Nikon Telephoto Lens Help!

[Tooks]

Right, I've now made a 100% switch over to Nikon gear from Pentax, and I've now got a budget of £600 for a 'long lens' for wildlife pics.

I've got two Nikon bodies, a D200 and a D90, and I've been looking about for a Nikon AF-S 300mm F4, but they're difficult to get hold of new and almost impossible to find used for my budget!

I've already got the Nikon 70-300 AF-S F4-5.6 VR, which is a good lens although I suspect I could do better.

So, I've been looking at the old Nikon 300mm AF F4D ED IF, which I know is good optically but I don't fancy the screw drive/slower AF.

I've looked at the Sigma 100-300 F4 HSM, which although not a prime gave good results when I had one in Pentax fit. I could also pair that with the Sigma 1.4x converter for a 420mm F5.6 AF lens.

Finally, I've considered the Sigma 120-400 F4-5.6 OS HSM, which has stabilisation, the same aperture wide open at 400mm as the 100-300 with converter, and from the sharpness/contrast graphs on the Sigma website seems to be slightly better even than the 100-300 F4. The only problem is I can't find any reviews on it anywhere!

Any other options I should be looking at, including sitting tight for a bit and getting some more cash together and importing a Nikon 300mm AF-S F4?!

 

[Snapshot]

I wouldn't discount the 300mm AF-D as the mechanical drive isn't always much slower than AF-S when used with a good body. After that I think I'd also be looking at the Sigma 120-400mm provided you can find a review of it somewhere.

 

[Tooks]

Yeah, the AF speed is a thorny one! Some say the AF-D is slower, but others say it's not necessarily slower, just noisier and sounds slower if that makes sense?!

I notice there are a few AF-D's for sale in the usual big used camera/lens places, so it might be worth me taking a trip to try one.

I have found one review of the 120-400 now, linked from the Sigma US website, which makes me a bit suspicous! They did rate it quite highly though.

 

[SilverPenguin]

There was someone over at naturephotographers.net selling a 300 AF 2.8 (the one before AFS) for £650 ono, but it looks like it may have just sold

 

[D.P.]

Right, I've now made a 100% switch over to Nikon gear from Pentax, and I've now got a budget of £600 for a 'long lens' for wildlife pics.

I've got two Nikon bodies, a D200 and a D90, and I've been looking about for a Nikon AF-S 300mm F4, but they're difficult to get hold of new and almost impossible to find used for my budget!

I've already got the Nikon 70-300 AF-S F4-5.6 VR, which is a good lens although I suspect I could do better.

So, I've been looking at the old Nikon 300mm AF F4D ED IF, which I know is good optically but I don't fancy the screw drive/slower AF.

I've looked at the Sigma 100-300 F4 HSM, which although not a prime gave good results when I had one in Pentax fit. I could also pair that with the Sigma 1.4x converter for a 420mm F5.6 AF lens.

Finally, I've considered the Sigma 120-400 F4-5.6 OS HSM, which has stabilisation, the same aperture wide open at 400mm as the 100-300 with converter, and from the sharpness/contrast graphs on the Sigma website seems to be slightly better even than the 100-300 F4. The only problem is I can't find any reviews on it anywhere!

Any other options I should be looking at, including sitting tight for a bit and getting some more cash together and importing a Nikon 300mm AF-S F4?!

300mm AF-D Would still focus very fast depending on the body.

I would also question whether you need both the D200 and the D90. Perhaps sell one and put that money into buying a lens?

 

[Tooks]

300mm AF-D Would still focus very fast depending on the body.

I would also question whether you need both the D200 and the D90. Perhaps sell one and put that money into buying a lens?

I really need the 2 bodies unfortunately, as I have wedding bookings, and doing a wedding without a spare body is a no no.

I'm going to hire a 300mm AF-S from lenses for hire, and give one a go first I think. I'll probably try a 1.4 converter with it too.

I'm still trying to find a used non 'S' one in a camera shop that I could pop in and try, as you say, I may find it perfectly fine.

I'm a bit concerned about lack of VR in the lens, but I guess we always managed without it before!

 

[D.P.]

I really need the 2 bodies unfortunately, as I have wedding bookings, and doing a wedding without a spare body is a no no.

I'm going to hire a 300mm AF-S from lenses for hire, and give one a go first I think. I'll probably try a 1.4 converter with it too.

I'm still trying to find a used non 'S' one in a camera shop that I could pop in and try, as you say, I may find it perfectly fine.

I'm a bit concerned about lack of VR in the lens, but I guess we always managed without it before!

What are you planning to shoot that VR would be useful with? VR has only limited use. On the D90 you can probably get away with a high ISO being the same sensor as the D300.

 

[Tooks]

What are you planning to shoot that VR would be useful with? VR has only limited use. On the D90 you can probably get away with a high ISO being the same sensor as the D300.

Well, that's just it, it will mostly be birds in flight and hares/deer, so nothing unusual. I have done a bit of photography from boats of Dolphins etc, but I guess that's more of a lottery anyway, VR or not.

I guess it's just something of a 'crutch' that I've become accustomed to, but like most people I wouldn't really know VR had helped get a shot that otherwise wouldn't have come out.

It's not a deal breaker by any means.

 

[D.P.]

Well, that's just it, it will mostly be birds in flight and hares/deer, so nothing unusual. I have done a bit of photography from boats of Dolphins etc, but I guess that's more of a lottery anyway, VR or not.

I guess it's just something of a 'crutch' that I've become accustomed to, but like most people I wouldn't really know VR had helped get a shot that otherwise wouldn't have come out.

It's not a deal breaker by any means.

IF you are photographing moving animals then VR wont help get sharp images. VR only really helps when photographing static objects

 

[Tooks]

Ok, thanks.

This is the first time I've used VR lenses, my previous Pentax bodies had image stabilisation in the body. I've noticed it takes a while for the lenses to 'settle' when photographing static objects.

I've managed some good in flight shots with it left switched on though. Should I really turn it off for those in your view then?

 

[D.P.]

The thing is, if their is subject movement the IS/VR wont counteract the motion blur of the subject, so even if you get a crisper background your subject may be softer. So in sports photography VR is never used really.
You have to maintain shutter speed fast enough to remove motion blue, VR does nothing to help you here. e.g., a with a 300mm lens the rule of thumb suggests a 1/450s shutter time to prevent hand-shake blue. Maybe with Vr you can use 1/50s, some 3 stops faster. Great, but a birds wings flapping with 1/50s will create a lot of blur, while the 1/450 may be fast enough to prevent all blur (sports photographer hope for 1/500-1/1000 to eliminate subject blur). Thi of course depends on subject speed. A slow swimming duck compared to a falcon attacking pigeons...

And with all kinds of image stabilization, leaving it switched on when not needed will lower the sharpness anyway.

 

[Tooks]

Thanks again, all useful stuff.

I try and use the shutter speed equal or faster to the focal length of lens rule of thumb where conditions allow, but with 'slow' lenses in not so great light I do struggle sometimes.

One positive thing I've already noticed with the D90 over the D200 though, and as you alluded to earlier, is that I can crank the ISO up to try and counteract the smaller max aperture of my existing zoom. The D90 is useable at ISO1600 where the D200 isn't!

It often means I can get 1/500 in fading light where I'd be stuck at 1/125 with the D200, or put up with the noise.

I shall have a play!