D80 Lens for South African Safari

mechanicom

mechanicom

mechanicom

Associate
Joined
12 Sep 2003
Posts
399
Hi there

My Wife and I are going to South Africa at the end of this month and we are looking to purchase a lens in the region of £250 - £400 that will cope with taking pictures on Safari without a tripod.

My wife currently has the kit lens 18-135mm which does not have VR so I think that this wont be suitable for our needs, i've not been that impressed with the everyday pictures it produces anyway.

Would a 18-200 VR suffice? or maybe even a 18-300 VR?

ANy advice would be greatly appreciated.
 
If you aren't to happy with the results from the 18-135, you won't notice much difference switching to the 18-200 VR, it may even be worse at the extremes. The 70-300 VR on the other hand is probably the best lens you can buy for the value. Its very sharp, produces very nice bokeh, for what is a budget lens, and can be picked up for well under £300. Going back to the 18-200 VR, i really doubt 200mm is going to be long enough for a safari aswell (I've never been so i'm not sure how close you get).
 
The 18-200 VR is worse than the 18-135mm Never heard of the 18-300 but it is most probably terrible.

Cheap options would be a 16-85VR + a 70-300 VR.
 
Another option would be to hire a top quality lens for the period you are going for. Depends on how much you would use a long zoom when you got back really.

Just an idea.
 
Yep 70-300VR is a keeper, however for under £400 you can have the Sigma 135-400 too, which you may get more use out of on safari (but probably less in day to day use)
 
Nikon 80-400 is another option to rpice up. The main draw back is that it not fast to focus. But on a Safari this is less of an issue.

to give an idea of the higher end stuff, the 70-200 2.8 Vr with a 1.4x TC would be excelent for a safari for close up stuff. But probably you will need more reach at times, a 300 f/4 with + 1.4tc would work without robbing a bank.
 
Thanks again you guys! I'm a noob when it comes to DSLR photography..

I've found the 70-300VR for 298.00, is that a good price?. Also, what filters should I be looking other than the standard UV filter? Maybe a polarizing filter to help improve the images a bit??

Any other advice would be gratefully received!
 
£298 is a good deal, presuming that's from a UK supplier too? You might find it a smidgen cheaper, but probably not worth wasting too much time for the small amount you might save.

For your budget, the 70-300 is the only thing that will come close to being suitable if you want AF and VR. I have one, and it's hard sometimes to believe it costs so little!

The Nikon 80-400 VR seems to be a love or hate lens from reviews I've read, but it's academic anyway as it is at least double your max budget, even second hand.

The Nikon 300 f4 is a fine lens, and works well with the 1.4x Teleconverter mentioned, but that combo is out for you unless you seriously up your budget.

Personally, I use UV filters on all my lenses, not for their UV blocking capabilities (your DSLR will already have a UV filter in front of the sensor) but just for protection and for keeping finger prints off the lens itself.

A polarizing filter can be useful, particularly if you're going to be photographing water and blue skies, but they're not essential in my humble opinion. Good ones are also quite expensive, and the money would probably be better spent elsewhere, like on a decent meal whilst on your holiday! :)
 
Why is the 70-300 VR so cheap? when the VR 18-200 costs £420?

I'm thinking of selling my 18-135 kits lens and a 55-200 af-s lens and buying the 18-200VR but seeing how cheap this is I'm having second thoughts. I'd obviously have to get a 18-70 to fill the gap as well.
 
Mark A said:
Why is the 70-300 VR so cheap? when the VR 18-200 costs £420?

I'm thinking of selling my 18-135 kits lens and a 55-200 af-s lens and buying the 18-200VR but seeing how cheap this is I'm having second thoughts. I'd obviously have to get a 18-70 to fill the gap as well.
Click to expand...

The 18-200 is an 11X zoom and the 70-300 is a 4 x zoom, it's very hard to make a "do all" lens like the 18-200 with acceptable image quality and relatively easy to make a 4 x zoom with more than acceptable image quality.
The fact the 18-200VR is the best "Ultra Zoom" probably yet made and a remarkable acheivement of optics has fooled a lot of people into thinking it's a fantastic lens regardless, which it's not. It has vignetting, barrel and pincushion distortion relative softness and an amount of CA, it's just got a lot less of these things than you would expect for a lens with that amount of range. I use mine on my D300 for holidays when it's a fantastic compromise but at no point don't I wish I had a little porter following me around with my proper lenses. (Sigma 18-50 and 50-150 F2.8 and my own 70-300VR).
I've owned both the 18-135 and the 18-70 in the past and though the 18-70 has better build and a touch less distortion wide open the differences between it and the 18-135 were minimal in terms of image quality, both were slightly better in this respect than the 18-200 (but obviously didn't go out to 200mm and neither had VR).

In your spot, I would just sell the 55-200 and buy a 70-300VR, retain the 18-135 until you can afford a Tamron or Sigma 18-50 F2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom