Lens Fit

swiftflo

swiftflo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,336
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Just bought a Nikon D700, will this lens be 100% compatible.

Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro.

Thanks.
 
Yes, but don't expect too much. Not the greatest of lenses ever made.
 
Bristolian said:
Tom, I love your ability for understatement :lol:
Click to expand...

Got to be optimistic haven't you! :-D. The glass is always half full!
 
TCR4x4 said:
Yes, but don't expect too much. Not the greatest of lenses ever made.
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks, what lens would you recomend, reasonably priced of course.
Funds a little tight now after purchasing the D700.
 
If you buy a d700, you need decent lenses for it, otherwise it's pointless having a d700.
The only 70-300 I'd recommend is the Nikon VR version, although that's not great past 200mm in my experience with 2 different copies.
 
TCR4x4 said:
If you buy a d700, you need decent lenses for it, otherwise it's pointless having a d700.
The only 70-300 I'd recommend is the Nikon VR version, although that's not great past 200mm in my experience with 2 different copies.
Click to expand...

Would that be AF 70-300 f4,5.6D ED or
AF 70-300 f4,5.6 G.

Thanks
 
swiftflo said:
Would that be AF 70-300 f4,5.6D ED or
AF 70-300 f4,5.6 G.

Thanks
Click to expand...

The full title is Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED.
 
I never cease to be amazed at people who spend £1-2000 and more on a camera body and then stick the cheapest lens they can get on it. :shake:
 
swiftflo said:
Okay, thanks, what lens would you recomend, reasonably priced of course.
Funds a little tight now after purchasing the D700.
Click to expand...

The general rule is to spend a higher percentage of your total budget on the lenses.

Whilst you have bought a superb body. without decent lenses you are holding yourself back.

What is the maximum you can spend on lenses and what do you like to photograph.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I never cease to be amazed at people who spend £1-2000 and more on a camera body and then stick the cheapest lens they can get on it. :shake:
Click to expand...

I did not say I wanted the cheapest, I was only quoting what I had seen and was asking for advise.
 
So what is your budget then?
 
I use a 70-300vr on my D700, and previously on my D70. It's light years better than the cheaper nikon 70-300 lenses, and for the money a pretty good lens. The VR is very useful, but the lens is somewhat soft at the long end though, and of course on a D700, 300mm isn't that long. It's ok as a general purpose lens, but barely long enough for airshows, and probably not much use for hardcore nature photography.
 
swiftflo said:
Around 500.00
Click to expand...

You should easily be able to get the AF-S VR 70-300 within your budget (typically £300-350 used) and should have enough left over for a decent 50mm lens (£60-80) too.
 
Bristolian said:
You should easily be able to get the AF-S VR 70-300 within your budget (typically £300-350 used) and should have enough left over for a decent 50mm lens (£60-80) too.
Click to expand...

Thanks - which 50mm lens should I get ?.

Everyone so unbelievably helpfull.
 
There's only one within the budget stated, the 1.8D version.
 
Hi Peter,

Another positive for the 70 -300 VR which is within your budget. It will get you going until you can afford something better. Oh and you will want something better as soon as you can afford it! Been there, done that.

I do agree with paying as much as you can afford on lenses, but if you are new to this game, like me a few years ago you won't realise that. I now only buy high end lenses for that reason. But you either hear the advice or learn the hard way :)

But do buy it second hand and if the one shown above is on the forum check it out.

Best regards


Chris
 
Another, slightly shorter, lens to consider is the 80-200 AF-D, an early one ring version shouldn't cost much more than the (optically inferior) 70-300 VR and a more recent 2 ring one should still just about be within budget.
 
swiftflo said:
Is the 50mm 1.4 AF D not as good then ?.
Click to expand...

It's better, hence why it costs more.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Another, slightly shorter, lens to consider is the 80-200 AF-D, an early one ring version shouldn't cost much more than the (optically inferior) 70-300 VR and a more recent 2 ring one should still just about be within budget.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement and a friend had one for sale in the classified. Not sure if it is still there as I cannot see the classified sections. Search for Peter Hartland in the Nikon section to see.

Hopefully I am not breaking any rules by pointing you to that. If I am can the mods please remove my statement.

Regards

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top