Looking for for a very good 300+ lens

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Looking for for a very good 300+ lens

(31 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

noxin

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 246
offline

I'm planning on getting a 300+ lens (for a FX camera), but need help on what to get. My budget is under $2Kish US. I will use it for everything a long lens can be used for: surfers, sports, wildlife, and anyting else I can think of.

From what I have read the Nikon 300 F4 is probably my best bet and I would get it if it was a VR lens. I feel once you get in the longer lenses the VR is more important, but not necessarily a deal breaker. Even with the 1.4 tele it gives a great image and becomes 420 @ F5.6 (still decent). The other Nikon choice is the 80-400, but it's slow focusing probaly rules it out. Sigma makes a few lenses too (with and without VR), but I don't know much about them. They have the 50-500, 100-300, 120-400, 150-500, it's almost too many choices. Are there any reviews on the new 50-500?

I know there is no golden lens in this area, but maybe you can recommend which ones are supposed to be the best of the bunch, or which ones to stay away from.

Thanks for your help
-Nox

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

In terms of pure image quality, the 300mm F4 AF-S with or without a TC. Most of the Sigma lenses are okay, but they tend to get soft on the long end, which kind of negates the point of having such a long focal range. I've heard that the Sigma 100-300mm F4 is nice, but again it has no VR/OS.

To make a proper suggestion we need to know what you are shooting. Sports, wildlife, something else? In any case, you'll want a good tripod, or at least a monopod, with lenses that are 300mm + in order to get the best results.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

noxin - don't be fooled by the slow AF on N80-400, it's only slow for those who never used it. if You know this lens limits You can achieve excellent results:

taken with this lens on d90 - almost none post processing, as I was in a hurry to upload it
anyway, it's faster than bigma
as for 300/4 it's a great lens and works great with TC, but when You want to use it on tripod You need to replace the tripod foot. get the one produced by Kirk Photo (same for 80-400) and You will get amazing piece of glass for less than You could imagine

another options are:
- Sigma 100-300/f4 - great lens
- Nikon 70-300VR - good up to 200mm
- tamron 200-500 - excellent IQ, and this one is slooooowwww
- Nikon 70-200/2.8+TC17 - great combo, very fast and quite affordable nowadays (get one from craigslist)

Posted 3 years ago #
astrophotographer

preferred member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 136
offline

Are you willing to buy used? And is weight an issue? I'd suggest a used Nikon 300mm f2.8 D. Used can get one used under $2000 (KEH has one currently at $1670). The AF is not as fast as AF-S but on my D300 it's pretty good. Nikon's TCs won't work but Kenko's will. I've used it with the 2x with good results. So you can get to 600 mm if you need it.

Oddly, I just upgraded to a used 300mm AF-S. And plan to sell my 300 f2.8 on Craigslist soon.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

adamz said:
as for 300/4 it's a great lens and works great with TC, but when You want to use it on tripod You need to replace the tripod foot. get the one produced by Kirk Photo (same for 80-400) and You will get amazing piece of glass for less than You could imagine

That's kind of a deceptive statement. You only need to replace the tripod foot for the 300mm F4 AF-S if you plan on shooting at low shutter speeds (1/60s or less), otherwise it is fine.

Posted 3 years ago #
Sandpiper

senior member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63
offline

PB PM said:
To make a proper suggestion we need to know what you are shooting. Sports, wildlife, something else? In any case, you'll want a good tripod, or at least a monopod, with lenses that are 300mm + in order to get the best results.

PB PM has given me some good tips privately in my consideration of a long lens. I think in addition to what shooting, you need to seriously consider how. Two weeks ago I was shooting Sand Hill Cranes. When not flying, they moved very slowly, and a tripod, no VR, prime + TC, and low ISO would have worked great.

Now the situation has changed. I will more likely be shooting from a boat. While shooting, I will also be operating the boat, trying to stay out of the rocks and keep it pointed in the needed general direction. I think here a tripod would be almost useless; I need to stand, hand hold the lens, move with the boat to stabilize the lens, maybe tracking a flying bird. For this I may need to give up on the highest IQ lens in preference for one with zoom, autofocus, and image stabilization. YMMV.

The following picture I took monday from the boat. The tern was doing circles, and here flew at me. In this photo it was between to bimini supports which blocked much of the photo. I am still trying to figure out what would work for me.

Taken with D300s, f 7.1, aperture priority, 300mm, 1/800s, 400 ISO, 70-300mm AFS VR zoom.

Posted 3 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

I'd go with either the AF-S 300mm F4 or a used AF 300mm 2.8. I have owned both and they produce quality results with relative ease.

The photo above would be dramatically sharper if you open up your aperture a little and bring your shutter speed closer to 1/2000 or higher.

Posted 3 years ago #
noxin

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 246
offline

Thanks for your comments. I've been leaning closer to the Nikon 300/F4, with the Sigma 100-300 hanging in there too. If one had VR/OS I would consider it over the other. I hadn't considered a used 300/2.8 but it makes sense to throw that in the ring of choices. With that in the consideration I'm also second guessing the need for the AFS since it's a long tele, I would think most of the shots would be near the infinity focus so it probably wouldn't need to motor very much to be in focus. Do you guys with the long lenses find this is the case, or is your focus often throughout the focus range?

Posted 3 years ago #
Sandpiper

senior member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
The photo above would be dramatically sharper if you open up your aperture a little and bring your shutter speed closer to 1/2000 or higher.

SquamishPhoto, I'll bite! What is your reasoning? Do you think I need the high shutter speed because both I and the birds are moving, and can't stop the motion otherwise?

My reasoning for stopping down to f7.1 was to try and gain a bit more depth of field to help increase the depth of focus a bit, in concern that the D300 really has a hard time tracking focus with all the movement.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Once you reach 1/800s you're freezing motion of your subject, but you need higher shutter speeds to insure any motion created by you or your equipment are also frozen. If you are shooting from a good tripod it doesn't matter as much. To me, it just looks like you didn't nail the focus. When shooting moving birds you really need to learn to track them properly to nail focus.

Posted 3 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Sandpiper said:
SquamishPhoto, I'll bite! What is your reasoning? Do you think I need the high shutter speed because both I and the birds are moving, and can't stop the motion otherwise?

My reasoning for stopping down to f7.1 was to try and gain a bit more depth of field to help increase the depth of focus a bit, in concern that the D300 really has a hard time tracking focus with all the movement.

The shot shown below was taken wide open on my old 300mm f4 with the shutter speed set to 1/3200:

Just go out and experiment with you camera and see what the results are like and then you can just judge for yourself how you should be using your camera and gear.

Posted 3 years ago #
kelly7898

new member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2
offline

noxin said:
I'm planning on getting a 300+ lens (for a FX camera), but need help on what to get. My budget is under $2Kish US. I will use it for everything a long lens can be used for: surfers, sports, wildlife, and anyting else I can think of.

From what I have read the Nikon 300 F4 is probably my best bet and I would get it if it was a VR lens. I feel once you get in the longer lenses the VR is more important, but not necessarily a deal breaker. Even with the 1.4 tele it gives a great image and becomes 420 @ F5.6 (still decent). The other Nikon choice is the 80-400, but it's slow focusing probaly rules it out. Sigma makes a few lenses too (with and without VR), but I don't know much about them. They have the 50-500, 100-300, 120-400, 150-500, it's almost too many choices. Are there any reviews on the new 50-500?

I know there is no golden lens in this area, but maybe you can recommend which ones are supposed to be the best of the bunch, or which ones to stay away from.

Thanks for your help
-Nox

Thank you for the post.
_________________
*Spam link Removed* DO NOT POST AGAIN Kelly or you will be banned!

Posted 3 years ago #
Sandpiper

senior member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 63
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
Just go out and experiment with you camera and see what the results are like and then you can just judge for yourself how you should be using your camera and gear.

Squamish, good advice. There is no substitute for practice and experimenting. I was out chasing what I think was an otter, when two geese popped up. I was unprepared, and had wrong settings for a flying bird. But did manage to capture this.

</p>

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Learning to track flying birds is a challenge, and the toughest part is that each type of bird has different flight patterns. What works for geese does not work with hawks. It takes time, and even though I have been shooting birds for some time now I still have trouble sometimes. One of the most important things to do is watch the birds you want to photograph before you even start shooting them, learn how they fly, and it will make tracking and thus photographing them much easier.

Posted 3 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Nice shot, piper. Sometimes the best photos happen out of nowhere when you were looking for something entirely different. And PB PM has some great advice about tracking birds. Patient observation without the camera running is a great way to learn behaviors in general and gives you a sense of where you should be and when you'll most likely get the shot that you are looking for. I find it also helps your experience the natural habitat that you are in a little more consciously instead of always having your eyes in the viewfinder waiting for something to happen.

Posted 3 years ago #
JorPet

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 261
offline

While the 80-400 is not the fastest focusing lens, it can work fine.

Here is an image using the 80-400. Relatively slow shutter speed for skiing, but it is fine. Had the day not been a dark overcast things would have been even better. You can't tell from the picture after Flickr is done with it, but you can clearly read the name tag on the original and can almost read the skis in the goggle reflection.

Posted 3 years ago #
JorPet

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 261
offline

Sorry, lost the EXIF data on the picture above. Here it is:

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D700
Image Date: 2010:04:11 21:04:46
Focal Length: 230.0mm (35mm equivalent: 230mm)
Aperture: f/7.1
Exposure Time: 0.0013 s (1/800)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Auto
Light Source: Unknown
Flash Fired: No
Color Space: sRGB

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

Good old 80-400 VR is very good lens for the price.
If you compare it to other Nikon tele lens for example 70-300 does not have the range or IQ, 70-200 or 200-400 have better IQ but lacks the range and are way more expensive.
I wonder why so many people hate it. I suppose new AF-S model will be a winner.

Posted 3 years ago #
JorPet

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 261
offline

One thing I have noticed with the 80-400, the D700 body (and D3) will focus it way faster than my old D70s. So body makes a difference with this lens.

My preference would be the 70-200/f2.8, and that will probably be my next purchase, but it is pricey. That lens with a TC 1.7 would be my preferred skiing combination.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

Of course it does, D700, D300 and D3 have much more powerful AF motor and better AF system so they will focus much faster.
Nothing matches F5 though; the motor on that beast was capable of destroying lower quality lenses.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

mb - there's a lot of ppl who think it's crap because it doesn't have AF-S, and it requires much better shooting discipline in order to get more keepers; I love this lens, in bright light it performs (IQ) almost as my 70-200vr+TC17 combo, and it's smaller and lighter on one hand and has longer range on the other. at this point I will probably have less problems with selling 70-200combo than getting rid of the 80-400; nevertheless, it's so true that this lens needs update, as it would perform much better with vrII and AF-S

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

It really depends on your subject. If you are shooting people the old AF-D lenses without the SWM motor are fine, but when it comes to shooting wildlife you can scare them off with the body focus motor.

Posted 3 years ago #
noxin

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 246
offline

Thanks again for all the feedback. It's all very helpful with a lot of information and real experineces. Although not the initial intent of the thread, I do appreciate sharing teniques for using a lens like this too.

As of tonight I'm thinking the faster focus is probably more important than the VR for action shots like sports and wildlife (do you agree?).

That being said, there is some good evidence proveded for the 80-400.

JorPet, I made the same upgrade as you D70 --> D700. I have the 80-200 AF ED lens and it still feels slow. Do you know how that focus would compare with the 80-400? Why do you think you would prefere the 70-200 with the converter over the 80-400?

After doing some searchin on the web I started considering the Sigma 120-300 2.8 (and the Sigma 300 2.8). I know it's over my budget by a decent amount, but a used one could be less of a hurdle. Any word on these? I think the 120-300 with a teleconverter could be a good combo.

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

Which version of the 80-200mm AF-D do you have, there are 3 80-200mm F2.8D ED lenses. Is it the currently selling two ring version? If so it is known for being one of the fastest telephoto AF-D lenses in terms of screw driven auto focus, much faster than the 80-400mm VR from what I have seen other people report.

Posted 3 years ago #
noxin

preferred member
Joined: Nov '09
Posts: 246
offline

I believe mine is the 80-200 AF-D currently sold. It's about 19 years old and looks like the one on the BH site.

Posted 3 years ago #