Flights of fancy...300mm and longer lenses

DavidUK

DavidUK

Suspended / Banned
Messages
473
Edit My Images
No
Just filling the remaining moments of the day with yet another photography related flight of fancy.

My longest lens is current a 200mm. I've often considered longer lenses, but been put off by the price.

I quite like the idea of getting nice shots of wildlife when I'm wondering around, the odd pheasant at Castle Howard etc.

Would a 400mm lens be the lens for such a shot?

Had a look at the Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM, looks nice.
 
400 would be perfect for you, the 100-400 can be had for £650 - £700 second hand...although it's a marmite lens, for the price, the images it produces are fantastic!
 
David, why not have a look at somewhere like ffordes.co.uk - they had a f/5.6 Sigma 400mm for about £200 but I see they have an f/4 Nikon 300mm for under £400.

Nicholas cameras also had some 300/400mm lenses in stock (used) for reasonable money if you don't mind f/4 or f/5.6 apertures
 
I see they have an f/4 Nikon 300mm for under £400.

Excellent choice, and it'll take a 1.4x TC with no noticable degradation to hit 420mm.
 
Puddleduck, what a splendid idea. I'm now thinking what part of my body i could flog to pay for it without anyone noticing!! :)

I should stop thinking abotu things I have no means to afford...
 
specialman said:
Puddleduck, what a splendid idea. I'm now thinking what part of my body i could flog to pay for it without anyone noticing!! :)

I should stop thinking abotu things I have no means to afford...
Click to expand...

...as should I! 600 squid for a 400mm lens is out of my reach until (and if) the christmas bonus appears!
 
As a tester what about the old preset lenses there were all T2 mount so can be fitted to a DSLR and as long as you dont mind manual everything for about £40 you can see if its wiorth spending £400 on an all singing and dancing model
 
I'm by no means a long distance photographer but shoot often in difficult/low light settings and personally would be a bit concerned with f4/5.6 but maybe that's less an issue? :shrug:
 
The main problem is you get what you pay for. I've seen a few 300mm f/2.8 lenses knocking around in used shops and on fleabay for £400-£500 (including some Nikon ones) but 400mm you're looking at some serious wedge to keep that aperture. I suppose that's where zooms comes in but as far as I know, there are few around with low apertures - the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 looks good but that's still £650.

Ffordes has a Nikon f/4 300mm in for £399 but it's a got signs of use. Still, I'm sure build quality is A1 and it would be good for many more years. They also have a Sigma f/4 300mm for £249 - look in the USED > NIKON > AF LENSES.

Why not look at Tamron and Tokina f/2.8 300mm lenses - have seen a few for less than £400.

This might be of interest if you're after Nikon
 
Hi All,

I too have these dreams of a lens that costs the same as a second hand car (usually when i watch the news and see journalist point them at someone famous from a mile away)

but have had to settle for a 2x lens converter for my tamron 70 -300mm lens, and i am still trying to get used to stopping the lens shake and manual focus. but do enjoy the challenge.
 
I've often wondered why some seemingly short zooms have a huge price tag.

Is this due to the lower apertures i.e. F2.8?... and are these essentially better in lower light conditions, or faster etc?

Just wondered why I paid about 350 for an 18-200mm Sigma and some 300mm lenses cost an absolute packet in comparison!

(my lens knowledge could do with a refresh!:bonk:)
 
David.... its not just the aperture, its the whole thing - ultra low dispersion glass of multiple elements made to a precision that you probably can't even imagine.

I see a lot of people on here all the time saying "why would I spend that money on that glass when my 75 quid sigma is the same focal length". Seriously, go look at one of these lenses and if you can, give it a try. If after that you still doubt why they are so expensive perhaps you just aren't into this subject quite far enough yet...
 
desantnik said:
...go look at one of these lenses and if you can, give it a try. If after that you still doubt why they are so expensive perhaps you just aren't into this subject quite far enough yet...
Click to expand...

I paid £400 (a bargain) for my Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm lens and compared to something like my old Sigma 75-300mm APO the difference is massive; not only that extra light you can capture with the wider aperture, the weight of all that extra glass but he quality is soooo much different. And that's justa £400 lens - I'd love to have a proper play with a 'prime' 300mm or 400mm lens.

Had a go once with that 1200mm f/5.6 Canon lens at FOCUS once - now that was a piece of gear but what a price!!!
 
desantnik said:
David.... its not just the aperture, its the whole thing - ultra low dispersion glass of multiple elements made to a precision that you probably can't even imagine.

I see a lot of people on here all the time saying "why would I spend that money on that glass when my 75 quid sigma is the same focal length". Seriously, go look at one of these lenses and if you can, give it a try. If after that you still doubt why they are so expensive perhaps you just aren't into this subject quite far enough yet...
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, I'm always learning new things and that's what makes it interesting :)

Can you recommend a higher quality lens I should try on my D200?
 
There are quite a few cracking bits of Nikon glass, depending on what sort of stuff you are into shooting.... try the 24-70 or the 70-200 or the awesome 300 2.8
 
desantnik said:
There are quite a few cracking bits of Nikon glass, depending on what sort of stuff you are into shooting.... try the 24-70 or the 70-200 or the awesome 300 2.8
Click to expand...

Primarily I am interested in landscapes so spend a lot of time with the Sigma 10-20mm attached, but would like to expand into other areas.

I might take a look at the 300 2.8, imagine it costs a pretty penny!
 
Yeah thats it!

You should see what it can do though... the Nikon 300 f4 is pretty good... until you see that baby's output!
 
Some clown on here has a 600 F4 for sale.......:)
 
Have seen what the Canon 600 f4 can do, I'd imagine the Nikon one to be at least as good. Thats one hell of a toy for motorsport, one of my amigos hired one earlier this year and the results are mind blowing...
 
desantnik said:
Yeah thats it!

You should see what it can do though... the Nikon 300 f4 is pretty good... until you see that baby's output!
Click to expand...

At the other end of the scale, wide angle, is there anything that might supercede my Sigma 10-20mm in terms of quality? I think I might get more use out of such a lens that blowing an astronomical amount of cash on a large zoom when I shoot mainly landscapes.
 
the 24-70 is pretty damned awesome too... not sure if its really a landscape thing though - I don't shoot landscapes!
 
DavidUK said:
At the other end of the scale, wide angle, is there anything that might supercede my Sigma 10-20mm in terms of quality? I think I might get more use out of such a lens that blowing an astronomical amount of cash on a large zoom when I shoot mainly landscapes.
Click to expand...

Not without blowing more cash - there's been lots of nice things said about Tamron's new 11-16mm, but I'm a happy bunny with my Sigma:)
 
The Tamron 11-16 is supposed to be very good actually, if you are prepared to accept the somewhat limited focal length range...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top