evie_webb Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I'm new at buying equipment and don't quite understand the "lingo" or terms. I have a Nikon D-100 that I love, but need a telephoto lense that isn't too large and awkward. Can you suggest a good one? Thank you for your help! Evie Joy Images Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Nikon 55-200mm. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_martin9 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Nikon 70-210 F4-5.6 is an excellent lens. The non-D can be had for under 100.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Before we offer info that may or may not be helpful, what do you want this lens to do for you, Evie, and how much do you have budgeted? There are many possible options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Isn't "need a telephoto lense that isn't too large and awkward" a pretty good description of her needs? I would think the 55-200mm would fit the bill perfectly. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Well, a 85mm/f1.8 is a very good and relatively small telephoto also, perhaps great for portraits. Unless we know the usage and price range, at least it would be very difficult for me to provide a suggestion. Moreover, I don't mean to sound offensive, but I probably wouldn't consider the 55-200 DX, or any lens with a plastic lens mount, a "good" lens. To me, that is more like an economical lens; it may be ok as long as you are not very demanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_martin9 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 DOes every discussion have to be complex? I think a VERY simply question was asked here LOL. Despite the COMPLEXITY of all of us, this is a great place to get information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 180mm f/2.8 is a great lens and very hand-holdable and well made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I have the 55-200 dx and also the 70-200 2.8 VR. I have done side-by-side controlled tests and while hard to believe, the picture quality with regards to color, sharpness and contrast of the 55-200 is every bit as good as the 70-200. Hard to believe, and quite frankly, had I not done the test myself, I would not believe it. Obviously, the 55-200 is in no way a replacment of the 70-200, but for the money, it is an exceptional value and in that zoom range, it is probably the best available - I had a 70-300 and didn't like it. Being that the lens has a 5 year warranty when purchased new from an authorized Nikon dealer, you can buy it with confidence. I always recommend to try a lens out before buying it or buying it from a store that accepts returns if you don't like it. Good Luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I have pointed out in another thread that for small-sensor DSLRs, I would be reluctant to buy any long lens that is max f5.6 without the benefit of VR, and that is one of the problems with the new 18-135mm DX. From around 135mm and up, if you are restricted to f5.6, you either have to shoot with plenty of light, high ISO, a tripod, or accept some camera shake. If you are a very casual shooter, you might be perfectly happy with using ISO 400+ most the time. In that case you could be very happy with a 55-200mm f5.6 with a plastic mount or a 70-210 f5.6, but I know I won't be happy at all. As some people put it, the difference between a 200mm/f2.8 and a 200mm/f5.6 is that the former is better at f2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 to photograph what? The180mm f/8D AF-Nikkor is a very fine general pupose medium telephoto lens : excellent for portraits and some sports, and landscapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Elliot, thanks for your post on the 55-200mm. I get tired of the endless talk of extremely high end equipment on this forum. Many posters feel that anything less than the D2 series cameras, and the f2.8 high end zooms, just aren't worth the money. I beg to differ! Just because a lens has a plastic mount doesn't mean it is junk. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg s Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 If you're looking for something with the range of a 300mm prime, then a used Nikon 300mm f/4 AF is well worth a look. I bought mine for $360 and it is probably the best value of any piece of equipment I have purchased. If you desire to get some extra 'length', a Kenko Pro 300 1.4x teleconvertor will turn it into a 420mm f/5.6 and it is still very sharp. -Greg- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Dave, One of these days when I have a moment I will post side-by-side pictures of identical images taken with the $200 55-200 and the $1500 70-200. Quality can be had for a small investment. Ultimately if anyone has any doubts that an inexpensive lens is not good, just look at what you can get for about $125 - the Nikon 50mm 1.8! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Dave and Elliott, we have gone over this issue a few times before. If you are only shooting at f5.6, just about any lens is going to give you good results. People pay $1500 for a 70-200mm/f2.8 because they need to use it at f2.8, fast AF, or VR, not because it is "better" than a 200mm max f5.6 at 5.6. Just take the 300mm/f4 vs. f2.8 as an example. I have one each and while the f2.8 may be a tiny bit better than the f4 at f4, the difference is very small. The reason people pay $4000 for an f2.8 and deal with its weight instead of $1000 for an f4 is that they want that one extra stop. If you keep arguing that the f4 version is just as good in the aperture range that they overlap so that there is no point to pay 4 times the cost, you do not understand why people need and buy fast lenses. It is like saying if I go no more than 30 miles an hour, a $100,000 Porsche is not much better than a $2000 old used car. So until Evie explains what the intended applications are, it is hard to provide a recommendation. For example, the current thread on shooting gymnastics is a very good example why people need f1.8 telephoto lenses: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JMT7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 To some among us, especially those who still shoot slow films, performance at shallow apertures is the difference between getting the image or not. Even though my battle axe of an 80-200 is probably sharper at f5.6 than wide open, I wouldn't have paid $1400 for it if I only ever shot at f5.6. Conversely, sharp as some consumer zooms may be, I have yet to find one that could keep up with my needs. So, no matter how much cheaper than $1400 it might be, it would be worthless to me. We each have our own needs and the most important thing is to find the gear that lets you do what you need to. Good luck to all.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony_bez Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Shun, I was not be happy with the 85mm f1.8 so returned the lens and purchased a f1.4D. Needless to say now I am very happy! I just point this out as I agree we all have different needs. Dave, 55-200? f5.6 would be of no use to me whatsoever, that is why people recommend faster lenses. Evie, You will not get a meaningful answer until people know your budget, and your subject matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_fu Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I use both the 180/2.8 and the 70-210/4(constant aperture) on my D100. I love both of them. The sharpness, AF speed, the size and weight of the two are very similar. I use the 180 in my house to shoot one kid and use the 70-210/4 in family outing. Some info about the 70/210/4: http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_zoom-telephoto.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_p1 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I can't give a better answer to evie webb who posted a really generic question whitout a minimal reference to the intended use. Well I have an old 70-210 f4AF which is very decent and a 180 ED Ais which is very sharp at f5,6 but difficult to use on a D100 for lack of meter. What really bothers me is that I can't see the alligator in ERIK LOZA shot, what is going on here? where is the beast? Sorry if I sound stupid. Marco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now