I'm planning to get a 300mm (ED-AF, older version NON AFS) Nikkor or 80-400mm Tokina/Nikon as my first tele lens. I'll be using it for mammals and perhaps macro work with extension or 500D.
I'm may go for 300mm, however have no experience with the tele lenses really. What do you suggest/recommend.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 30, 2007 at 9:06 AM
I've been using the Nikon 80-400mm VR. You would think it's not such a good lens, but it actually is. The optics are sharp and the VR works pretty well. The downsides are it is f5.6 and the autofocus is slow. But then again, the autofocus will be slow on all the lenses you mention. There is also the Sigma 80-400mm OS is is said to be a good lens. The Nikon has been out long enough that you can sometimes find one on eBay for not a lot.
There is another choice you might not be aware of. It's the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO. This lens is very inexpensive on eBay. You want the one that takes 77mm filters, not the older one that takes 72mm. I think it's also called the 400mm macro. No VR on it so you generally will want a tripod.
I also have the 80/400 Vr and have good luck with it. The biggest downsides are the 5.6 as mentioned and the slower tracking for moving objects. Otherwise it has been very good for me.
I also have the 80-400 vr which as they all say is slow and very irritating when trying to photograph moving objects(birds).I am selling it at the moment and have ordered the
SIGMA 120-300 f2.8 which as all who use it say it is exceptional.NOT CHEAP but a 1.4 or a 2x extender can be used to get a good long lens.
Good luck @ happy shooting
AVI :
Posted by David Chauvin on October 30, 2007 at 1:18 PM
The 300 with extension tubes is an exceptional close up combination. It has a very short minimum focus to begin with and the tubes bring it in even closer. Combine it with a 1.4x and you have a very sharp 420mmf5.6. I've haven't used any of the zooms mentioned here but have extensively used a 300mmf4 and have been very satisfied with it's versatility.
Posted by Alex Lofquist on October 30, 2007 at 1:51 PM
While I formerly used the Sigma 400 f/5.6, eventually I replaced it with a Nikkor AF 300 f/4 EDIF and a TC 14B. This gives me the flexibility of two lenses and the weight of one. The 300 f/4 focusses closely giving it the equivalent of a semi-macro with long working distance. You definitely need a good tripod and head! (I use the Kirk BH-1 and Wimberley Sidekick on a Gitzo 1228.)
Posted by Basil Greber on November 1, 2007 at 6:52 PM
I think it boils down to the subject. Is it mammals, or is it macro? If it's macro, no contest, get the 300/4 AF-D (or the above mentioned 400/5.6 APO Macro - it's optically great and focuses down to 1:3 without any tubes, but make sure you find one that focuses properly - mine doesn't, and it hurts). If it's mammals - again, IMO, no contest, get the 80-400 VR. Hope that helps. All IMHO.
Discussion
6 repliesI'm planning to get a 300mm (ED-AF, older version NON AFS) Nikkor or 80-400mm Tokina/Nikon as my first tele lens. I'll be using it for mammals and perhaps macro work with extension or 500D.
I'm may go for 300mm, however have no experience with the tele lenses really. What do you suggest/recommend.
There is another choice you might not be aware of. It's the Sigma 400mm f5.6 APO. This lens is very inexpensive on eBay. You want the one that takes 77mm filters, not the older one that takes 72mm. I think it's also called the 400mm macro. No VR on it so you generally will want a tripod.
Kent in SD
SIGMA 120-300 f2.8 which as all who use it say it is exceptional.NOT CHEAP but a 1.4 or a 2x extender can be used to get a good long lens.
Good luck @ happy shooting
AVI
Basil