300mm plus lens required!

Chez · 10-01-2006, 11:16

Right, I'm pretty much at a stage where I have everything I want/need with one huge exception... a fast super telephoto lens.

I have the 70-200mm VR and 1.7x TC, which gets me to 340mm, but this just isn't enough sometimes.

I also have a Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm), but this is f/6.3 at 500mm..

My thinking is that if I get an F2.8 300mm lens, I can use a TC to get either 420mm f/4, 510mm f/4.8 or 600mm f/5.6

So, my options are -

Sigma 120-300mm F2.8
Nikon 300mm F2.8 (second hand)
Nikon 400mm F2.8 (second hand)

I have included the 400mm as I have found a second hand example for £1600, however at over 6kg I don't think this is a sensible option.

Are there any other obvious alternatives (I have ruled out the Sigma 300mm as I believe the 120-300mm is based on this and offers a zoom?)?

I would ideally like the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR, but it is a bit too much for my wallet and I haven't seen any second hand ones around..

Any thought/advice welcomed.

Thanks
Chez

Arkady · 10-01-2006, 11:40

They all weigh a ton, mate. Even the new 300mm f2.8 with the carbon hood.
I leave it in the car unless I know I'm gonna need it.

The 300 and 600 are both very good lenses (I sold my own 600 for £2,000 last year to pay for a new boiler - now I wish I'd let the buggers freeze, but there you go...), although the 600 was a bit too long for most subjects.

I find the 300 to be the long lens I use most - used with a Nikon DSLR it gives a 'film' focal length of 450mm anyway.

I'm not a fan of some of the new VR lenses - we've found the 80-400 VR Nikkor to be as soft as butter optically, despite some heated arguments with the Nikon bods who say it's the best thing since sliced Hovis.

I would go for an older-spec AF-S 300mm f/2.8 IF-ED. More than adequate and there should be some coming on the market now as newer lenses become available.

***Dave*** · 10-01-2006, 11:44

Ah, was just about to say 80-400, with VR giving you equivalent of 2 stops advantage....but who wants butter

Chez · 10-01-2006, 11:45

Hi Rob, thanks for the advice.

I'm not a fan of the 80-400mm VR. I tried one out and went for the 70-200mm VR over it (much faster, sharper and generally far superior!)

Even if I wanted it, I don't think funds will allow the 300mm VR..

Are the AF-S versions much better than the AF version do you know?

I don't think I will need 600mm often, and if I do a 2x TC would give me f/5.6 at 300mm..

As for weight, I know none of them are light, but from what I can see, the 400mm is 6.3kg and the 300mm is 2.8kg - a fair difference!

Chez · 10-01-2006, 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJW

Ah, was just about to say 80-400, with VR giving you equivalent of 2 stops advantage....but who wants butter

lol

The 80-400mm also isn't exactly fast to focus... I will be using this lens for F1 amongst other things, so focus speed is a priority..

Also, while VR gives 2 stops advantage in terms of shutter speed, it doesn't give the same DOF as a lens which is 2 stops faster...

***Dave*** · 10-01-2006, 12:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chez

Also, while VR gives 2 stops advantage in terms of shutter speed, it doesn't give the same DOF as a lens which is 2 stops faster...

Time to invest in PS training & save some money

Chez · 10-01-2006, 12:12

lol - aah, the joys of gaussian blur, eh?

My problem is getting my selections right and feathering correctly!

***Dave*** · 10-01-2006, 12:20

You'd get plenty of practice on every F1 shot

Arkady · 10-01-2006, 12:44

Gutted!

Just had a chat (5 mins ago) with the QM and he's ordering the 80-400 instead of the 70-200 I asked for.
Toss!!!!!

Chez · 10-01-2006, 12:46

Butter, anyone?

Seriously though...why?

Arkady · 10-01-2006, 12:50

Dunno - the decision was made while I was in Iraq and the other Team's Photographer likes the 80-400. I don't. Subjective, thought the QM and ordered the one that covered most focal length.

Chez · 10-01-2006, 12:51

Shame, the 70-200mm is such a fantastic lens... (although don't you already use the 80-200mm F2.8?)

***Dave*** · 10-01-2006, 13:23

Well at least you can use it for soft focus shots of the ladies

Venomator · 10-01-2006, 13:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkady

Dunno - the decision was made while I was in Iraq and the other Team's Photographer likes the 80-400. I don't. Subjective, thought the QM and ordered the one that covered most focal length.

Aaahh ... QM's - brings back fond memories ... NOT !

Don't you just love 'em ?

Arkady · 10-01-2006, 13:51

Yes - I'll be keeping my now almost obsolete AF-S 80-200 f/2.8....

Ribby · 10-01-2006, 15:48

Does anyone know what the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 D ED-IF Lens is like?

Chez · 10-01-2006, 15:54

I have heard very mixed reports..

Some people say the focus is as fast as the F2.8, others say not..

It is generally accepted that the tripod mount is pretty shoddy (although it can be replaced).

The optics are meant to be superb though by all accounts..

There's a review here -

http://www.bythom.com/300AFSlens.htm

EDIT - another review here with an 'interesting' solution to the tripod mount! - http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS300_test_images.html

This is a good resource for NIkon lens reviews - http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_main.htm

Joe T · 10-01-2006, 19:11

I've got the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and so far its been great! Its far cheaper than any other 300 2.8s and also offers a

10-01-2006, 11:16	#1 (permalink)
Chez Been here a while Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 289	300mm plus lens required! Right, I'm pretty much at a stage where I have everything I want/need with one huge exception... a fast super telephoto lens. I have the 70-200mm VR and 1.7x TC, which gets me to 340mm, but this just isn't enough sometimes. I also have a Bigma (Sigma 50-500mm), but this is f/6.3 at 500mm.. My thinking is that if I get an F2.8 300mm lens, I can use a TC to get either 420mm f/4, 510mm f/4.8 or 600mm f/5.6 So, my options are - Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 Nikon 300mm F2.8 (second hand) Nikon 400mm F2.8 (second hand) I have included the 400mm as I have found a second hand example for £1600, however at over 6kg I don't think this is a sensible option. Are there any other obvious alternatives (I have ruled out the Sigma 300mm as I believe the 120-300mm is based on this and offers a zoom?)? I would ideally like the Nikon 300mm F2.8 VR, but it is a bit too much for my wallet and I haven't seen any second hand ones around.. Any thought/advice welcomed. Thanks Chez __________________ Xbox Live = ChezUK My Photography Last edited by Chez : 10-01-2006 at 11:18.

10-01-2006, 11:40	#2 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	They all weigh a ton, mate. Even the new 300mm f2.8 with the carbon hood. I leave it in the car unless I know I'm gonna need it. The 300 and 600 are both very good lenses (I sold my own 600 for £2,000 last year to pay for a new boiler - now I wish I'd let the buggers freeze, but there you go...), although the 600 was a bit too long for most subjects. I find the 300 to be the long lens I use most - used with a Nikon DSLR it gives a 'film' focal length of 450mm anyway. I'm not a fan of some of the new VR lenses - we've found the 80-400 VR Nikkor to be as soft as butter optically, despite some heated arguments with the Nikon bods who say it's the best thing since sliced Hovis. I would go for an older-spec AF-S 300mm f/2.8 IF-ED. More than adequate and there should be some coming on the market now as newer lenses become available. __________________ "When I hold a camera, I Know no fear..." Alfred Eisenstadt Nikon D2x Bodies x2 14mm f/2.8 Sigma; 17-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 28-80mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 24-85mm f/2.8-4 Nikkor; 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 600mm f/4 Nikkor SB-800 Flash x2

10-01-2006, 15:54	#17 (permalink)
Chez Been here a while Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 289	I have heard very mixed reports.. Some people say the focus is as fast as the F2.8, others say not.. It is generally accepted that the tripod mount is pretty shoddy (although it can be replaced). The optics are meant to be superb though by all accounts.. There's a review here - http://www.bythom.com/300AFSlens.htm EDIT - another review here with an 'interesting' solution to the tripod mount! - http://www.naturfotograf.com/AFS300_test_images.html This is a good resource for NIkon lens reviews - http://www.nikonlinks.com/equipment_main.htm Last edited by Chez : 10-01-2006 at 15:58.

10-01-2006, 11:44	#3 (permalink)
*Dave* Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 14,704	Ah, was just about to say 80-400, with VR giving you equivalent of 2 stops advantage....but who wants butter

10-01-2006, 11:45	#4 (permalink)
Chez Been here a while Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 289	Hi Rob, thanks for the advice. I'm not a fan of the 80-400mm VR. I tried one out and went for the 70-200mm VR over it (much faster, sharper and generally far superior!) Even if I wanted it, I don't think funds will allow the 300mm VR.. Are the AF-S versions much better than the AF version do you know? I don't think I will need 600mm often, and if I do a 2x TC would give me f/5.6 at 300mm.. As for weight, I know none of them are light, but from what I can see, the 400mm is 6.3kg and the 300mm is 2.8kg - a fair difference!

10-01-2006, 12:12	#7 (permalink)
Chez Been here a while Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 289	lol - aah, the joys of gaussian blur, eh? My problem is getting my selections right and feathering correctly!

10-01-2006, 12:20	#8 (permalink)
*Dave* Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 14,704	You'd get plenty of practice on every F1 shot

10-01-2006, 12:44	#9 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	Gutted! Just had a chat (5 mins ago) with the QM and he's ordering the 80-400 instead of the 70-200 I asked for. Toss!!!!!

10-01-2006, 12:46	#10 (permalink)
Chez Been here a while Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 289	Butter, anyone? Seriously though...why?

10-01-2006, 12:50	#11 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	Dunno - the decision was made while I was in Iraq and the other Team's Photographer likes the 80-400. I don't. Subjective, thought the QM and ordered the one that covered most focal length.

10-01-2006, 12:51	#12 (permalink)
Chez Been here a while Join Date: May 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 289	Shame, the 70-200mm is such a fantastic lens... (although don't you already use the 80-200mm F2.8?)

10-01-2006, 13:23	#13 (permalink)
*Dave* Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 14,704	Well at least you can use it for soft focus shots of the ladies

10-01-2006, 13:51	#15 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	Yes - I'll be keeping my now almost obsolete AF-S 80-200 f/2.8....

10-01-2006, 15:48	#16 (permalink)
Ribby Been here a while Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 293	Does anyone know what the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4 D ED-IF Lens is like?

10-01-2006, 19:11	#18 (permalink)
Joe T Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Amersham, Bucks Posts: 978	I've got the Sigma 120-300 2.8 and so far its been great! Its far cheaper than any other 300 2.8s and also offers a