Best telephoto within $350 range.

[gen_b.]

Some cursory research has shown me that most of the preferred extreme telephoto lenses are in the $600+-$1,000+

range...but I'd still love to explore taking photos of airplanes, birds, backyard animals, insects, the moon,

etc. I have not been able to get close enough with my 50mm, for obvious reasons.

 

Is the Nikkor 70-200mm a strong choice, or can I get closer for the money? Are adapters and teleconverters a

worthy consideration?

 

I would appreciate any and all information that you all could provide.

[SCL]

Best with exactly what characteristics? If you're shooting in bright light, a relatively small aperture will suffice, but not if you're shooting in dim light. For instance, I often use a 400mm f6.3 manual lens for daytime wildlife photography...and yes it cost less than the amount you stated, but it is not manufactured by Nikon. It is a prime lens, not a zoom lens. I've also used one of Nikon's zooms which covers this range, and while it has automated features, it doesn't produce better pictures. I might mention, most birding pictures need at least 400mm, preferably around 600mm to fill the screen...what you're proposing is way way short. Same for moon shots. Insects, OTOH are usually shot with macro lenses (60-105mm) which are specially designed and corrected to produce a relatively flat field at much closer shooting distances then normal lenses of similar focal lengths. You really need to determine exactly what you want to shoot and in what conditions to help you make a cost effective selection...one lens won't do it all for you and produce the best results.

[Two23]

A Tokina or Sigma 400mm f5.6 (not a zoom) will do most of what you want, but not the insects. Note these lenses will not autofocus on the cheaper Nikon digital cameras.

 

 

Kent in SD

[tommyinca]

Start with a good base lens. If you then add cheaper extension or convertor on top on that, you could still end up

with useable pictures. If your base lens is weak, extending it will just magnifer distortion and end up with poor image.

 

For $350, if I were you, I would look for a used 300mm f4 ED IF. A solid 300mm lens that will do well if you later on

add a 1.4X teleconverter , making it into a 420mm f5.6. AF should fine if you use a Kenko 1.4XTC or manual focus

with a cheaper nikon TC14B. Super tele are a lot more then $1000. IMHO, this is properly as far $300-$400 could

go without getting lucky and find a used gem for cheap.

[leicaglow]

Definitely a 300mm f/4 AF IF ED is a superb lens for the money. Very affordable and sharp.

[elliot1]

The 70-200mm greatly exceeds your price range.

 

My suggestion if you are willing to use a zoom rather than a telephoto is to start with is the 70-300mm ED. You can pick one up used for about $150. As you have more funds available, you will likely be able to sell it for you paid for it and apply the funds to your upgrade.

 

Tommy's suggestion for the 300mm is an excellent one. It delivers excellent IQ and works well with the Kenko 1.4x.

[daniel_goh4]

70-300 VR used is probably the way to go. What you lose in f stop you gain in VR by being able to shoot at about 1/100 and still end up with majority of shots well taken.

 

New costs about USD450 now, but you can probably pick a clearance unit up with so many electronic stores closing down.

[bill_keane2]

Get a used (you have no choice for new on these) Sigma 300 or 400mm HSM/APO.

 

These will work on any Nikon, and they are VERY sharp.<div></div>

[sam_taha]

I recently got the AF-S 70-300mm G VR and I'm very happy with it. At 300mm it's quite a

strong zoom (equiv to 450mm on 35mm). It's also very sharp. I think the price is quite

reasonable and it's it's quite compact, epecially compared to the 200/2.8 monster. My only

disappointment is the VR, which isn't performing as well as on my 18-200mm VR for some

reason. Maybe at 300mm it's limited, I don't know. But overall it's a great lens with great

optics. I'd still highly recommend it.