Telephoto Lenses

[William W]

Aside, for clarity:

I quit DPreview soon after joining. Caustic. I find CIC to be MUCH more welcoming.

That's unfortunate.

For clarity, my comment was simply to indicate a strength of CiC, not to stimulate a discussion of Forum Websites.

WW

[paintingwithlight]

Aside, for clarity:
For clarity, my comment was simply to indicate a strength of CiC, not to stimulate a discussion of Forum Websites.

WW

I understand and agree and don't want to derail/hijack this thread.

I lurked on CIC for a while before I joined. I noticed that there were at times references to "other" sites but few posters chose to name the "other" sites. It seems like good manners. Perhaps my manners were poor when I named the site, but I felt that my comment was truthful.

Michael

[Dave Humphries]

i think that everyone that owns a nikon camera should a nikkor 18-200vr lens
its a great all rounder and for the money i dont think you can get better, they go for a couple of hundred on ebay

It is a good all rounder, I agree Kaz.

I have an earlier version of this lens (dating from 2008-9), much like those on eBay I'm sure.

I find one thing that spoils it is "zoom creep", where the angle of view changes when the camera is aimed (even slightly) up or down e.g. between shots.

I tried the rubber band trick, but found it didn't stay in place well enough, however, I now have a (wider, thicker) silicone band (actually one intended for attaching filter gels to flash heads*), and that does stay in place, although it makes the zoom quite stiff to change.

* very similar ones are sold for lens use too, perhaps that would be a happier medium.

For Natasha - for longer reach; I have the Nikon 70-300mm, it was the best IQ I could afford at the time I got it, since back then, the alternatives from third parties were not as prolific, of high enough quality, nor such longer focal lengths s the slew of 150-600s now available.

Cheers, Dave

[tasha96251]

Thank you so much, all of you for the excellent advice! I've been hunting for a lens based on all the tips you gave me. And as much as I would love to buy the new Nikon 70-300mm lens, there's no way I'll ever be able to afford it. (Also,I need to check again, but I'm quite sure that the new AF-P lens isn't compatible with my camera).
However, I've found two third party lenses with the same focal length, one is by Tamron and the other is by Sigma. According to the dealer I spoke to, the only difference between these two is the warranty period of which Tamron is offering a 4 year warranty as opposed to the 2 year warranty that Sigma offers.
The only other alternative I have, is to settle for the 55-200mm telephoto lens by Nikon. And even that, is more expensive than the two lenses I've mentioned above. Do you think it's worth it to compromise on the brand and buy the lens from another company? I checked, and they're both compatible with my camera.

[rpcrowe]

Thank you so much, all of you for the excellent advice! I've been hunting for a lens based on all the tips you gave me. And as much as I would love to buy the new Nikon 70-300mm lens, there's no way I'll ever be able to afford it. (Also,I need to check again, but I'm quite sure that the new AF-P lens isn't compatible with my camera).
However, I've found two third party lenses with the same focal length, one is by Tamron and the other is by Sigma. According to the dealer I spoke to, the only difference between these two is the warranty period of which Tamron is offering a 4 year warranty as opposed to the 2 year warranty that Sigma offers.
The only other alternative I have, is to settle for the 55-200mm telephoto lens by Nikon. And even that, is more expensive than the two lenses I've mentioned above. Do you think it's worth it to compromise on the brand and buy the lens from another company? I checked, and they're both compatible with my camera.

Tasha...
I have no direct experience with the Tamron or Sigma telephoto lenses. However, I have heard very good things about the Tamron 70-300mm lenses:

The Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF
This lens gets 4.5 stars out of 5 stars on the B&H Website:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...2C106232507093
This lens costs only $149.00 at B&H (prices will vary with India but, should give you an idea of the relative pricing of these lenses) BUT... and this is a BIG BUT... The lens doesn't have any kind of stabilization. I would definitely want stabilization in a lens of this focal length.

NOTE: Stabilization in Tamron lens is designated by VC, In Sigma lenses it is OS and in Nikon it is VR

The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Lens for Nikon AF-D runs $199 but, also doesn't have stabilization...

The Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II Lens runs $146 at B&H
Compatible with Nikon DX cameras and Nikon FX cameras with DX crop mode
This lens does have stabilization
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...l/prm/alsVwDtl

The stabilized 70-300mm Tamron: Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon runs $449
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._4_5_6_Di.html

[Dave Humphries]

Do you think it's worth it to compromise on the brand and buy the lens from another company? I checked, and they're both compatible with my camera.

In a word, no, I personally wouldn't.

When I started out with a DSLR (D5000) in 2009, I bought "body only" and added a Sigma 18-250mm because of the extra length and cheaper price compared to the Nikon 18-200mm. However over several months I proved it had an AF compatibility problem with the D5000, eventually I managed to get a swap from the camera shop and added some money to get the 18-200mm.

If your D5200 has a feature called "AF micro-adjust", you may avoid the issue I did (sharpest part of image was behind the bit of image I had placed the single focus point on), my D5000 didn't have the feature, my current D7100 does, but I've always bought only Nikon lenses since then.

However, others have been happy with their choices of third party lenses.

Difficult to predict ....

I can't speak for the 55-200mm, I've never used one.

HTH, Dave

[xpatUSA]

The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Lens for Nikon AF-D runs $199 but, also doesn't have stabilization...

I own the more expensive stabilized version:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lens...-dg-os/review/
.
Took a supermoon shot with it recently and it did quite well.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi again Natasha,

Ted's quote of Richard's post alerted me to something else I missed above ...

The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Lens for Nikon AF-D runs $199 but, also doesn't have stabilization...

I'd also vote that stabilisation; "VR" in Nikon language (or "IS", "VC" or "OS" in others) is worth having.

But to my point ....
If a Nikon lens says "AF-D" in the spec, that means it requires a camera body mounted Focus motor to Auto-Focus and the D5200 does not have one.

As this is a Sigma lens though, "AF-D" might not mean that, in fact one link I found on B&H with that wording does say it has one, so why they say "for AF-D" is most (annoyingly) confusing, not sure if the 'error' is B&H or Sigma's.

Be careful, especially if buying an older s/h Nikon lens, you want one with "AF-S" in its title (and VR).

You need to ensure that whatever lens you buy does have an integral AF motor, typically stated as "USM".

Cheers, Dave

[rpcrowe]

I strongly suspect that you are aware of this but, in the event that you are not...

Fixed aperture (not to be confused with fixed focal length) lenses are zoom lens that have a single aperture throughout the focal range.

As an example, my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is f/4 from 70mm to the maximum of 200mm. I really like this, however a fixed aperture lens is often more expensive and sometimes heavier than a variable aperture lens. I get along quite well with my variable aperture Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens but, I would not like this lens if it did not have stabilization.

The Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG OS varaible apertures are as follows at some standard focal lengths:

Focal length: Maximum aperture

70mm: f/4.0, 100mm: f/4.5, 135mm: f/5.0, 200mm: f/5.6, and 300mm: f/5.6

Different lenses have some slight differences in aperture for different focal lengths but, the system is generally pretty close for all variable focal length lenses.

[Myk]

Further to all of the excellent advice above; if you can visit a camera store in person and bring your camera you can likely sort out any incompatibilities as well as get a feel for the prospective lenses in question.


Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED VR II for a new lens and Nikon Nikkor 55-200mm F/4-5.6 G ED IF DX AF-S VR if you can find a used lens for less. These are the kit zooms and similar in handling and build quality to the 18-55's. Capable of good shots within their limitations and the most affordable telephoto zooms with autofocus and VR either new or used.

[Stagecoach]

Hi Natasha

However, I've found two third party lenses with the same focal length, one is by Tamron and the other is by Sigma. According to the dealer I spoke to, the only difference between these two is the warranty period of which Tamron is offering a 4 year warranty as opposed to the 2 year warranty that Sigma offers.

I have the Tamron 70-300 non VR and have had some experience shooting this lens at what I would consider 'extremes', distant and moving subjects.

As you have mentioned birds here's some examples of what I consider the best image quality it could produce on my camera which was an old D300 at the time. The images are not cropped at all and have very basic global processing, they were all shot at its maximum focal length of 300mm.

I'm not suggesting it is the lens for you or disagreeing with anything said so far but feel it useful for you to actually see real world examples of what can be achieved with it.

Look at the images full size in the light box.

[paintingwithlight]

I have the Tamron 70-300 non VR and have had some experience shooting this lens at what I would consider 'extremes', distant and moving subjects.

Great images!

If shooting with aperture at its largest opening and in full daylight with no flash at 300 mm the shutter speed is likely fast enough to make VR unnecessary. In lower lighting with stopped down aperture VR can make the difference between a usable shot and unusable. Since (for Nikon lenses) the price difference between VR and non-VR is $50 then paying $50 more for VR is (in my mind) a no-brainer. You don't NEED VR but it is an affordable extra.

Michael

[Stagecoach]

Great images!

If shooting with aperture at its largest opening and in full daylight with no flash at 300 mm the shutter speed is likely fast enough to make VR unnecessary. In lower lighting with stopped down aperture VR can make the difference between a usable shot and unusable. Since (for Nikon lenses) the price difference between VR and non-VR is $50 then paying $50 more for VR is (in my mind) a no-brainer. You don't NEED VR but it is an affordable extra.

Michael

Michael

The intention of showing the images was to demonstrate the image quality that can be achieved from the cheap Tamron 70-300 non VR lens at 300mm with respect to birds, a good subject due to feather detail. This was one of the lenses being considered by Natasha.

It is a given that VR/IS or faster AF performance are going to give more keepers and need to be considered taking account of budget available.

Great images!

This of course is subjective and disregarding compositions and lighting, to me there is poor feather detail that would not have been improved with VR or better focusing. But for some this may be acceptable.

[RandyRFJP]

Hi Natasha. I have a Nikon D7200, crop-sensor body camera, and a Nikkor DX 18-300mm DX f/3.5-6.3G ED VR lens. It is the only lens I have. Because of the crop sensor body, the effective focal length range of the lens becomes 1.5 x (18 to 300) = 27 to 450 mm.

I suggest you take a look at some images I have posted on this site. All of my posts were shot with that body/lens combination, and I do not use a monopod or tripod. EXIF data should be present in all of my images, so you can get an idea of the ISO/shutter speed/aperture combination I used when taking the photos. My recommendation is that the lens is a very good "walking around" lens for birds, flowers, insects, animals, etc. that aren't too far away. Because I shoot hand-held, I would not recommend it for capturing small birds at long distances, especially if they are in flight. Perhaps it is a good lens for capturing photos of birds at a distance, but because I do not shoot with a monopod or tripod, I can't comment on that from any real-world experience. The vibration reduction (VR) built into the lens certainly helps, but I think I have developed good "hand holding" camera habits that help, too, particularly when I shoot close-ups of insects, lichens, etc. where the depth of field is usually very shallow. I rarely shoot landscapes or people, but I find no problems doing so with the lens I have. The lens currently costs slightly under $700 (USD) at B&H Photo in the US. It is a good "walking around" lens for my camera, and it might be worth your time to investigate it for your intended uses and shooting style.