through the best glass I can afford to buy/carry.
Jawed From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 482 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3233 times:
This one looks like the one I'm after. I'll just have to get slightly bigger camera bag. But that one looks suitable for me.
Thanks for the recommendation. That's #1 on my top lens' list so far.
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1797 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3210 times:
Quoting DeltaJet757 (Reply 8): It's a bit large for taking on the plane but it must be good. Looks expensive though.
Quoting Cpd (Reply 11): This lens is absolutely NOT suitable for travelling - it is very large and very heavy.
Wimps.
I routinely travel with 3 Mark IIns, a 400 2.8 (or 300 2.8), 70-200, 16-35, 50 1.4, laptop and all the associated junk that goes with it. That's why I got a rolling case. I could barely move after cramming all that into a backpack.
If you're looking for a decent used Nikon lens, check out the 80-200 AF-S. It's no VR, but I used it before switching to Canon. It was a good lens. Fast focus and pretty tough.
A shot I took recently with the 70-300 VR on a D50 body. I shoot raw and this was edited with the ACR on default settings. I applied no extra sharpening. ACR does it's own sharpening but you can see how crisp the image is almost straight out the camera..
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 50 Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3132 times:
Quoting Chrisair (Reply 16): I routinely travel with 3 Mark IIns, a 400 2.8 (or 300 2.8), 70-200, 16-35, 50 1.4, laptop and all the associated junk that goes with it. That's why I got a rolling case. I could barely move after cramming all that into a backpack.
been there, done it.
So far you have gotten a lot of suggestions. One important thing was not mentioned so far:
DeltaJet757 From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3112 times:
Quoting AKE0404AR (Reply 18): So far you have gotten a lot of suggestions. One important thing was not mentioned so far:
What's your budget?
The most I'm willing to spend on a lens is $700 tops as I have to have my computer repaired (cracked screen and won't stay closed) All I need is a lens that's built well, takes good photos, easy to transport. The last thing I need to have is one the size of a civil war cannon.
Remember this is a landing 747 doing roughly 130 knts. This is not at full zoom(300mm) but I cropped out a shot showing the detail around the APU. I think it's one hella good lens for the money!!!
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 3081 times:
Quoting Dbudd (Reply 17): I shoot raw and this was edited with the ACR on default settings. I applied no extra sharpening. ACR does it's own sharpening but you can see how crisp the image is almost straight out the camera..
Dave lose the defaults and turn all those off in ACR. Do if yourself, the end result is so much better.
Quoting Dbudd (Reply 20): I think it's one hella good lens for the money!!!
Dave is right, pound for pound if you can use the lens properly the results are amazing for what you pay for it.
DABZF From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1190 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3008 times:
Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 2): 70-200 AFS VR is a fantastic lens, super sharp, good VR, big f2.8 aperature ($1,900 CDN). Works well with the 1.4 and 1.7 teleconverters.
... If you have the money, go for that with a converter. 200-400 is probably bit too much for the D40
70-200 might be a bit bulky for the D40 frame but I have got some fantastic animal pictures with it on my D40x (I don't own the lens but have been able to borrow one).
If you are looking for a cheaper lens go for the 70-300 mentioned... excellent lens for the money and easy to take along for the compact size. All (3) of my a.net accepeted pictures has been taken with that lens on the D40x.
I like driving backwards in the fog cause it doesn't remind me of anything - Chris Cornell
Skidmarks From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2985 times:
No one has mentioned the 18-200VR which is a good all rounder and not as expensive as some of the others. This would also eliminate the need for more than one lens for any closer shots you might get.
Scbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11438 posts, RR: 50 Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2975 times:
Quoting Skidmarks (Reply 23): No one has mentioned the 18-200VR which is a good all rounder and not as expensive as some of the others.
That lens seems to have as many detractors as it does fans. Personally, I've not used it, and given my current range of excellent lenses, don't need it, but I can certainly see the attractions of it as an "only lens I need when travelling on vacation".
Four more years!
25 Soon7x7: If your budget won't allow for an image stabilized lens,like the 70-200,70-300, try to find an older 80-200mm . It is a 2.8 fast, extremely sharp len
26 CalgaryBill: The 70-300 VR is almost $200 less at my camera store than the 18-200. The latter gets some pretty bad reviews, is very soft at the 200 end, and has b
27 Eirbus06: I have a D40 and i recently bought the nikkor 70-300 AF-S lens and i find it fantastic.Some pics below. http://www.irishairpics.com/database/photo/102
28 Dbudd: One last example from me. I went shooting today and although it wasn't real cold it prove nice early. The day was still hazy but I captured this Bizje
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 243 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2004, 1190 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Dec 2004, 7121 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 11438 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}
){kind=link}