Nikon's L glass equivalent?

King_Boru

King_Boru

King_Boru

Associate
Joined
9 Jan 2005
Posts
2,356
Location
Canada
As title really, looking for a lens between 200 and 300mm at a price between £400 and £600. Was going for the 18 - 200 VR Nikon but the image quality isnt as sharp as I expected (when tested in the shop). Can somebody point me in the right direction? Really looking for something but can't put my finger on it. Can be 3rd party brands too, if they live up to my requirments.

Cheers

King.
 
With Nikon lenses you are going to struggle with those requirements. The best is the Nikon 300mm f4 but that is over £800.
 
Joe I say that the best is the Nikon 300mm F/4 for over £800, is that the best that King_Boru could afford or the best that Nikon produce?

Blackvault
 
Blackvault said:
Joe I say that the best is the Nikon 300mm F/4 for over £800, is that the best that King_Boru could afford or the best that Nikon produce?
Click to expand...
The best in his Budget - Pro Nikkor lenses are very expensive.
 
thanks for the reply SDK. Sorry for my bad sentence contruction and using the wrong words lol busy talking to someone on the phone.

Blackvault
 
Yeah, pro Nikkor's are scary money :eek:

I've used the 300mm F/2.8 [there's an F/2.8 w VR too, not tried that] and it's very nice - I'd guess that the F/4 is rather good too. Although whether you can stretch to it is another matter.
 
Nikon don't label lenses with anything equivilent to canon's L glass but pro quality lenses have a gold ring at the front.

in pro quality glass the only choices are the 70-200 f2.8 and TC 1.4, or the stupidly expensive 200-400.

in non pro glass (and nikon's pro lenses really are pro, whereas L glass is could be call prosumer) you could look at the 80-400, which has a huge range and is pretty sharp, has VR but tortoise like AF...
 
Need a high speed AF as I will be using it for airshows, grand prix, etc,...

I have just looked in to the 100 - 300 sigma and it is starting to grow on me. attractive price and good features.

i feel like whacking out the cc. holding back until i get to test it in the shops.

thanks for the info...
 
King_Boru said:
Need a high speed AF as I will be using it for airshows, grand prix, etc,...

I have just looked in to the 100 - 300 sigma and it is starting to grow on me. attractive price and good features.

i feel like whacking out the cc. holding back until i get to test it in the shops.

thanks for the info...
Click to expand...

well for airshows at least you're unlikely to need fast AF, the focus will be shifting between infinity and nearly infinity at most.

The 100-300 Sigma might do it but I'd be warely of spending too much money on it. Also, a reasonably quick lens with that zoom is going to be pretty heavy so VR is going to be very handy unless it's on a tripod.

also, i hear faint rumours that nikon might be upgrading the 70-300 ED, possibly with AF-S, possibly with VR. it's a very quiet rumour but worth knowing all the same
 
bigredshark said:
(and nikon's pro lenses really are pro, whereas L glass is could be call prosumer)
Click to expand...
hmmmm, L glass Prosumer :confused:

Spot the Nikon 'Pro' lenses ;)

Olympic-games_2004_9.jpg
 
Last edited:
SDK^ said:
hmmmm, L glass Prosumer :confused:

Spot the Nikon 'Pro' lenses ;)

snip
Click to expand...

by which i meant, you can buy L glass for a lot cheaper than you can buy nikon pro lenses, L glass is a disignation given to a far wider range of products.

as an example, loads of people on this forum use L glass but the number who use nikon pro lenses i imagine could be counted on the fingers of one hand

I'm not saying it's bad, just that it's a prosumer product as well as being used by pros

as another example, the 100-400 L would likely not be classified as a pro lens were it made by nikon.
 
I think though that one question arising here is whether there are any Nikkor lenses of comparable performance to the cheaper Canon L series. I don't know that there are really, which is something I'm kicking myself about a bit for buying a Nikon D100 in the spur of the moment.

Are there any? Are there any non Nikkor lenses that are comparable performance wise to the L range for Canon at a similar price to the 'lesser' of the L series? :confused:
 
danza said:
I think though that one question arising here is whether there are any Nikkor lenses of comparable performance to the cheaper Canon L series. I don't know that there are really, which is something I'm kicking myself about a bit for buying a Nikon D100 in the spur of the moment.

Are there any? Are there any non Nikkor lenses that are comparable performance wise to the L range for Canon at a similar price to the 'lesser' of the L series? :confused:
Click to expand...

This is my I'm deciding whether to sell my D50 and pull the trigger on some nice Canon L and 350D.

Blackvault
 
danza said:
I think though that one question arising here is whether there are any Nikkor lenses of comparable performance to the cheaper Canon L series. I don't know that there are really, which is something I'm kicking myself about a bit for buying a Nikon D100 in the spur of the moment.

Are there any? Are there any non Nikkor lenses that are comparable performance wise to the L range for Canon at a similar price to the 'lesser' of the L series? :confused:
Click to expand...

no, it's a nikon weakness really at the moment. If you're looking at the equivilent to cheap canon L glass there isn't really any I don't think, AF-s and VR haven't been integrated into any of nikons mid range lenses really.
 
bigredshark said:
no, it's a nikon weakness really at the moment. If you're looking at the equivilent to cheap canon L glass there isn't really any I don't think, AF-s and VR haven't been integrated into any of nikons mid range lenses really.
Click to expand...

Nads.

Nikon better get their act together and design some for me then!
 
danza said:
Nads.

Nikon better get their act together and design some for me then!
Click to expand...

They've come close a number of times, the 80-400 would be perfect if it had AF-S, the 24-120 VR would be good if it was a bit quicker and sharper, the 70-300 ED needs a serious upgrade (though I've heard rumours nikon might be in the process of doing it now). The 55-200 Af-S would be good if it actually had AF-S instead of the horrible cheating nikon employed on it.

that said, the 18-70 AF-S is brilliant and cheap, the 18-55 isn't bad either. those are as good as nikon gets at the cheap end.
 
You really have to look to Sigma at this price point. Thats why most of my good lenses are Sigma. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom