Hi Guys,
Following on from Sharon McAllister's request for advice for a telephoto lens I am in a similar situation. I am new to the forum and I am looking to buy my first telephoto zoom lens.
I have a Nikon D200 with 18-70 'Standard' zoom lens and about £800- £1000 to spend. My current thinking goes something like this:
1 Buy the Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VR (Vibration Reduction) zoom lens. Approx £900 2nd hand and £1100 New. This will get me to an effective 300mm F2.8 with the Nikon 1.5 crop factor taken into account. Not quite a 400/500/600 but a start.
2 If I need to get a bit more reach I can use the CROP function in my image editing. After all this is only like increasing the focal length of a lens by different means. I've seen many pictures on here which have been cropped and still exhibiting excellent quality.
3 When funds allow purchase a 1.7 or 2X Teleconverter giving me an effective 510 F5 or 600 F5.6 lens.
I would like your advice as to the for's and againsts of the above suggestion. As far as I can see the For's are:
1 70-200 F2.8 will give me a bright viewfinder compared to a F4.5 and whilst learning to use a Telephoto lens I think this will help me in aquiring/tracking the subject.
2 Lighter weight 70-200+2X converter =1.825Kg compared to a 600mm =4.75Kg. and therefore easier to Handhold.
3 Cheaper!!! Approx £1300 compared to £5500.
Against:
1 Loss of image quality-but how much between the 2?
2 Slower Autofocus with the teleconverter attd-again by how much?
I would like your thoughts/advice as to my proposed route and what difference in the real world of an 10x8" print at 5ft viewing is there between a 70-200+2X conv. and a 600mm.
Thanks in advance and apologies for the long thread
Neil Kristiansen
Hull
Ps I note from Andy Rouse's initial review of the Nikon D300 he was using a 70-200 with 1.7 converter and the image quality looks pretty good to me.
Posted by Paul Gibbs on January 8, 2008 at 4:38 AM
If i was you, and your looking to spend about £1000 on a lens, i wouldnt get one i would use a TC on all the time.
I know many rate the Nikkor 300mm f4 with a 1.4x or 1.7x TC but i'd rather spend a little extra and get a Sigma 500mm f4.5. You can pick these up for about £1500 in almost new condition, and the results as you can see by searching the forum are excellent.
With a 70-200 and a TC plus a hide you could get good shots, but i think its a false economy unless you plan on using the 70-200 as a 70-200 mainly.
Posted by Andy Astbury on January 8, 2008 at 5:00 AM
Neil - the tc17eII is a superb converter - I've tried it on the 600mm AFS II and to be honest you can hardly tell you've got it on, apart from the fact that the image has just jumped in size by 70%.
You'll see a lot of cropped images that look superb on the web at 720x480 pixels but to be honest cropping is something you should strive not to do, or do to a minimum degree in order to obtain high quality images.
Cropping for composition is one thing, cropping for subject size in the frame is another - and should be avoided like the plague where ever possible.
The shorter the focal length you go for the greater will be the temptation to crop for subject size, so you have to learn to get closer to your subjects - for example, Edwin relies very heavily on a 300mm focal length and gets really close to his subjects, whilst a lot of us would be tempted to use a longer length lens and not get quite so close.
It really all depends on what you want to start photographing, but to be honest I'd try and find some extra money from somewhere and pick up something around the 300mm mark.
If I was starting out I'd really be looking at the lens Edwin uses to such great effect - the Sigma 120-300mm - if you can stretch your budget a bit I'm certain you'll get a good deal on one somewhere, and coupled to a Nikon body it's a stunning lens with great versatility.
The 70-200 with a 2x converter will only give you 140-400mm so I can't see why you compare it with the 600mm, and the Nikon 2x tc isn't brilliant by any description.
And whacking a 2x tc on your lens might well dissable your cameras AF facilities if your minimum aperture drops below f5.6 (yes you can tape the pins up, but I've never managed to get this to work on a 2x myself).
If I was you Neil I'd get a medium tele zoom like the Sig 120-300, then later move on and add a 500mm and perhaps a 1.4x tc, and either a 150 or 180 macro lens, or a set of extension tubes for the 120-300mm in order to do macro - that way you'd have all your bases covered apart from wide angle for landscapes.
Don't feel you need to be enslaved to the mighty Nikkor in order to obtain superb images - YOU DON'T
Posted by Tim Munsey on January 8, 2008 at 5:50 AM
Hi Neil,
I have a 50-500mm Bigma you can have for £225.
Tim
Posted by Paul Gibbs on January 8, 2008 at 6:46 AM
Tim thats a great price for the Bigma.
Posted by Ian Andrews on January 8, 2008 at 7:01 AM
If you are happy with the image quality of the 18-70mm, then the 'Bigma' would be a good choice, especially at that price!
Your comparisons are a little off in your post, as Andy points out. The 600mm on a D200 is effectively a 900mm lens, more than twice the reach of a 70-200mm with 2x!
Whilst the 300mm sugestions are sensible, as you are starting out, the 50-500mm will cover a huge range and let you see where the optimum length for your own photography really is before spending big bucks on a prime/high class zoom. As mentioned, fieldcraft, and how close you get to your subjects, plays a big part in choosing your main, and probably most expensive, weapon.
Andy is also correct in that cropping for subject size is an area that should be avoided if at all possible. A print from a 720 pixel image would come out at less than 2 1/2 inches on the longest side, so you really need the hi-res version to be a decent size.
Andy- Your idea of saving a little more and getting the Sigma 120-300 is a great one and is more likely the road I will go down. I think Edwin's photos are Superb and have noted before that he use's this lens. I prefer to try and get closer to my subject Birds/ Wildlife in general than use a Big lens.I was at Donna Nook on Boxing Day and got within about 4 feet of a Pup-took 20 minutes of crawling on the wet sand though!! But with only an 18-70 what could I do?
Tim- Thanks for the offer of the Bigma and if I can't raise some more cash I might take you up on it
Ian- I was comparing the 70-200 with 2X converter plus 1.5crop of the D200 against a 600mm with Full Frame- My fault I did not explain my thoughts properly
Thanks for now- I have much to learn and I know that this is the best place for advice
Neil
Hull
Posted by Mark Fellowes on January 8, 2008 at 10:49 AM
I think it's also worth thinking about the Sigma 100-300F4, with a 1.4 converter. Very sharp, relatively fast and not too expensive, especially when you add on costs of tripods, heads etc. It will also work with extension tubes for dragonflies. Good for places like Donna Nook and red deer, and garden birds too. It should be enough lens to let you discover whether all this is really for you, and then you can fork out for a 500...
Mark
Discussion
7 repliesFollowing on from Sharon McAllister's request for advice for a telephoto lens I am in a similar situation. I am new to the forum and I am looking to buy my first telephoto zoom lens.
I have a Nikon D200 with 18-70 'Standard' zoom lens and about £800- £1000 to spend. My current thinking goes something like this:
1 Buy the Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VR (Vibration Reduction) zoom lens. Approx £900 2nd hand and £1100 New. This will get me to an effective 300mm F2.8 with the Nikon 1.5 crop factor taken into account. Not quite a 400/500/600 but a start.
2 If I need to get a bit more reach I can use the CROP function in my image editing. After all this is only like increasing the focal length of a lens by different means. I've seen many pictures on here which have been cropped and still exhibiting excellent quality.
3 When funds allow purchase a 1.7 or 2X Teleconverter giving me an effective 510 F5 or 600 F5.6 lens.
I would like your advice as to the for's and againsts of the above suggestion. As far as I can see the For's are:
1 70-200 F2.8 will give me a bright viewfinder compared to a F4.5 and whilst learning to use a Telephoto lens I think this will help me in aquiring/tracking the subject.
2 Lighter weight 70-200+2X converter =1.825Kg compared to a 600mm =4.75Kg. and therefore easier to Handhold.
3 Cheaper!!! Approx £1300 compared to £5500.
Against:
1 Loss of image quality-but how much between the 2?
2 Slower Autofocus with the teleconverter attd-again by how much?
I would like your thoughts/advice as to my proposed route and what difference in the real world of an 10x8" print at 5ft viewing is there between a 70-200+2X conv. and a 600mm.
Thanks in advance and apologies for the long thread
Neil Kristiansen
Hull
Ps I note from Andy Rouse's initial review of the Nikon D300 he was using a 70-200 with 1.7 converter and the image quality looks pretty good to me.
I know many rate the Nikkor 300mm f4 with a 1.4x or 1.7x TC but i'd rather spend a little extra and get a Sigma 500mm f4.5. You can pick these up for about £1500 in almost new condition, and the results as you can see by searching the forum are excellent.
With a 70-200 and a TC plus a hide you could get good shots, but i think its a false economy unless you plan on using the 70-200 as a 70-200 mainly.
You'll see a lot of cropped images that look superb on the web at 720x480 pixels but to be honest cropping is something you should strive not to do, or do to a minimum degree in order to obtain high quality images.
Cropping for composition is one thing, cropping for subject size in the frame is another - and should be avoided like the plague where ever possible.
The shorter the focal length you go for the greater will be the temptation to crop for subject size, so you have to learn to get closer to your subjects - for example, Edwin relies very heavily on a 300mm focal length and gets really close to his subjects, whilst a lot of us would be tempted to use a longer length lens and not get quite so close.
It really all depends on what you want to start photographing, but to be honest I'd try and find some extra money from somewhere and pick up something around the 300mm mark.
If I was starting out I'd really be looking at the lens Edwin uses to such great effect - the Sigma 120-300mm - if you can stretch your budget a bit I'm certain you'll get a good deal on one somewhere, and coupled to a Nikon body it's a stunning lens with great versatility.
The 70-200 with a 2x converter will only give you 140-400mm so I can't see why you compare it with the 600mm, and the Nikon 2x tc isn't brilliant by any description.
And whacking a 2x tc on your lens might well dissable your cameras AF facilities if your minimum aperture drops below f5.6 (yes you can tape the pins up, but I've never managed to get this to work on a 2x myself).
If I was you Neil I'd get a medium tele zoom like the Sig 120-300, then later move on and add a 500mm and perhaps a 1.4x tc, and either a 150 or 180 macro lens, or a set of extension tubes for the 120-300mm in order to do macro - that way you'd have all your bases covered apart from wide angle for landscapes.
Don't feel you need to be enslaved to the mighty Nikkor in order to obtain superb images - YOU DON'T
I have a 50-500mm Bigma you can have for £225.
Tim
Your comparisons are a little off in your post, as Andy points out. The 600mm on a D200 is effectively a 900mm lens, more than twice the reach of a 70-200mm with 2x!
Whilst the 300mm sugestions are sensible, as you are starting out, the 50-500mm will cover a huge range and let you see where the optimum length for your own photography really is before spending big bucks on a prime/high class zoom. As mentioned, fieldcraft, and how close you get to your subjects, plays a big part in choosing your main, and probably most expensive, weapon.
Andy is also correct in that cropping for subject size is an area that should be avoided if at all possible. A print from a 720 pixel image would come out at less than 2 1/2 inches on the longest side, so you really need the hi-res version to be a decent size.
Ian
Andy- Your idea of saving a little more and getting the Sigma 120-300 is a great one
Tim- Thanks for the offer of the Bigma and if I can't raise some more cash I might take you up on it
Ian- I was comparing the 70-200 with 2X converter plus 1.5crop of the D200 against a 600mm with Full Frame- My fault I did not explain my thoughts properly
Thanks for now- I have much to learn and I know that this is the best place for advice
Neil
Hull
Mark