Discussion
Im sure this has been done before, but im still new to this game and i dont really understand what im looking for. I want a good zoom lense, Its mainy going to be used at car races eg le mans GFOS and Various GT races, im going to be on a £200 ish budget. What do you people suggest, and could you try and explain a bit about each lense and what all the numbers and letters mean
Thanks in Advance
WVM
ps i have the 18-70 lense at the moment
Thanks in Advance
WVM
ps i have the 18-70 lense at the moment
V6GTO said:
I'll leave this to the Nikon ownwers, seeing as I bought the wrong make camera
Anyway...
I'd say there are two routes depending on whether quality or focal length are most important to you. You could spend the money on a Nikkor 70-300 ED, or save some and get a Sigma 70-300 + 2x teleconverter. That would give you a total range of 18-600 but you'd pay for it with small aperture and reduced image quality at the long end.
Good second-hand lenses are also worth considering.
Hi, on a budget there aint much wrong with the Nikon 70 -300mm : 4-5.6 G lens. Yes it could be better, but for £150 new or £50 second hand it really aint that bad. A great introduction into 300mm zoom. Of course the words "you get what you pay for" ring true, but I don’t believe until you start spending £1000 plus that things are really much better. Obviously if optimum picture quality is important to you and aperture settings you'll need to spend the big bucks, but having bought the above mentioned lens for £50 I really cant knock it, fault it for anything. (I know of someone who bought the 70-300 ED lens for £320 and really couldnt see £200 worth of improvements over the G series). Good luck with whatever you choose.
My thoughts: (cos I'm looking at the same thing as WVM)
The main difference between the "G" and "D" lenses are the speed of focusing - the D lens has better motors. Certainly, when I played with them the D was noticeably quicker. Whether it's twice as quick (Jessops G lens £120, D lens £249) or you'll notice twice the quality is the question.
MadDave has the Sigma (£160) and seems pleased with it, and seems to get good results in similar (ie motorsport/track) situations to what you want to use it for.
Then there's a Tamron 28-300 lens that's as quick as the Nikkor, but possibly looses some quality cos of the increased range. But is possibly more versatile (ie fewer lens changes.)
I'm erring towards the D lens simply cos the 18-70 kit lens I have seems very good (but bearing in mind that I've only got very limited SLR experience).
I'm still undecided though
The main difference between the "G" and "D" lenses are the speed of focusing - the D lens has better motors. Certainly, when I played with them the D was noticeably quicker. Whether it's twice as quick (Jessops G lens £120, D lens £249) or you'll notice twice the quality is the question.
MadDave has the Sigma (£160) and seems pleased with it, and seems to get good results in similar (ie motorsport/track) situations to what you want to use it for.
Then there's a Tamron 28-300 lens that's as quick as the Nikkor, but possibly looses some quality cos of the increased range. But is possibly more versatile (ie fewer lens changes.)
I'm erring towards the D lens simply cos the 18-70 kit lens I have seems very good (but bearing in mind that I've only got very limited SLR experience).
I'm still undecided though
The main difference between the "G" and "D" lenses is that the "G" lens does not have an aperture ring like the "D" lens, aperture is all controlled lectronically by the camera. This does mean you can only use it on the more modern AF Nikons. No problem on a D70 or any of the later AF film cameras, but if you've got something like an FM2 for backup it may be an issue.
Mrs CVP uses the standard 70-300 f5.6 AF lens and gets some really good results from it. Yes it is a bit limited in only having an f5.6 maximum aperture but it is small, light and affordable.
I agree with the comment about the step in quality on the more expensive lenses, the old 80-200 f2.8 and the new AFS 70-200 f2.8 AFS lenses are absolute belters but you do pay for this.
In your shoes I'd go with the standard 70-300 f5.6, possibly try and get one second hand from one of the many reputable dealers out there. See if you use it a lot and if you do then start saving the pennies for a 70-200 f2.8AFS as this is a brilliant lens. To see the kind of results it's capable of search for the safari pics from one of the pr photography lads or Deadlock's portrait of his cat.
HTH
Chris
Mrs CVP uses the standard 70-300 f5.6 AF lens and gets some really good results from it. Yes it is a bit limited in only having an f5.6 maximum aperture but it is small, light and affordable.
I agree with the comment about the step in quality on the more expensive lenses, the old 80-200 f2.8 and the new AFS 70-200 f2.8 AFS lenses are absolute belters but you do pay for this.
In your shoes I'd go with the standard 70-300 f5.6, possibly try and get one second hand from one of the many reputable dealers out there. See if you use it a lot and if you do then start saving the pennies for a 70-200 f2.8AFS as this is a brilliant lens. To see the kind of results it's capable of search for the safari pics from one of the pr photography lads or Deadlock's portrait of his cat.
HTH
Chris
I've got a 70-300 Sigma APO lens at to be honest, whilst there isn't anything wrong with it, compared to the 18-70 kit lens it's slow, noisy and doesn't "feel" as nice.
If I could go back I would pay a little bit more, but most importantly, I would try out all the lenses - most camera shops should let you do this.
Whether I would end up with the Nikkor 70-300 D ED lens I am not sure. Depends whether it has internal focusing?
If I could go back I would pay a little bit more, but most importantly, I would try out all the lenses - most camera shops should let you do this.
Whether I would end up with the Nikkor 70-300 D ED lens I am not sure. Depends whether it has internal focusing?
_Dobbo_ said:
Whether I would end up with the Nikkor 70-300 D ED lens I am not sure. Depends whether it has internal focusing?
I don't think it is. Nikon normally designate the internal focussing ones with IF somewhere in the name tag.
Had a look on the web at both the G and D and the pictures look as if both are not internal focussing types.
Chris
beano500 said:
so you don't have to walk closer
Yeah....
But that doesn't answer my question!
The other answer is so you don't have walk further away... in short, it allows fast accurate framing and avoids the needs to juggle prime lenses. You lose on aperture but that's a price I'm happy to pay for the versatility.
NB The 70-300ED is not IF; I just looked at mine
I paid £225 for it in 1999 - I'm amazed that it's still current and is holding its value. simpo two said:
The other answer is so you don't have walk further away... in short, it allows fast accurate framing and avoids the needs to juggle prime lenses. You lose on aperture but that's a price I'm happy to pay for the versatility.
NB The 70-300ED is not IF; I just looked at mine
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3343&item=7505885912&rd=1
Is this what you have?
Is that good value? have you got any examples?
cliff123 said:
Thanks Dave, lens has proved very useful of late for some surf photos. Any happier with the ED or did you upgrade to the 2.8 VR version?
Another note on the G series, it is slow to focus.
Hi Cliff
not used it much, weather too crappy. My son will use it at the weekend for a football cup final my Grandaughter is in. I will post some of those when he has taken them
Dave
white_van_man said:
Is this what you have?
Is that good value? have you got any examples?
Yep, that's the puppy.
I haven't compared it with the G version for photos, but I've seen and held one and it's horrible in comparison. That alone is enough for me!
I do have some examples - the best for assesing lens quality is probably a NEF image I took at Helmingham Hall last year on the PH Roadshow, with lots of fine details, but by the time it's reduced and compressed it for the web, I don't think any subtle benefit of the ED lens will be evident. What I'm trying to say is that by the time an image is reduced to 750 pixels and 100Kb, any lens could have taken it
I use the 70-300 as discussed.
Don't be afraid though !!! to bump up the ISO (even up to the max 1600) for that extra speed, else you may have some blurry shots.
The noise-level at 1600 is surprisingly low, and you'll really benefit from the shorter shutter speeds when photographing moving objects.
Remember, the old rule of thumb is that your exposure should be at most the inverse of your focal length, i.e. you're looking at 1/300sec of better at top whack on the 300mm lens... (unless of course you're using a tripod and pointing at something still...)
Don't be afraid though !!! to bump up the ISO (even up to the max 1600) for that extra speed, else you may have some blurry shots.
The noise-level at 1600 is surprisingly low, and you'll really benefit from the shorter shutter speeds when photographing moving objects.
Remember, the old rule of thumb is that your exposure should be at most the inverse of your focal length, i.e. you're looking at 1/300sec of better at top whack on the 300mm lens... (unless of course you're using a tripod and pointing at something still...)
mechsympathy said:
The main difference between the "G" and "D" lenses are the speed of focusing - the D lens has better motors
non AF-S lenses use a motor in the camera body not in the lens itself, so any changes in focus speed are probably due to different gearing in the lens. I don't know why they don't just put faster gearing in all of th elenses, probably some complicated techy answer. Or else they want you to buy the AF-S instead
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff