Advice on lens selection

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

RPC - 16 Oct 2006 20:52 GMT

Hello Everyone,
I am relatively new to photography and have recently purchased a
Nikon D70s with the Nikkor 18-70mm lens. I would like to add another
lens or two. I am interested in photographing birds and animals. Being
in a city, most of my photographs will be taken at or near the various
parks and small lakes (or ponds) here (Bangalore, India). I would like
to take the lens occassionally to wildlife sanctuaries around the
place.
So much for background. Now, the lenses I have been considering
are these.
1) Nikkor 70-200mm VR + TC 20 E II (The limit of my budget)
2) Nikkor 80-400mm VR
3) Nikkon 80-200mm + TC 20 E II
I also looked at the 200-500mm Tamron and the 170-500mm Sigma.
Some of the reviews I have read suggests that they may not work well in
low light conditions. I am not planning to shoot at night but ability
to shoot at dawn/dusk would be nice to have.
I am also considering Nikkor 80-200mm with the Tamron or Sigma.
Any suggestions are welcome. My budget constraints rules out most
decent primes. :-(
Thanks in advance,
RPC

Reply to this Message

Chris Loffredo - 16 Oct 2006 11:45 GMT

> Hello Everyone,
> I am relatively new to photography and have recently purchased a
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> decent primes. :-(
> Thanks in advance,

In the 400mm range, the old Tokina (sometimes branded as Vivitar) 400mm
f/5.6 gives very good results.

Also the Novoflex range is quite interesting. The classic 2 element
400mm f/5.6 gives good sharpness in part - but not all of the field -
due to curvature of field. The 3 element version does somewhat better.
The Novoflexes also have the famous "rifle stock" grips which
approximate VR performance (but are not recommended for photographing
politicians or for use near airports).

Other good lenses are the Zeiss Jena 300mm f/4.0 and the Meyer 300mm
f/4.5 - but you need to find an appropriate Nikon adapter for them.

These are inexpensive (at least in Europe) and (more than) decent primes
which will far outperform most zooms.

Reply to this Message

Neil Purling - 16 Oct 2006 22:41 GMT

With the Nikkor 50mm f 1.8:
Is it true that the late AI-S 'pancake' version has a "hot spot".
I mean the version that looks like the E series 50mm f1.8.
Has anybody noticed anything?

Reply to this Message

Toby - 17 Oct 2006 13:16 GMT

>> Hello Everyone,
>> I am relatively new to photography and have recently purchased a
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> These are inexpensive (at least in Europe) and (more than) decent primes
> which will far outperform most zooms.

First of all, no old lens (without CPU) will allow metering on the D70, so
the lenses listed are NG for him. I would actually dispute that the old
Novoflex and Zeiss and Meyer are superior to modern zooms with LD and ED
glass and multicoating.

I have a Nikon D200 and have had excellent results with the older Nikon
80-200 f2.8 (non-D), however when adding a Nikon doubler chromatic
aberration becomes quite noticeable at 1:1. I also have an old Tokina
150-500 f5.6 that performs much better than the 80-200 with doubler. My
suggestion would be to go with the 80-400 VR. My guess is that it will be a
tad softer than the 70- or 80-200 Nikkor in that range, but it will far
outperform either with the 2x doubler. The VR will make it as hand-holdable
as the faster lenses, even though it is smaller max aperture, and will do
better than either zoom with doubler. In addition there is the advantage of
not having to stop to add the doubler to get past 200, a big advantage
sometimes when photographing wildlife.

I think that the Tamron and Sigma would probably also be fine, but if you
don't absolutely need the extra 100mm the 80-400 seems by far the best
choice for you, as you obviously are not going to be purchasing the 500mm f4
Nikkor...

Toby

Reply to this Message

Stan de SD - 18 Oct 2006 06:21 GMT

> I have a Nikon D200 and have had excellent results with the older Nikon
> 80-200 f2.8 (non-D), however when adding a Nikon doubler chromatic
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> choice for you, as you obviously are not going to be purchasing the 500mm f4
> Nikkor...

I'll throw in my $0.02 FWIW: I picked up a used AI compatible Tokina ATX
80-200mm F2.8 years ago and have been quite happy with it. Color cast seems
to be SLIGHTLY warmer (maybe 5CC red) than the typical Nikon lense, but
nothing really objectionable. Of course, it's all manual metering with the
D50 I'm using it on, but with bracketing and the ability to erase images in
camera, no big deal (I have been shooting so long I can usually guess my
aperture settings within a half an F-stop anyway).

As far as recommending the zooms, IMHO newbies tend to overstimate their
needs in terms of lenses, and buy stuff they really don't need or use (I
have 12 lenses to go with my digital D50 and 3 35mm SLRs, and in all honesty
I use 3 of them 98% of the time). Unless someone has a VERY good idea what
he/she is going to need and a feel for what's available, I would err on a
faster lens with a less agressive focal length. I realize that a 5X or 6X
zoom doesn't sound extreme to someone migrating to SLR's from
point-and-shoots, but there's a huge difference in looking through a
rangefinder on a pocket-sized autofocus and a tube full of glass elements
with a max aperture of F5.6 or 6.3. A 2.8 is still easy one the eyes even in
low light, but working with the smaller apertures are aking to trying to
read a book in the kitchen by turning off the overhead lights and opening
the fridge door.

Unless you're seriously into tripods and/or long working distances, I would
put my money into more glass and less zoom range...

Reply to this Message

RPC - 18 Oct 2006 19:14 GMT

> As far as recommending the zooms, IMHO newbies tend to overstimate their
> needs in terms of lenses, and buy stuff they really don't need or use (I
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> read a book in the kitchen by turning off the overhead lights and opening
> the fridge door.

Thanks for all the advice. After seeing the replies, I think the best
choice for now is the 70-200 VR and maybe a TC14. Once I have reached
(or at least have seen from a distance) the limits of that combination
(a few years maybe :-)), I will think about other options. I will
hopefully have enough saved up for a decent prime. I can dream, can't
I?
Again, thanks to all the replies and the patience.

Have a nice day,
RPC

Reply to this Message

Scott Schuckert - 16 Oct 2006 23:17 GMT

> I also looked at the 200-500mm Tamron and the 170-500mm Sigma.
> Some of the reviews I have read suggests that they may not work well in
> low light conditions. I am not planning to shoot at night but ability
> to shoot at dawn/dusk would be nice to have.

I have the Tamron 200-400 (predecessor to the 200-500) and like it
very much, but it's a bit of a howitzer to drag around all the time -
and the maximum aperture is indeed marginal for autofocus in poor
light.

I'd start out with one of the Nikon X-200's, and skip the
teleconverter. Better to put that money toward another real lens.

Reply to this Message

Xanda73 - 18 Oct 2006 00:12 GMT

>Hello Everyone,
> I am relatively new to photography and have recently purchased a
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>Thanks in advance,
>RPC

I'd get the Nikkor 70-200 AFS & this, if you can find one second-hand:

http://www.shashinki.com/review/others/sigma400mm/index.htm

The AF on the Sigma is pretty poor, but otherwise it's a decent lens,
even shot wide open, which you will probably be doing if hand-holding.
It's a joy to focus manually, having a very wide ring and a large
'throw'. Along with the narrow depth of field, subjects snap in and out
of focus well.

70-200 AFS - I need say little about this lens: it's outstanding.

Of all the options above, just get this lens and then consider your
choices later, if need be.

HTH

Signature

Alex Wilde

Reply to this Message