Motorsport budget lens

[docter fox]

I'm trying to get a bit better with my Nikon 3200, it comes with the standard 18-55mm lens and for the most part, this has been perfectly acceptable as it's my first SLR. However, I've been having a bit of a play trackside and basically just can't get close enough to the action with cropping a lot of the picture and think a zoom lens would allow me to have a bit more of a play. I'm looking very much at the cheap end of the market so would like to spend up to about £100. I also like the idea of having one lens that can do it all so I don't need to change lenses throughout the day but I don't know if that's not really possible at this price point?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-18-200mm-3-5-6-3-As... - I've come across this, that may be all the lens I'll ever need but I'm not sure if that means it won't be as good close up? How will it compare to my standard lens?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-AF-70-300mm-4-5-6-M... - I've also come across this, wondering if this would be much better than the lens above and that I just need to live with the fact I'd need to change lenses?

Any thoughts or recommendations would be much appreciated!

[noell35]

I think the Sigma 70-300 is the budget weapon of choice.

I've got one and it does the job. I think it was the recommended budget option in the last issue of Practical Photography although they were looking at using them for landscapes.

[Simpo Two]

Neither lens is going to be fantastic at that price but budgets are budgets.

But you do say 'just can't get close enough to the action' so if that's the main thing, go for a 70-300 as it gets you 50% closer than a 70-200. Changing lenses is part of the scene if you want the best tool for the job

Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 23 November 22:19

[docter fox]

Thanks for the comments guys, coming from being impressed with the standard 18-55, I'm not too worried that they won't be perfect as i probably won't know any better, as long as it's a step up from what I'm used to!

One of the things I'm reading contrasting messages on is the ability for the lenses to autofocus using the 3200. That Nikon lens says that it won't but others state that they will autofocus, but don't specifically mention on the 3200. Can someone please clarify if anything in this price range will autofocus using my camera? Or is this not as big an issue as I may be thinking?

[noell35]

docter fox said:

Thanks for the comments guys, coming from being impressed with the standard 18-55, I'm not too worried that they won't be perfect as i probably won't know any better, as long as it's a step up from what I'm used to!

One of the things I'm reading contrasting messages on is the ability for the lenses to autofocus using the 3200. That Nikon lens says that it won't but others state that they will autofocus, but don't specifically mention on the 3200. Can someone please clarify if anything in this price range will autofocus using my camera? Or is this not as big an issue as I may be thinking?

The Sigma focuses on my 3100, it has a focus motor so will work fine on your 3200. It will also work on full frame cameras if you go down that route in future.

25% off at Argos as well, as I just found out.

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5...

Edited by noell35 on Monday 23 November 22:16

[Simpo Two]

docter fox said:

One of the things I'm reading contrasting messages on is the ability for the lenses to autofocus using the 3200. That Nikon lens says that it won't but others state that they will autofocus, but don't specifically mention on the 3200. Can someone please clarify if anything in this price range will autofocus using my camera? Or is this not as big an issue as I may be thinking?

Actually that's a point I overlooked, sorry. Seems that the two you linked to are OK but the Nikon is not. That's because the 3200 doesn't have the screw-drive facility needed to focus non AF-S lenses.

(AF-S is a Nikon designation; other makes have other letters, Sigma being USM for example).

[GravelBen]

Would you get a second hand Nikon AFS 70-300 VR for your budget? They have a very good reputation.

[droopsnoot]

I'd be looking around for used lenses, just as a means of widening the range and staying in budget. I bought three used zoom lenses (Tamron 70-300, Sigma 50-500, Sigma 18-200) with varying levels of quality and success, but of the three I now use the 18-200 the most, really as a replacement for the 18-55 kit lens though I think the ultimate quality is a little poorer.

I'm not always pleased with the image clarity - comparing my photos to most that I see posted, I can see the others are better but not necessarily why. But that might not be the lens to blame. As someone else said, budgets make a big difference - I've been told the newer version of my Tamron lens is way better than the old one that I have, but right now it costs slightly more than I paid for the camera and kit lens new, so I can't justify it at the moment.

Edited by droopsnoot on Tuesday 24th November 10:47

[ukaskew]

The Tamron 70-300 DP Di USD is the weapon of choice on a budget, generally. Super bit of kit for the money and can be found cheap used, I picked one up for £130 which I appreciate is a little over budget, but the USD will make a night and day difference compared to the cheaper model.

I've owned it twice (different systems), no complaints whatsoever despite generally using far more exotic glass generally...

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=43894860%40...

IMG_1104 by Chris Harrison, on Flickr

Edited by ukaskew on Tuesday 24th November 12:19

[docter fox]

Thanks guys, I guess it comes down to whether 200 would be enough zoom trackside. I guess it's an impossible question to answer as it depends on location etc but any thoughts on this?

I quite like the idea of using one lens so that if I'm out and about for the day, I've got the option of 18-200 rather than having to change lens if I want to take a photo of something closer/further away. Having said that, what droopsnoot says about the image quality being less than his standard 18-55 lens worries me slightly, should it? Was there much of a difference?

Anything around 18-300 seems very expensive, I guess there aren't any budget options that do this?

Thanks again, the advice is much appreciated.

[Nigel_O]

My son has a Nikon 70-300 lens, which on his D7100 regularly out-performed my Sigma 50-500 on a D5200 at motorsports events and airshows

On this basis, I'd say your quest for a single lens is restricting your choice (especially at your budget point)

Get a 70-300 and keep the 18-55 in your pocket for when you need to get really close. I'd be willing to bet that at most motorsports events, you'll never need to put a shorter lens on.

BTW, I got so cheesed off with being out-performed by my son with a cheaper lens that I went out and bought a D810 with a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 - beware, its an extremely slippery slope.....

[Simpo Two]

docter fox said:

Thanks guys, I guess it comes down to whether 200 would be enough zoom trackside. I guess it's an impossible question to answer as it depends on location etc but any thoughts on this?

I quite like the idea of using one lens so that if I'm out and about for the day, I've got the option of 18-200 rather than having to change lens if I want to take a photo of something closer/further away. Having said that, what droopsnoot says about the image quality being less than his standard 18-55 lens worries me slightly, should it? Was there much of a difference?

Anything around 18-300 seems very expensive, I guess there aren't any budget options that do this?

Only you can know, from past experience trackside, whether 200mm will get you close enough. It's simply a matter of distance. If convenience is the most important thing, get a one-size-fits-all lens. You won't have to change lenses (a 5-second job which I do dozens of time at every wedding with no ill effects) but you'll lose out on maximum aperture and distortion/aberration. But these things may not be important to you. If you want to get closer than 200mm allows and don't want to crop then give up the unequal struggle and go for a two lens solution

[docter fox]

Thanks everyone, I've gone for the Sigma 70-300 so I'll see how I get on. Without ever having used a better lens, I think I should be pretty happy with it and although it means I may have to change lenses if I'm on holiday etc. I should hopefully get better photos because of it.

Although I may have to try and keep it out of auto mode now... Are there any online guides that people would recommend as a way to get started?

[noell35]

docter fox said:

Thanks everyone, I've gone for the Sigma 70-300 so I'll see how I get on. Without ever having used a better lens, I think I should be pretty happy with it and although it means I may have to change lenses if I'm on holiday etc. I should hopefully get better photos because of it.

Although I may have to try and keep it out of auto mode now... Are there any online guides that people would recommend as a way to get started?

Have a look at this thread
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[andy-xr]

docter fox said:

Thanks everyone, I've gone for the Sigma 70-300 so I'll see how I get on. Without ever having used a better lens, I think I should be pretty happy with it and although it means I may have to change lenses if I'm on holiday etc. I should hopefully get better photos because of it.

Although I may have to try and keep it out of auto mode now... Are there any online guides that people would recommend as a way to get started?

I wouldnt get too hung up on it, no-one's going to care that you shot it in Manual with full control of everything if it's just a blurry mess of the back half of a car.

Semi Auto modes and full auto that gives you what you need is fine if the need is to have good sharp photos. The time to experiment with different modes and what they do is normally in the back garden rather than when you've paid to get somewhere and would like to get a return on it.

Having said that, I'd start in Aperture Priority and start flicking around a bit, see what happens when you choose F22 compared to when you choose F5.6 with what's still in focus and what's a shaky mess because the shutter speed was too slow for the aperture at the ISO setting you'd got.

[droopsnoot]

I find that when looking at the info for most of the photos I took with the 50-500, the focal length was rarely any longer than 300mm, so you're probably going to be fine with what you went for. I imagine the issue with quality is down to packing a greater range of focal length into a similar sized package - my 18-200 is not significantly bigger than the kit 18-55. It's a long time since I've looked at how a zoom lens works, but it does seem that there must be some compromise - hence when you see the pros with lenses about 2' long, you'd just expect them to be better.

It will be interesting to see what kind of results you get from your choice, and refreshing to see I'm not the only one on a low-end budget.

[Simpo Two]

droopsnoot said:

It's a long time since I've looked at how a zoom lens works, but it does seem that there must be some compromise - hence when you see the pros with lenses about 2' long, you'd just expect them to be better.

It's interesting that my old Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f3.5 is (IIRC) actually 210mm long - whereas the modern Nikon 70-300 is shorter... magic eh?