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?!

 

[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.

 

[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!

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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!