D200 and 18-200VR... Next Lens 70-300VR or ???

[rixhobbbies]

All,

 

I have been thinking about either complimenting the 18-200VR with a longer

zoom for nature photography, or getting two lenses to replace the 18-200VR.

 

The problem is, Nikon doesn't have any medium-wide to normal zooms with VR.

So, it might make sense to add a lens to compliment the 18-200VR.

 

For nature photography (birds and critters) I would want a bit more sharpness

at 200mm and more reach, probably at least 300mm.

 

I have been looking at the new 70-300mm VR lens. It seems to get good

reviews. Does anyone know if this lens is sharper in practice at 100mm on up

than the 18-200VR?

 

70-300 would be a good focal range to have as a walkaround lens for nature

photography. I know I want VR. The reviews on the 80-400 don't seem to

indicate that it would be a good choice, though it does have the extra reach.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Regards,

 

Rick

[ShunCheung]

Rick, someone else already gave you the same advice yesterday. For any wildlife photography, 300mm is at best the starting point. If you get a 70-300mm, you'll want an even longer lens in no time. I would start with a 300mm/f4 AF-S, which gives you the option of adding a TC-14E to make it a 420mm/f5.6. However, if you are really serious about nature photography, eventually you'll want a 500mm or 600mm, but that could be a few years down the road.

 

In nature photography, we fight for every stop of light. A lens that begins at f4 is going to have some big advantages over a slow 300mm/f5.6, and a 300mm/f2.8 would, of course, be even better.

 

There is a Nature Forum here in photo.net. If you ask this question there, you'll likely get more specific answers. Of course, the same question has already been asked before, so you might also want to check the archives there.

[marike1]

A Nikon AF-S 300 f/4 will give you significantly better images than any 70-300 lens, and

the absence of VR is not really an issue since most of the time you'll want to shoot with

this lens locked down on a good tripod. You can handhold this lens for things like birds in

flight, in which case you'll want a fairly fast shutter speed, again negating the need for VR.

 

And as Shun pointed out, this lens with a 1.4 TC will give you more reach with little

degradation in image quality. A TC is not really an option with a 70-300 lens.

 

One of the very best deals in the Nikon lineup, the AF-S 300 f/4, is around 950 USD, if you

don't mind grey market lenses.

[klix]

Getting a longer lens vs. replacing the 18-200mm are two different things. First you have to decide what you want to do.

 

1) If you want a longer lens, then IMO, in general, the longer the better, as your wallet allows. My longest lens these days is a 300mm/4 AFS, and I have a TC-14e. I used to have a chipped 600mm/5.6. However, I don't really do a heck of a lot of wildlife anymore (that required a 600mm), so I sold that lens, along with the gimbal head, and the large backpack, etc...

 

2) If you want a replacement, then your best bet for your D200 would be the 17-55mm and a 70-200mm. I used to have an 18-200mm (had it for about 2 months) then sold it. But note that I already had a 17-35mm and 70-200mm to cover that range. (For the mid range, I have a small but excellent 24-85mm/3.5-4.5 G AFS).

 

KL

[rixhobbbies]

If I were to replace the one lens with 2, it would be for noticably better optics to off-set the convenience of the 18-200. It would also be to all me to get a little more reach plus be able to use a TC if I needed.

 

Reviewing my budget, assuming I sold the 18-200 VR for $750, I would have about $1500 total budget for the set of lenses or about $750 or so for a single longer lens.

 

The 300mm f4 looks great but at $1100 it's a bit more than I wanted to spend. I guess I had the flexibility of a zoom in mind.

 

Also, my nature photography has been done on walking trails mostly, so my shots will be hand-held (hence the desire for VR).

 

Rick

[Dieter Schaefer]

Rather than typing the same things again: I second everything Shun and Markus wrote. I went down that road with a 300/4 AF-S and will like face the decision at one point to add something even longer; like the 500/4 or 600/4; or get a 300/2.8 with TC20E.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Replacing the 18-200 with two lenses and stay in your budget (and with Nikon lenses) would be possible with a 18-70 and the 70-300. As amply pointed out here and elsewhere, a zoom and an extender is generally not a good idea (would exclude the 200-400 with 1.4x though but then you are looking at 5K+).

[ShunCheung]

Rick, I am not sure that this is a great option, but just consider it as food for thought.

 

There is an earlier 300mm/f4 AF that uses 82mm front filters and is not AF-S. A used one should be below $500. That can get your started. The main downside is that you cannot add a TC-14E to it and maintain AF. You can use a Kenko 1.4x AF teleconverter to it or use a Nikon one for manual focus. It wouldn't be my first choice but is an option.

 

If you are really interested in wildlife photography, you'll need big lenses and it will be expensive. On the other hand, you can shoot landscape and macro with fairly inexpensive lenses.

[dean.wette]

I also have the 18-200 VR, and recently supplemented it with a AF-S 300/4. I was in the camera store today and tried out the TC17E II, which makes it a 500/6.7 and keeps the AF, so I plan to get this as well. Now I didn't get the lens for nature, but for motorsports. I originally considered the 70-300 VR and am now really glad I went for the 300/4. I paid $950 for a very slightly used one with the Kirk tripod collar. That's about $400 more than a new 70-300 VR, but I think well worth the extra expense.

 

Having f/4 at 300mm with a really sharp lens sure seems like it beats having a f/5.6 lens with VR that gets soft at 300mm.

[bruce_margolis]

Rick, it sounds like you want a 'walkaround' nature lens but your 18-200 is just not long enough. The 70-300 is a great option but I suspect too short and you may not want to be fiddling with a TC, especially if it means missing a shot.

 

Also, it sounds like you won't be using a tripod. That pretty much makes VR a must so consider the 80-400. Of course if you are going to shoot wildlife, you can never have a lens too long.

 

If possible, why not try renting some lenses to get a better feel for quality and focal length.

[rixhobbbies]

Yeah, I'm trying for walk-around. I know my budget is limiting, though.

 

Also, I have a TeleVue NP101 with a 540mm fl on an alt/az mount and tripod that I plan to try out with the D200. They make a body mount for this. It's a telescope but I've seen some pretty decent pictures taken with it.

 

I'll look at the 300mm lens as well.

 

Thanks!

 

Rick

[work-page]

For a walk around lens, I'd seriously consider sticking to zooms. The fewer you have to swap lenses because you need a different focal length, the less dustbunnies you'll have on the sensor. Cleaning a sensor outdoors in wind/dust isn't what I'd consider ideal.. Unless you're going to carry two cameras of course..

[marcofrancardi]

I use a 18-200VR and a 300/f4 with a TC1.4.

Of course, they need two different kind of management, but I think it is a good compromise to cover most of my humble needs for casual nature's photography. Slower long zooms would be really useless, cause I already have aberration issues on my D200.

[rixhobbbies]

Is the 300mm lens the Nikon AF 300 f/4.0 ED? Is this the correct model? I believe there is another above this that is VR, but my budget won't allow this atm.

 

I really like the idea of the 80-400 Nikon zoom, but that is cost prohibitive as well. Are there any other recommendations from other manufacturers for a comparable zoom? Or a comparable 300 or 400mm prime that will give good, sharp results?

 

Regards,

 

Rick

[dean.wette]

Before I bought my AF-S 300 f/4 (the 300 VR is a 2.8 and a lot more expensive), I considered the Sigma 100-300mm f/4. It has had very positive reviews and can be found new for around $900. I ultimately didn't get it because the Nikon prime is considered by most a superior lens, will have higher resale value, and the Sigma overlaps the 18-200 I have and the 70-200 VR that I would like to get later.

[Jerry_]

How sharp do you need?

 

 

 

This image was taken with the AF 80-400mm VR Nikkor, on a Nikon D80 body. (Aircraft fly a bit faster than birds :) __)<div></div>

[rixhobbbies]

Nice pic! What focal length was the zoom at?

[Jerry_]

Thanks!

 

 

 

The jet was 'shot' at 165mm, with a shutter speed of 1/400 @ f13.

[Jerry_]

And, if you please, you may check

 

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5568271

 

 

 

 

for how the AF 80-400mm VR lens works on a non-flying bird.

[rixhobbbies]

I've done a lot of reading up on the 80-400 VR. It looks like this will be the direction I go in. I just need to save up some.

 

I like the image quality of the 300 prime but I have other needs for this lens and a zoom fits them much better.

 

Thank to everyone for their feedback! I wonder though if I will find the 80-400 so nice that I'll want to end up replacing the 18-200 anyway. I guess that's the nature of the hobby, though. And a big part of the fun!

 

Regards,

 

Rick