Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cheap Nikon Tele Tens?  
User currently offlineBRE16 From United Kingdom, joined May 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6884 times:

What lenses do Nikon users here use, I assume most are telephoto as the quality requirements for acceptence on this site mean that after cropping, most pictures from a 18-55 for example would not have the quality AND necessary dead space removed.
I have quite a cheap DSLR (D40X) so I need a lens with an autofocus motor, so the basic 70-300G for about £80 isn't good enough. I've been looking at the 55-300VR but it is a lot more expensive and of course Nikon aren't the only manufacturers, Tamron and Sigma have a broad catalogue so I wanted to know what everyone else uses and/or recommends, my budget is about £250 ($400).
Replies appreciated

Just thought of something, I've been on the Ken Rockwell website and has given me more to think about, so, does anyone use film lenses (or anything before 2006) with new DSLRs (non-full frame)?

[Edited 2012-05-11 14:28:37]

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineMaximLezin From Canada, joined Jun 2011, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 6881 times:

Hi! I highly recommend the Nikor 55-200mm VR. Its awesome. Its considered Nikons best deal. (At least thats what all those review sites say). I get crisp, and very clear shots. I got it for around 300$. Its alot lighther than the 55-300mm., and the results are very similiar. You can check out my shots and see for yourself. Cheers!  

[Edited 2012-05-11 14:27:50]

User currently offlineScooter01 From Norway, joined Nov 2006, 1199 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6861 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BRE16 (Thread starter):
Just thought of something, I've been on the Ken Rockwell website and has given me more to think about, so, does anyone use film lenses (or anything before 2006) with new DSLRs (non-full frame)?

I got a D90 last fall because I didn't want my good old glass to become paperweights.

The 85mm f/1,8 is great for closeups, flowers etc. with the camera mounted on a tripod.
The 200mm QC f/1,4 looks promising, also on a tripod.

Both the above lenses have given me quite good service mounted on the old F3 body, both at car-races and airshows, but due to an illness I haven't practiced panning too much with the D90 yet.

Hope this was useful.

Scooter01



"We all have a girl and her name is nostalgia" - Hemingway
User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6824 times:

The words 'cheap' and 'Nikon' don't usually go hand in hand. At least not if you're looking for good quality. After seeing some of the prices of their longer autofocus VR telephotos, I decided to try another brand and have never regretted it. I use the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 VC USD and have shot several thousand pics that were tack sharp all through the focal range. It's around $450 with a $100 mail-in rebate at B&H photo.


Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlineChristinaSaraha From United States of America, joined May 2012, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6788 times:

Although they have high prices but they provide reliable services and products.The authenticity is mirrored in their brand name.

australian aviation air charter



Christina M Sarahan
User currently offlineBRE16 From United Kingdom, joined May 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6683 times:

Thanks very much for all the replies, I still have some questions though:
Is there any way of telling if a lens has an autofocus MOTOR. Just because it has 'AF' in its name doesn't mean it has a motor, users with expensive cameras (D90 upwards) won't notice because tehir bodies have a motor. Nikon add an 'S' to the 'AF' to make 'AF-S' denoting a built in motor but waht about Sigma and Tamron? Or do they not make lenses with motors? An AF motor is pretty much mandatory for fast shots, right?

Quoting darreno1 (Reply 3):
the Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 VC USD

Thanks but it was still £330 in the UK Amazon, way over budget. I might think about it next time, as it seems superior to the Nikon I'll probably get

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 2):
The 85mm f/1,8 is great for closeups, flowers etc. with the camera mounted on a tripod.
The 200mm QC f/1,4 looks promising, also on a tripod.

Thanks very much, I wouldn't assume these had motors, right?


User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9603 posts, RR: 69
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6657 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

If there was ever an appropriate place to apply "you get what you pay for," it is with lenses. There really is no way to avoid rolling out monetary yardage for good glass, BUT, while cameras come and go, lenses are forever. So, in my opinion it is better to hold out until you can save for some proper glass. You will be disappointed with the output of those cheaper Tampon and Sigma lenses, even the Nikon's have a limited usefulness.

The 18-55 Nikon is a pretty sharp little lens, stopped down, but as you have noted, you need to get close to the action (self plug 18-55 shot):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/royalsc...046852050/in/set-72157621417278056

If you don't want to save, look for a second-hand Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 or a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Both of these are great lenses, the Nikon being legendary. No VR, but you will develop a great technique.


User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6655 times:

Quoting BRE16 (Reply 5):
Is there any way of telling if a lens has an autofocus MOTOR. Just because it has 'AF' in its name doesn't mean it has a motor, users with expensive cameras (D90 upwards) won't notice because tehir bodies have a motor. Nikon add an 'S' to the 'AF' to make 'AF-S' denoting a built in motor but waht about Sigma and Tamron? Or do they not make lenses with motors? An AF motor is pretty much mandatory for fast shots, right?

Yes manufacturers usually have designations for their respective built-in motors. Tamron's USD means 'Ultra Sonic Drive'. Sigma has HSM for 'Hypersonic Motor'. But you should always do some extra research and be sure the description specifically states 'built-in motor'.

Most of the well-known brands do have built-in motors. As for fast shots, yes, from what I've read having an in-lens motor usually means faster more reliable focusing but take my answer with a grain of salt as I have no where near the experience of others on here.



Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlineBRE16 From United Kingdom, joined May 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6582 times:

Well you definitely have more experience than me! Do their lenses then that don't have USD/HSM certainly not have a motor, because not many do have (USD/HSM) and certainly none below £300/$500

according to this list, even some of the cheap/non-designated ones have (motors)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_with_integrated_autofocus-motor


User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6564 times:

Quoting BRE16 (Reply 8):
Well you definitely have more experience than me! Do their lenses then that don't have USD/HSM certainly not have a motor, because not many do have (USD/HSM) and certainly none below £300/$500


Not necessarily. Sometimes the name will not have the designation (USD, HSM etc) yet the description will say whether there is a built in motor or not. So like I mentioned before, you should read the description thoroughly and probably rely on that more.

Also, like was mentioned above, you usually get what you pay for. If the lens is too cheap then they compromised somewhere and you might be disappointed with the performance. Best to save and get something you will be happy with.



Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
User currently offlineScooter01 From Norway, joined Nov 2006, 1199 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6539 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BRE16 (Reply 5):
Thanks very much, I wouldn't assume these had motors, right?

Of course not.

Real Photographers knows how to focus manually   

Scooter01



"We all have a girl and her name is nostalgia" - Hemingway
User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 6517 times:

Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 10):
Real Photographers knows how to focus manually

I was beginning to wonder if anyone still realizes that ! When I first started in 35mm photography, there were no auto focus lenses, no vibration reduction, and of course "digital" photography was still "science fiction"; as a matter of fact, in the very beginning, you even had to set the shutter speed and aperture manually. ( Back then, cameras only had a small battery about the size of an aspirin, as all the battery powered was the exposure meter. ) Yet a lot of great photos were taken, doing everything manually. BTW, the bulk of my experience with Nikon bodies has been with the F-5 film body, and that camera still has the best view finder and focusing system ever made; The D 300s has a very good view finder, and is very easy to focus, but it doesn't compare to the F-5. I have piddled around with some of the lesser expensive Nikon bodies, but I'm really not "experienced" with them.

Speaking of a great "cheap" Nikon telephoto lens..........I still use my 300mm / f4 manual focus lens with my D 300s; it's tack sharp, has a very massive tripod collar, and on the DX sensor D 300s body, it gives me 450mm, (or 9X magnification) without an extender. Inasmuch as I always use it with a tripod, and I'm frequently shooting in manual mode, setting shutter speed and aperture manually, so setting focus manually is just kind of 2nd nature to me. I forget anymore what I paid for the 300, but like a lot used "high end" glass, it was in mint condition, (and still is). (buying used equipment is kinda like learning to play the violin..........it takes awhile.)

Of course i don't try to use the thing for fast moving stuff, such as airplanes in flight, sports, etc. but much of what I do isn't fast moving. I realize most members on A.net are quite interested in aviation photography; the problem is however, much of aviation photography doesn't lend it's self "that well" to beginning photographers, or inexpensive equipment. Much of av/photo is rather demanding of equipment, technique, AND knowledge.

Some one mentioned the Nikon 80-200mm /f 2.8; yes, it's a great lens, and it was made with and with out a focusing motor; the one I have I bought "pre-owned" to use with with an F-5 film body; with 72mm filter threads, it's not a light lens, even without the motor; on the F-5 body, or the D-300s, it focuses quite fast, as both have very robust internal motors. I would however be somewhat skeptical, mounting it on a small, light D 40 body, and then mounting the camera body to a tripod; plus, you would need to get the one with it's own motor to have AF, and even now, it's not going to be all that "cheap". (although I have not priced one in quite a while) (they were like $1,500 USD when new)


So........depending on what kind of work you want to do, there ARE very high quality Nikon MF lenses "out there", and many can be bought "for a song, and sing your own tune"; but if you must have all the "latest and greatest", you need "deep pockets" to begin with, then prepare to go broke ! '

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineBRE16 From United Kingdom, joined May 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6488 times:

Quoting geezer (Reply 11):
most members on A.net are quite interested in aviation photography

Isn't that the whole point of the website? ('quite' or 'most'?)
It's certainly why I'm interested in a tele lens. Also, you may have guessed that since I'm using the discontinued D40 which was bottom of the range even when it was made, that even when I save my money I won't have very much and I'm not so serious I need quality I can blow to good size prints or even anything more than what's needed on this site. I want to be able to take pictures and you might say why not use a compact but I also want manual sttings as I do experiment sometimes, and I wouldn't have bought a DSLR if I didn't. But manual focus is too hard for me and near impossible for fast subjects


User currently offlineyerbol From Kazakhstan, joined Feb 2010, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Save some money and get 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 AF-S ED VR lens.


With best regards from Almaty
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6389 times:

I would go with the Nikkor 70-300mmVR or if that's too expensive, the 55-200mmVR. If you need 300mm and a lens with a motor, but can't do the price of the Nikkor, maybe the Tamron would work...after all, the images won't be horrible. I'm just recommending the above 2 Nikkors because I use both and they deliver. You wouldn't regret either one(unless you needed 300mm and went with the 55-200)

User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 15, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6385 times:

Quoting BRE16 (Thread starter):
I have quite a cheap DSLR (D40X) so I need a lens with an autofocus motor, so the basic 70-300G for about £80 isn't good enough.

Even if it did have the SWM, it's still not good. I use it sometimes with a D3s when there is no other alternative, stopped down to F/9.0 to get acceptable sharpness but it is still somewhat soft. That's not for any lack of skill on my part (I do photography for a living (unrelated to my site). I'm lucky in lower light I can boost the ISO as I see fit when using that lens with little problem.

I'd recommend the AF-S 70-300mm VR lens as a starting point for its useful flexibility, reasonable quality and compact size, or otherwise, take the advice of Clickhappy - he knows Nikon stuff well. Don't short cut on the lenses, or you'll be unhappy. Camera bodies can be replaced easily enough, but good lenses will serve you for a very long time - they don't just become obsolete overnight.

His suggestion of the 80-200mm F/2.8 is a good one. I've used this very lens with the brand new D800e with great results. It was one of Nikon's evergreen lenses. It has a good maximum aperture and with practice, the lack of VR will be no problem in normal conditions.


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 6374 times:

Quoting cpd (Reply 15):
Even if it did have the SWM, it's still not good. I use it sometimes with a D3s when there is no other alternative, stopped down to F/9.0 to get acceptable sharpness but it is still somewhat soft. That's not for any lack of skill on my part (I do photography for a living (unrelated to my site). I'm lucky in lower light I can boost the ISO as I see fit when using that lens with little problem.

I'd recommend the AF-S 70-300mm VR lens as a starting point for its useful flexibility, reasonable quality and compact size, or otherwise, take the advice of Clickhappy - he knows Nikon stuff well. Don't short cut on the lenses, or you'll be unhappy. Camera bodies can be replaced easily enough, but good lenses will serve you for a very long time - they don't just become obsolete overnight.

His suggestion of the 80-200mm F/2.8 is a good one. I've used this very lens with the brand new D800e with great results. It was one of Nikon's evergreen lenses. It has a good maximum aperture and with practice, the lack of VR will be no problem in normal conditions.

I know you are trying to be helpful, but this guy is saying he has a $400 budget and you're talking about D3s and D800e performance, bodies costing several thousand dollars apiece, and the 80-200mm AF-S which I never see below his price point even used....ok........bre16, as someone who still shoots with the 'lowly' D40x paired with the 70-300 and the 55-200mm VR's, I can assure you of two things:

-either of those lenses would give you beautiful results, and
-there are plenty of shots in the database taken with them. The lenses are really not what get your shots accepted here(it's more your postprocessing abilities with removing noise and sharpening actually). The point that if you HAD the money to spend on more expensive gear that would produce cleaner, sharper images(so that less such processing was needed) you would happily BUY such glass, is certainly not lost on me.


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 6366 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 16):
I know you are trying to be helpful, but this guy is saying he has a $400 budget and you're talking about D3s and D800e performance

I'm trying to tell you, if you'd read it - that the 70-300 VR and 80-200 are both good lenses - and to avoid the 70-300G even though it isn't suitable, since it is rubbish. The 800e reference was to explain that it will pick expose any flaws in less than optimal lenses, and to justify that one of the lenses is very good.

I'm not telling anyone to buy cameras. I also wasn't the only one mentioning the 80-200 - but you singled out me only. A 55-200 will also work, or otherwise - buy Tamron.

Quoting BRE16 (Thread starter):
Just thought of something, I've been on the Ken Rockwell website and has given me more to think about, so, does anyone use film lenses (or anything before 2006) with new DSLRs (non-full frame)?

Yes, I've done so - but a lot of them won't be AF-S - so you are stuck. Watch the second-hand market on adorama and B&H or any of the other places, that's your best bet.

Quoting darreno1 (Reply 7):
As for fast shots, yes, from what I've read having an in-lens motor usually means faster more reliable focusing but take my answer with a grain of salt as I have no where near the experience of others on here.

That's true - but I've got no photos on this website or any others, so I can't provide evidence to back the claim. But in this case, it's mandatory for those lower end Nikon cameras otherwise you are left to focus it yourself. In fast moving action, that just doesn't work.

[Edited 2012-05-15 20:01:52]

User currently offlineBRE16 From United Kingdom, joined May 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6309 times:

Quoting megatop412 (Reply 14):
unless you needed 300mm and went with the 55-200

Why not the 55-300?

Unless you didn't mention it because you don't have it, but not many people do mention it, is there something wrong with it?

Maybe it's just they don't mention it becuase it is rarely used being similar to the cheaper 55-200 and inferior to the 70-300.

I don't know about america but here the 55-300 is substantially cheaper than the 70-300 (about £120/$180), while I know it's not as high-end, it is even more useful! (when you have a tight budget, that's a very important consideration...)


User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 309 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6306 times:

I can't comment on personal use of the 55-300 because I don't own it, BUT everything I remember reading about it says it has good optical performance and that the AF isn't as fast as the 70-300AF-S.

The 55-300 might serve you extremely well given your budget and needs. Personally, I never would have purchased the 55-200 had I known the 70-300 existed, but I don't regret it either as its compact size, light weight, and decent performance allows me to travel easily with it.


User currently offlinetrvyyz From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1369 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6275 times:

55-300mm VR is an excellent lens, I haven't heard anything bad about it. Only disadvantages are the front elemnet rotates while focusing, it is not for full frame, it is not that fast. Comparing to a constant F2.8 lens is not fair that costs 3 or 4 times.

User currently offlinej.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6095 times:

For what it is worth, I picked up a Nikon 70-210mm for my Nikon D90 as my intermediate lens. I read the reviews and decided to try it out. For around $140-160 I figured what the heck.

This lens takes some beautiful pictures. It's not going to break any world records in focusing. The cool kids may laugh at you because it has no VR, but whatever......

It's a sleeper. The images I see, are in comparison to my Nikon 300/f4 in sharpness. If you need a cheap lens that is NOT plastic and takes very nice images, give it a try.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=291


JM



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineBRE16 From United Kingdom, joined May 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5996 times:

Thanks for the replies, I'm now leaning slightly toward the Tamron 70-300 with USD. Though it's more expensive then I stated my budget at the beginning, I've read some good reviews and as is pointed out a lot, a lens lasts much longer than a body so make what you get now good. Ideally, I would get the Nikon 70-300VR but it is just so much more than even the USD

User currently offlineTomskii From Belgium, joined May 2011, 467 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5985 times:

I'm using the Tamron 70-300mm which I found at 315 EUR new (redcoon.be)

Most of my pictures (9 in total) have been made with that lens uptill now so you can always check those via my profile  

The Nikon 70-300mm has been proven to be a bit worse and less sharp than the Tamron in several online reviews, however their are some issues with some Tamron lenses where you have to manually overexpose on your camera (2/3 of a stop) because it chooses too fast shutter speeds in some modes of some camera models. I have not experienced this in combination with my D90, somebody I know does but he says it does not bother him.  



Nikon D90 + Nikkor f4.5-5.6 18-105mm + Tamron f4-5.6 70-300mm
User currently offlinedarreno1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5957 times:

Quoting BRE16 (Reply 22):
Ideally, I would get the Nikon 70-300VR but it is just so much more than even the USD

From the many reviews I've read comparing the two, you're not gaining much if anything buying the Nikon over the Tamron 70-300mm except a lighter wallet. Tamron did it right with this lens IMO. Also, since it fits a full-frame camera as well, there will be no worries if you decide to upgrade the body later on.



Nikon D7000 / Nikkor 105mm AF f2.8 / Nikkor 35 f1.8G / Nikkor 50 f1.8D / Nikkor 85mm / Nikkor 300mm f4 AF
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...
Any Cheap Fisheye Lens For Nikon? posted Mon Jan 26 2009 14:13:13 by LH4116
After A Decent But Cheap Lense For Nikon D200 posted Sun Jul 2 2006 22:45:14 by EZYAirbus
Where Can I Buy A Nikon D800e In LAX, Help! posted Thu Apr 26 2012 12:46:32 by ghost77
Nikon D7000 Settings posted Thu Apr 12 2012 14:51:02 by richstuart
Nikon 3100 Color Alteration posted Tue Apr 10 2012 13:22:20 by g38
Cheap Camera Store In Malaysia posted Tue Mar 27 2012 00:58:10 by evall95
200 Vs 300mm Nikon Lense Dilemma-which To Buy? posted Tue Feb 28 2012 11:57:13 by skingjack
Nikon Coolpix S6200 good enough for a.net? posted Wed Feb 8 2012 15:32:38 by kann123air
Advice On Nikon D5100 Setting For Taxiway posted Fri Jan 13 2012 18:03:39 by ocean773
Nikon 18-105mm F/3.5-5.6 VR Thoughts posted Fri Jan 13 2012 14:32:34 by evall95
After A Decent But Cheap Lense For Nikon D200 posted Sun Jul 2 2006 22:45:14 by EZYAirbus
Where Can I Buy A Nikon D800e In LAX, Help! posted Thu Apr 26 2012 12:46:32 by ghost77
Nikon D7000 Settings posted Thu Apr 12 2012 14:51:02 by richstuart
Nikon 3100 Color Alteration posted Tue Apr 10 2012 13:22:20 by g38
Cheap Camera Store In Malaysia posted Tue Mar 27 2012 00:58:10 by evall95
200 Vs 300mm Nikon Lense Dilemma-which To Buy? posted Tue Feb 28 2012 11:57:13 by skingjack
Nikon Coolpix S6200 good enough for a.net? posted Wed Feb 8 2012 15:32:38 by kann123air
Advice On Nikon D5100 Setting For Taxiway posted Fri Jan 13 2012 18:03:39 by ocean773