Inexpensive Nikon zoom for wildlife pics

G

Gillian Thompson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12
Edit My Images
No
I am thinking about buying a longer zoom lens for my D300 - current max is 300mm. Am on a budget -any recommendations?
 
80-400mm is the next Nikon step up, but it's 3 times the price. You might want to look at something like the Sigma 170-500 or 50-500 at around £7-800,or the but that's about as "inexpensive" as you'll get when you go past 300mm on Nikon
 
Gillian Thompson said:
Thankyou, any one with experience of the nikon 80 -400?
Click to expand...

Yes - the Sigma 50-500mm is as good - if not better (I've benchmarked them together) and is cheaper.
 
Gillian Thompson said:
Thankyou, any one with experience of the nikon 80 -400?
Click to expand...

I used one for a few hours and a friend has one, uses it for work and is very pleased with it.
Some people criticise if for being a little slow to focus so as long as you dont want to shoot racing pigeons on a dull day, it should be fine.
There is a used one on MPBphotograhic here for £549.
Please buy it before I have to!

Allan
 
I'm in the same situation, looking for something longer than my 70-300VR.
On Saturday I tried the Sigma 50-500mm and my god is it big :gag: I doubt you could carry it very far on a trek, and I'd think in anything other than bright light you'd need a monopod at least. In fact I'm sure that a monopod is necessary for most shots. The photos' I took with it came out pretty good though seeing as I was shooting blue tits in the shade.

FWIW I'm leaing more towards the 300mm prime with tc's, but no decision yet.

Kev
 
or look at a 120-300 2.8 sigma, not cheap but you could get a 2x convertor later on and have a 240-600 5.6
 
I have the 70-300, tried the Sigma 50-500 & found it ok, but settled on an old Nikon 300mm f4 & add 1.7 or 2x to it if required..


a155.jpg
 
allanm said:
I used one for a few hours and a friend has one, uses it for work and is very pleased with it.
Some people criticise if for being a little slow to focus so as long as you dont want to shoot racing pigeons on a dull day, it should be fine.
There is a used one on MPBphotograhic here for £549.
Please buy it before I have to!

Allan
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link - the lens is no good for my camera but I bought a lovely leather camera bag for £15 :)
 
grumpybadger said:
I really think primes are the answer above 300mm (and probably below too!)
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, a Nikkor 300mm f/4 (any flavour) with a TC will trounce any megazoom.

I shot a Sigma 100-300 f/4 against a 300mm f/4 for a bit, and the "convenience" did not compensate for the diminished IQ.
 
Not too sure on that, whilst the 300 f4 is pretty damn quick,some of the big sigma`s ain`t too shoddy.
 
I think there are a couple exceptional long zooms. 1 is the Sigma 300-800 and the other is the Nikon 200-400 (the only Nikon lens this Canonian has lens envy over!)

However, for a given budget, I think primes give better quality than the zooms.

It's a shame Nikon don't do a 400/5.6 like Canon do - it's my lightweight birding lens...
 
If you need around the 400mm mark look at the Nikkor 300mm F2.8 link it with the TC 1.4II it will give you a rather nice (I know I have used it a good few times) 420mm F4.

Frank.
 
The Sigma 300 F2.8 is a cracking lens when married with a 1.4* converter gives 420mm f4

I'm just about to sell mine as I picker up a 120-300 F2.8, so if anyone is interested check out the for sale ads over the next day or so
 
frankreid said:
If you need around the 400mm mark look at the Nikkor 300mm F2.8 link it with the TC 1.4II it will give you a rather nice (I know I have used it a good few times) 420mm F4.
Click to expand...
barneyrubble said:
The Sigma 300 F2.8 is a cracking lens when married with a 1.4* converter gives 420mm f4
Click to expand...
I guess you two missed the bit about the OP looking for an inexpensive solution ... (The clue was in the title of the thread.) ;)
 
StewartR said:
I guess you two missed the bit about the OP looking for an inexpensive solution ... (The clue was in the title of the thread.) ;)
Click to expand...

They obviously consider their suggestions to be in expensive then:D
 
to be honest, was out playing about yesterday with my new camera, and got some pics of some pigeons and they were more than good enough. i was only playing around so didnt save them (am goign to west mids safari park soon so was just practicing) so cant show them.

lens is a tamron 500mm mirror lens, cost me £87 on ebay. I will have another go over next few days and post soemthing up for you to see if it is upto the standard you want.

Seemed sharp to me, yeah there was some vinigeretting, but that takes 2 seconds to fix in raw convertor.
 
Tbabe said:
I have the 70-300, tried the Sigma 50-500 & found it ok, but settled on an old Nikon 300mm f4 & add 1.7 or 2x to it if required..


a155.jpg
Click to expand...

Was that taken with the 300mm Nikon, no TC's, if so I want one? :love:

Kev
 
StewartR said:
I guess you two missed the bit about the OP looking for an inexpensive solution ... (The clue was in the title of the thread.) ;)
Click to expand...

And I guess you missed the bit where the OP discusses the 80-400, which I might add would be more expensive than a secondhand Sigma 300 F2.8 which is what I was suggesting.

Might I suggest reading the whole thread before being sarcastic?
 
barneyrubble said:
And I guess you missed the bit where the OP discusses the 80-400, which I might add would be more expensive than a secondhand Sigma 300 F2.8 which is what I was suggesting.

Might I suggest reading the whole thread before being sarcastic?
Click to expand...
It's a fair cop, guv. Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top