day day telephoto

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by pushkarrajsharma, Nov 6, 2011.

  1. Hi
    I am an amatuer owning Nikon d300s + 17-55mm f2.8 already .
    I am keen to buy a day-day telephoto not looking to spend much . For same reasons open to non-nikor lenses as well ( sigma , tamron etc )
    Can somebody guide me to it
    i need to shoot product , birds and very occasionally wildlife .A value for money is what I m looking for
    what i m looking for is a relatively fast lens but definitely not a 2.8 that i own and sharp is priority
  2. I used a Nikon 70~300 VR once for a couple of days, and I thought it to be a very good lens. I haven't bought it, because I was looking for a f/2.8 lens, but it is still on my list for if I ever have some extra money, because it's a lot lighter than a f/2.8 lens, optical quality is very good and the VR makes sure you can shoot relatively slow shutterspeeds.
    If you can pay it, that's the one I'd advise. If it's too expensive I'd go for a 3d party lens, but I don't know them, so can't advise you on them.
  3. 70-300 VR is a good option but keep in mind that between 200 and 300mm is not so sharp and is only f5.6 at 300mm.
    If you want something faster and definitely sharp I'm afraid that the only option is Nikon 300/4 AF-S that's a great lens but not inexpensive at all.
  4. The Tamron 70-300 VC USD doesn''t have the sharpness problem at the long end and it works perfect on my D700. It seems that VC is more effective as VR(but I didn't compare both lenses, but the VR in my other lenses).
  5. My Nikkor 70-300 VR works splendidly on a D90 (same quality sensor). I don't see a lot of "softness" at the long end myself, although I feel like you do need to go to f8 when you're there, or f11 if you can.
  6. Just to offer a different point of view, personally, my choices would be between:
    1. Fast and affordable: AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,190 USD (import)
    2. Slow, but with extended reach: AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR $1,569 USD (import)
    Since you already were discriminating enough to choose the speedy (and, pricey) AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G, why not pair it with the equally fast AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8? It doesn't have VR, or AF-S, but it's half the price of an AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR. Given the above, you can choose speed or reach. But if by, "day-day," you mean, "walk-around," both lenses are big and heavy, and may not be the most convenient choice for "everyday" use.
    Although I was lucky enough to find a refurbished 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I (which has excellent sharpness), I also own the 80-400mm Nikkor. I was happily surprised to find how good my 80-400mm actually was after some initial tests . . . it's stunningly sharp.
  7. I'm very happy with my AF Nikkor 70-300. The D7000 will give you all the speed you need, unless you feel the need for the very narrow DOF of a fast lens. Other than the DOF, I see no advantage in a fast lens. I also rarely come across a situation where that extremely narrow DOF is desirable.
  8. I agree with most everyone else that your best bet is a 70-300mm lens, if you don't need the f/2.8 across the range (and the 70-300mm goes out an extra 100mm, which isn't too shabby). As mentioned already, the Tamron 70-300 VC is a great lens that easily rivals the Nikon lens' capabilities. The new 25th anniversary version also has an ultrasonic motor (i.e. AF-S), so it focuses the same as your 17-55.
    I disagree that you need to look at an 80-200 f/2.8, 80-400, or 300mm f/4. If you don't need the speed of those lenses, the 70-300 still gives respectable images. Why waste your money and then have to lug around a huge lens, when you aren't going to use it for the advantages of that big glass?
  9. Walking around with 70-300(N or T) is much more pleasant than with a 80-200 or a 80-400, have them all three.....
  10. Please look also at Nikon 55-300 ... this lens has not been out that long, but some reviewers call the the best lens for the money you can get. I think is is around $420US.
  11. Bruce, the problem with the 55-300mm lens is that it is basically a 55-200mm VR, just extended to perform to 300mm. While it has decent image quality, it is cheap because it doesn't have true AF-S, so AF is relatively slow, can't be overridden, you can't adjust VR from Normal to Active, etc. I'd buy that Tamron anniversary lens 20 times before the Nikon, unless I was shooting somewhere that the 55-70mm range was very useful for me (although in that case, I'd probably just throw a 50mm on my camera, and take one step forward, or an 85mm, and take one step back).
  12. If you can get close enough to a bird, the AF-S 55-300mm DX should work OK in daylight....
    The lens seems to be sharp, and it is much lighter to carry around over the other Nikkor 80-200 or Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 lenses.
  13. Four lenses that fit the bill are, in order of increasing price:
    Nikon 55-300 VR
    Sigma 70-300 OS
    Tamron 70-300 VC
    Nikon 70-300 VR (can be gotten refurbished by Nikon for less)
    I had a Nikon 70-300 VR for 5 years and I recently traded it for the 55-300 VR because the 55-300 VR is much smaller and lighter which has become very important to me. The 55-300 VR is at least as sharp, but the 70-300 VR is better built and focuses a little faster.
    If size and weight is not important, my first choice would be the Nikon 70-300 VR either new or refurbished. My second choice would be the Tamron 70-300 VC.
  14. Fast and affordable: AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D $1,190​
    $1200 USD is affordable, ralph?
    some reviewers call the the best lens for the money you can get.​
    bruce, can you link to these reviews making this claim?
  15. Eric: The references would have come from Popular Photography or Shutterbug ... probably Shutterbug ... I am mobile and lucky to get off a post, but am having one of the assists see if he can locate the review. It is just an excellent lens for the money ...
  16. I'm going to give you a caveat: if you buy a 70-300 you'll almost certainly find it great for many things, but you'll be frustrated that it's not long enough for animal (especially bird) photos unless the animals are very co-operative. Hence why I sold my 70-300 in favour of a 200-500. So be sure that's really what you want before you flash the cash.
  17. Bruce, don't trust websites like Popular Photography, suuported by ad revenue, and filled with imbeciles, especially when they call the 55-300's faux AF-S autofocus "rapid and accurate." Apparently they've never shot with the 70-300mm VR. Even the usually over-the-top Ken Rockwell admits that the 55-300mm lens focuses slowly.
    Here is a more realistic review, by someone who's trusted, and doesn't have a vested interest in saying good or bad about Nikon, and isn't afraid to tell it like it is.
    Bjorn's naturfotograf website is also a pretty solid place to get the down-low on Nikon products. The 55-300 is solid optically, but in no way is it the best lens for the money. The 55-200 VR is half the price and has superior performance, The 70-300 for most camera buffs has enough performance increase and additional features that make it worth the increased cost, and the 50mm f/1.8 is $120 and destroys the optical quality of this consumer-grade lens, and most other lenses that cost less than $1,500.
  18. Reviews are a lot like seeking the facts and truth from news outlets ... go with one or two and you are not likely to get all the information you need. The point is ALL the reviews of this NEWER Nikon lens say it is sharp, relatively lightweight, and inexpensive ... the requirements the OP was looking for ... Just as an aside, one of our ops here just handed me a Pop Photo mag article about dangerous photography with pix and a story about how the US Navy, and also the USMC have been using Nikon gear exclsively for more than 40 years. It's a great article and great photos of Nikon 'in action' ... they can't be COMPLETE imbeciles at that magazine! One more aside ... TODAY is the 236th birthday of the United States Marine Corps ... all of the official photos are pretty much being shot NIKON. Sorry for going off thread .... esprit de Corps, pride ...etc., etc, sorry.

Share This Page