A little lens advice for a budding newbie

[maxf]

Good morning people!

I'm really getting into this photography lark - I cant remember the last time I got up on a saturday and sunday nice and early to go for a walk - but the D70 seemed to drag me towards the front door this weekend at a (normally) ungodly hour with the promise of some interesting photograph material. I took about 400 shots this weekend and have about 6 I really like - but thats another matter !

Being an impatient soul, I'm already looking around at lenses and bits of kit (I bought a couple of filters this weekend) - but would appreciate some opinion/advice if possible for these more pricey additions.

I was looking at buying the Nikon 70-300 ED lens, but have also seen the 80-400 VR version ( www.londoncamera.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=143_164&products_id=1557 ). Now this is about 3 times as much money - but promises some extra 'zoom' and image shake reduction. I want the lens for both wildlife and trackday/race type work. Is the more expensive lens *worth* the extra outlay? I know worth is subjective but would appreciate opinions!

Also, I'm looking at a macro/micro lens to snap obscure closeup images - bugs and stuff. I love pictures which show up things not seen normally. Taking myself out of the 'normal' work and looking at things from a totally different perspective is something I really enjoy (odd chap, I know).

Ive seen the Nikon 60mm macro lens, a tamron 90mm macro lens (about the same cost) and a Nikon 100mm macro lens for a good chunk more. Any opinions as to which is the best bet?

Now, before you all think - rich chap diving in blind and headfirst - I'm not loaded, I just see little point in buying something 'cheap' which is only going to be replaced at a loss in the semi near future. This is also something both myself and my girlfriend are enjoying hugely - and its getting us out and about - hence the willingness to spend a bit!

Thanks in advance - hope my ramblings make sense!

Max

[-DeaDLocK-]

Mornin'.

With regards to the telephoto lens, if you're willing to stump up for the 80-400VR over the 70-300 I'd say definitely do it. The better quality of glass, and not to mention the VR (which really DOES work amazingly well!), is worth the extra outlay.

As with all high-end kit though, the higher up the scale you go the more you proportionately pay. It's almost exponential in nature. In pure value terms, the 80-400 is definitely not as "worth it" as the 70-300, but the question you have to ask yourself is "Is it worth sacrificing the odd perfect shot because of my compromises on what kit I buy?".

Lots have asked the same question, and arrived at the answer: buy the absolute best you can afford/justify. In fact my first line of advice for anyone entering into photography is to always budget for lenses first, body later. The lens ultimately matters more.

Now with that said, let me play devil's advocate. Have you thought about this baby? It's not much more than the 80-400VR you were considering (Jessops will price match it for £1100), but it is STUNNING.

I have it, and I am in love with it. Every review I've read has lauded it, and it's slated to be one of those all-time classic Nikon lenses. It features f/2.8 across the range (which you WILL appreciate), noticeably better glass, optics and ergonomics than the 80-400VR (well that was the consensus I gather from the reviews I read pre-purchase anyway), and the VR technology is one generation ahead of the one in the 80-400VR. Which basically means it's good.

I would seriously think about this lens - if the range is too short you can always buy a teleconverter to extend it a bit. The Nikon 1.4x TC reportedly produces NO LOSS in image quality whatsoever. The 1.7x and 2.0x do degrade resolution slightly, but still produces very good results.

I'd think about it if I were you, and if you stump up, you won't regret it.

A pic I took with my 70-200VR

D

[getcarter]

Tough call Max.

I have the 70 - 300 ... and although cheap it's a very good lens. However, I guess I'd prefer the 80-400.

Hmmm... depends how much cash you have.

((I have a stategy of either buying the best or the worst (whenever possible) I never seem to regret any purchases then. ))

FYI most of these taken with 70 -300 (but there are definately times when I wish it was longer)

www.stevecarter.com/notsowild/notsowild.htm

Steve

[simpo two]

maxf said:

I was looking at buying the Nikon 70-300 ED lens, but have also seen the 80-400 VR version ( www.londoncamera.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=143_164&products_id=1557 ). Now this is about 3 times as much money - but promises some extra 'zoom' and image shake reduction. I want the lens for both wildlife and trackday/race type work. Is the more expensive lens *worth* the extra outlay? I know worth is subjective but would appreciate opinions! Also, I'm looking at a macro/micro lens to snap obscure closeup images - bugs and stuff. I love pictures which show up things not seen normally. Taking myself out of the 'normal' work and looking at things from a totally different perspective is something I really enjoy (odd chap, I know). Ive seen the Nikon 60mm macro lens, a tamron 90mm macro lens (about the same cost) and a Nikon 100mm macro lens for a good chunk more. Any opinions as to which is the best bet? Now, before you all think - rich chap diving in blind and headfirst - I'm not loaded, I just see little point in buying something 'cheap' which is only going to be replaced at a loss in the semi near future. This is also something both myself and my girlfriend are enjoying hugely - and its getting us out and about - hence the willingness to spend a bit! Max

Hi Max and welcome to the wallet-emptying world of nice pix!

I have the 70-300mm ED and it's a fine lens, though of average aperture and the near focusing point is sometimes too far away for me. I looked at your 80-400mm link and frankly I'm a bit disappointed - for that price I thought it would be f2.8. It's only f4.5-5.6: ie, only average. It may have nice glass and VR but £999 seems a heck of a lot.

If you just want 400mm, there are cheaper ways to do it IMHO. If you want a flagship lens, I'd head for an f2.8 version, but that's just my preference as f2.8 is more useful to me than VR.

I crossed the macro bridge last year. The Nikkor 105mm was too much £, and I didn't need that focal length. The Tamron 90mm gets good reviews, but eventually I found a mint used Nikkor 60mm on eBay and it's fine. Generally, all macro lenses are very good qualtiy as they are specialist lenses and they know that people who take photography that seriously don't buy rubbish. One thing is that the 60mm does get very close to the subject at 1:1, so if you intend to photograph 'critters' that may be an issue.

The rule of 'you get what you pay for' applies, but I think you could save a bit on the 400mm and get the macro out of the saving.

[CVP]

maxf said:

I was looking at buying the Nikon 70-300 ED lens, but have also seen the 80-400 VR version ( www.londoncamera.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=143_164&products_id=1557 ). Now this is about 3 times as much money - but promises some extra 'zoom' and image shake reduction. I want the lens for both wildlife and trackday/race type work. Is the more expensive lens *worth* the extra outlay? I know worth is subjective but would appreciate opinions!

We have both in the family. The 70-300 gives some really nice results, but the 80-400VR gives more consistent results. That VR really does work well out in the field. If you really can stretch I'd go for the 80-400VR.

Also as deadlock suggested look at the new 70-200 f2.8VR AFS. It's an absolute belter of a lens and the AFS is lightning fast compared to the 80-400VR which is a bit slow to focus sometimes (this might be really important for motorsport. I sometimes get very fed up with it when photographing wildlife). Team the 70-200 AFS VR up with the 1.4* or 1.7* converters for a really flexible package.

I use the 1.7* converter on a regular basis and image degradation is small for the extra reach it gives you.

maxf said:

Also, I'm looking at a macro/micro lens to snap obscure closeup images - bugs and stuff. I love pictures which show up things not seen normally. Taking myself out of the 'normal' work and looking at things from a totally different perspective is something I really enjoy (odd chap, I know). Ive seen the Nikon 60mm macro lens, a tamron 90mm macro lens (about the same cost) and a Nikon 100mm macro lens for a good chunk more. Any opinions as to which is the best bet?

I bought the 105mm Nikon one (second hand). It gives a bit more working distance than the 60mm. Both are thought to be top notch. Tamron have always had a great reputation for their macro and the 90mm is meant to be super sharp. I would think nay of these three could give super results.

I firmly agree with your thoughts on not buying cheap. I've made this mistake in the past and regretted it. I'm a very happy customer of Grays of Westminster (www.graysofwestminster.co.uk) a superb shop for Nikon owners. I get my lenses mainly second hand from here as you can bank on the fact that it's all really good quality backed up by impeccable service. For instance Mrs CVP's 24-85 AFS zoom was making a wierd noise and had a bit more play than it should. We took it in on Saturday and were advised Nikon would take a look and it may take a couple of weeks to repair but they would push for a replacement. Monday morning and call from Grays, complete replacement available Tuesday morning. Picked it up and it's so new it's never even been opened before, not just a demo one that some places would give you. I can't recommend them highly enough.

Oh..don't forget you'll need a wide angle at some point in the future, 12-24mm AFS Nikon is a cracker.

Hope this helps

Chris

[maxf]

Thanks for all the great advice so far!

I am of the opinion that this is probably the most wallet hungry forum on PH - browsing the Ferrari and Lambo forum gets tempting, but its not like I could nip out at lunchtime and charge one to my credit card like on here!

Thanks for muddying the waters further -deadlock- I'll certinaly aim to try out the 70-200VR before buying a big zoom lens. Looking at the teleconvertors though (greys list them at over £300) would push the lens to over £1400 - which is probably getting a little silly (at the moment ).

Getcarter - those pics are awesome and probably serve to show that the big limiting factor at the moment is my ability! Have you tried the 70-300 at a trackday or race?

I think the Tamron 90mm Macro is looking like a good bet - its over £100 cheaper than the 105mm Nikon, and I think the focal length of the 60mm might prove too short for 'critters' - especially the ones that sting

I hadn't thought of Greys - I actually work at Green Park (well, nearby - I'm not a park keeper) so its very hand for me.

Cheers for the advice - now I'll have to post some pictures!

[getcarter]

maxf said:

Thanks for all the great advice so far! Getcarter - those pics are awesome and probably serve to show that the big limiting factor at the moment is my ability! Have you tried the 70-300 at a trackday or race?

Max - 70 - 300 used almost exclusively for about 40 track days some examples here : www.stevecarter.com/track1/track1.htm

the rest here:
www.sadgit.net

BTW I also use Grays... top chaps.

Steve