budget lens that will cover up to 200mm or 300mm

[matt_towells]

Hi,

 

I?m looking to get a budget lens that will cover up to either 200mm or even better

300mm to use with my Nikon D200 for mainly landscape work. Ideally if money

was no object i would get the Nikon 70 ? 200mm f2.8 but unfortunately i don?t

have a spare couple of grand floating around so need something that is good

enough to use for the foreseeable future until i have the funds to upgrade to the

above lens. I have no preference over if the lens is by Nikon or another brand i?m

just after a good sharp lens at a budget price. Can anyone make any

suggestions?

 

Thanks

[yann1]

Nikon70-300 f.4-5.6 G, (maybe $130 new), you can't find cheaper, however it's not great for landscape, excellent for portrait though. If you can shoot at f.11, it's nice. If quality is really critical, save for a second hand Nikon 70-200 f2.8, it's a dream lens.

[Peter_in_PA]

Define budget. You have a over-1000-dollar camera. I think the 70-300 VR would be the

thing for you. At this range, stick with Nikon if you can, imho.

[elliot1]

I suggest Nikon's 55-200mm (with or without VR).

 

I did a side-by-side test a while back (non VR version). The results were surprising to say the least. You can view the images here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=732856

 

If you don't need low light capabilities and faster focusing, the 55-200mm is a wonderful lens delivers stunning image quality.

 

Wouldn't you want more of a wide angle lens for landscapes?

[phototransformations]

Elliot,

 

I took a look at your comparison and wonder if you were using the same aperture settings with each lens (the DOF for the 200mm shot is not the same, and one set seems lighter than the other), and what those apertures were.

 

Thanks,

David

[elliot1]

David, the differences in brightness was partially due to the rapidly rising sun . The difference in bokeh is one of several differences between the lenses. You obviously cannot shoot the 55-200mm at f2.8. Sharpness at the point of focus is basically the same. Color and contrast are also pretty much the same.

 

If you click on DETAILS at the top of the screen after clicking on my original link above, you will see the details to the various shots and crop comparisons. After selecting an image, click on LARGER at the bottom right under the image to magnify it.

 

This is a link to the crop of the 200mm shots:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6045147&size=lg

 

I am not suggesting that the 55-200mm is a replacement for the 70-200mm (my favorite lens). But for what it costs (dirt cheap), its size (small) and weight (light), its overall value can't be beat if you don't need low light performance and faster focusing.

 

I owned the 70-300mm briefly and like many other found the IQ above 200mm only fair. The 55-200mm gives great results throughout its zoom range.

 

Both lenses are inexpensive enough that you can try them both and return or sell the one you don't like - eBay makes it easy!

[joe_a2]

David....I'll toss in a vote for the 55-200mm or the 70-300mm f/4-5.6D. This 70-300 is no longer made by Nikon (the 70-300VR replaced it), but you can find them on theBay from a reputable Seller for $175 or so. If you don't need 300mm, Elliot's 55-200mm is a fine compact choice.

 

What other lens(es) do you have for the D200?

[lex_jenkins]

Most superzooms will involve too many compromises for detail oriented photography such as landscapes: barrel distortion at the wide end; some pincushioning at the long end; soft wide open, diffraction limited stopped down enough for the DOF you might prefer for landscapes; lacking in ultimate resolution of fine detail at any aperture, even the sweet spot.

 

Check the tests on every site that conducts actual tests using some sort of standard, consistent methodology. Invariably, superzooms involve significant compromises. When they are described as satisfactory it's usually best to do so in relative, comparative terms rather than absolutes.

 

Read as many reviews on photozone.de as you can digest. Their tests are reliable, consistent, easy to interpret, seem to match real world results and they provide large image files for subjective perusals.

 

For my money, I'd stick with less focal range and get the best that fit within my budget. The 80-200/2.8D AF Nikkor would probably do the trick.

 

For really critical photography, if you don't mind swapping lenses, a handful of primes would give you even better results, especially AI or AI-S Nikkors.

 

But I'm basing these suggestions on your described goal of shooting mainly landscapes. If you actually prefer a wider range zoom because you expect to use it for general purpose photography, that's a whole 'nuther ballgame.

[matt_towells]

I have a Nikon 17 ? 55 f2.8 which I use for the majority of my work which I think is the best lens in the world. I have only recently got my D200 and lens which has zapped all my funds but feel I need something with a longer range that can tide me over until the bank manager lets me go shopping again.

[Jerry_]

And you can check the lens selection at

 

 

 

 

 

www.keh.com

 

 

 

 

to see what is available that will fit your budget. You may also think about a very good tripod ... at 300mm on a Nikon DSLR body, you won't have a lot of luck in holding the camera-lens steady for landscape work.

[trunfio]

I suggest strongly that you look at the Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM or the 70-200/2.8 HSM.

Both are excellent lenses. The 50-150 doesn't have the reach you say you need, but on

a D200 it's about 225mm and it's a nice lighter lens and it's super sharp. Since they have

a new version out, you can see if you can find one used cheap.

[titospna]

Comes close to 200mm: Nikkor 180mm AFD (f/2.8). Plenty sharp and fairly affordable; not the best autofocuser but not an issue if you are doing landscapes. If you haven't done so yet, allocate some serious money to a solid tripod & ballhead kit. Any lens you buy will be sharper for it. (You've probably heard it a million times already, just that most people ignore it and just keep buying lenses.) Let us know how you fare. Good luck and good light.

[oskar_ojala]

If you want quality on a budget, then consider the 180/2.8 or the 300/4. If you want convenience on a budget, then the 70-300. If budget is not an issue, then the 200-400/4 :-)

[peter_koralis]

My vote goes to the AFS 70-300mm VR which is an excellent performer when compared with the AFS 70-200mm VR for a lot less , plus it gives you the extra reach to 300mm.

 

Here is a good report on the lens:

 

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2008/03/nikkor-afs-70-300mm-f45-56g-vr.html

 

PK

[shuo_zhao]

>> "I suggest strongly that you look at the Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM or the 70-200/2.8 HSM."

 

>> "If you want quality on a budget, then consider the 180/2.8 or the 300/4."

 

If he's got the money for those lenses, he's probably better off getting the 80-200 f/2.8D.

 

If the budget is even tighter, the 70-300 VR or the 55-200 VR would be good choices. I personally have a 55-200 VR and use it on a D300, it's really a good lens for its price.

 

I've never tried the 70-300 4-5.6 G, but I haven't heard anything too good about it (beside the fact that it's dirt cheap). Obviously its lack of VR is not exactly a good thing, because VR makes a telephoto lens much more useful.

[trunfio]

I just got a used 50-150/2.8 for under 500 for myself for a tele walkaround. He said he

wanted a fast lens, so that's why I didn't suggest a slow one. My point is that you can get

fast lenses relatively cheaply. The 80-200 D is also an excellent choice at about 500, but

certainly doesn't focus as quickly as the Sigma HSM lenses.

[r_johnston]

When you decide which lens you want, on eBay, search for :

 

Cameta Camera. They carry new lenses with good prices,

and they also have good to excellent used lenses, with guarantees. They examine each lens, for condition, etc. Bought my D200, and three lenses from them. Well satisfied with them.

 

Cameta is a Photo Shop in upstate NY.

[carl_becker2]

IMHO the best quality for price value would be a used Nikkor AF-D 180mm, used AF-D Nikkor 300mm f4 or two ring AF-D 80-200mm f2.8. I consider all the above to be "keepers" which could be in the 300 to 600 dollar range.

If you don't mind manual focus then there are more choices and cheaper. Check with KEH.com. I have had very good luck with them.

[jordan_sampson]

If you really want to go cheap, then I'd suggest a 200 f/4 AI or AIS. I just bought one for $59 from KEH and I couldn't be happier. No distortion, unlike any of the zooms, and it's pretty sharp too.

 

There's also the 300 f/4.5 AI/AIS (there are several versions with/without ED and IF), and they can run pretty cheap too.