Lens help and advice please

P

Puddle

Suspended / Banned
Messages
56
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm looking for some help, advice and recommendations please:). I'm looking to buy a new lens - my main interests are taking photos wildlife and birds.

Size and weight of the lens is important as I need to get it in airport carry on bags. I was thinking of either:-

1. Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR II with teleconvertor - probably TC2 III and maybe get a 1.4 or 1.7 later when I've saved up a bit more (I know I'll lose some image quality with the 2x, but think I would get quite a bit of use out of the 70-200 by itself too).

2. Sigma 50-500mm (the new version with IS/VR - not sure of all the letters!).

3. Sigma 120-300mm 2.8. Probably wouldn't be able to afford a TC to go with this yet. Also, I don't know what brand of TC I would be able to use with this lens - could anyone please advise? Has anyone used this lens with a TC?

I've hired the 70-200mm VR1 from Lenses for Hire in the past with a 2x TC and was pleased with the results, both with and without the TC. Definitely wouldn't want the lens to weigh much more than this did tho! I have no experience of Sigma lenses at all. I'm looking to buy from Jessops (thanks to the Tesco Clubcard vouchers) and so the Nikon 70-200mm VRI won't be an option.

I like taking photos of birds, mainly because they're pretty much the only wildlife we have locally :lol: I like to try to get up to the Farne Islands a couple of times each summer, and hope to take a trip out to Donna Nook this year (a place I'd never heard of until I discovered TP:clap:).

Also, I'm going on safari to South Africa in March and so will want the lens for that too. We are going to a private game reserve, so can go off road. I think it's mainly bushveld rather than plains (although I'm new to this and have never
been on safari before, so am not sure if/how the bushveld makes a difference).

My budget is £2,000 all in and I would prefer to buy new if possible. If anyone can recommend any of the above, or recommends that I steer clear of any of them, I would be really grateful. Also, if anyone thinks there is another lens I should consider, then I'd be really grateful for recommendations. I'm looking for VR, and to use the lens on my D7000.

Hope I've given you enough info and look forward to your suggestions :clap:

Thank you in anticipation;) and I'm sorry if the post is a bit higgledy piggledy, but I'm posting from my phone (I'm so excited that I've finally signed up to TP after a couple of weeks of dithering. That, and the internet is banned at work!).

Puddle
 
Hi mate, welcome!

I think you need to answer 2 questions before you buy.

Firstly, how close will you be able to get to the animals on your safari? If you're going to struggle to get within 50 yards you'll need something very different than if you're on with a chance of getting up close and personal.

Then, what will your main subjects be back home? The nikon 70-200 is a top performer but if your always using it with a 2x converter on it you might be better with something else.

The sigma 50-500 os appears to be gaining popularity quickly and is the best length for birding for your budget and would leave you with plenty in reserve for either the sigma 70-200 non os or tamron 70-200 f2.8. The main difference between those 2 appears to be a slightly better sharpness with the tamron at the expense of af speed.

Whatever you go for, try the actual lens before parting with your cash to make sure you get a good copy.
 
If you're going to private game reserves like those in Sabi Sands, then the 70-200 would be the lens to have, with a TC of either magnification. I used a 55-200 and for the most part 200 was long enough for all of the animals except for the birds. Even some of the birds it was enough. A 70-200 with a 1.4 would probably do it. Also, the f2.8 earlier in the morning and later in the evening would have been nice, as would the ISO of the D7k. I used a D40 with 55-200 consumer grade and made it work pretty well. A bit more resolution, a bit more magnification, and a bit more light would have made for an awesome set all around.

Thanks
Rick
 
Nothing especially valuable to add as I haven't used any of these but I will mention that myself and seemingly others have had problems getting third party lenses from Jessops. It seems that they list them on their site but don't hold stock. I hear it can literally take months for a lens to arrive though I cancelled my order long before it got to that stage.

This was a year ago now though so maybe things have changed. Either way, make sure you're given a firm delivery date.
 
Jessops have the Nikon 300mm AF-S f4 IFED at £977....great lens for birding and works very well with the Nikon TC's.....thoroughly recommend.

Steve
 
Thanks everyone for your replies and suggestions. I don't know how to multi-quote yet so...

Pooley, I know what you mean about the 2x TC, but I think I would get good usage out of the 70-200mm and am taken with the 2.8. My concern is if I buy the 50-500mm now, then I might never get my budget back up to the current level and might never get one of the 2.8s:lol:.

I'm hoping we will get quite close to the animals on safari, but obviously this is not guaranteed. A very good idea to make sure I try the actual lens before I buy, thank you.

Rick, you sound like a man who's been on Safari :) Any photos you'd like to share? Unfortunately our budget wouldn't stretch to Sabi Sands. We're staying a bit further up:). I like your point about the early morning and evening drives and again this makes me inclined to go for a 2.8.

Gad-Westy - I didn't know that. Will make sure I pin them down on a delivery date:thumbs:.

SteveF - I didn't realise the 300mm was so "small". I actually thought it was much larger. Turns out it's not much bigger than the 70-200mm! Thank you for that:). Where would the 300mm leave me if I wanted to use a TC? To what extent would it still auto focus on my D7000? Am I right in thinking it would be OK with a 1.4 or 1.7 but not with a 2x? Obviously I would be reducing my f stop quite a lot though.

Phil, I love the photos and hadn't even considered the 120-400mm. Have had a quick Google and can't believe how cheap it is! Just realised I forgot to Google how big it is! Off to have a quick look. My only reservation is the 4.5-5.6f on this lens.

Would love to hear from anyone else, or see photos from the lenses if possible.

Thanks for all your help so far :clap:

Puddle
 
Puddle said:
I was thinking of either:-

1. Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 VR II with teleconvertor - probably TC2 III
2. Sigma 50-500mm (the new version with IS/VR).
3. Sigma 120-300mm 2.8.

I've hired the 70-200mm VR1 from Lenses for Hire in the past with a 2x TC and was pleased with the results, both with and without the TC. Definitely wouldn't want the lens to weigh much more than this did tho!
Click to expand...

Glad to hear that you were pleased! And welcome to TP.

1470g = Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR
1800g = Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G IF-ED VR with TC-20E III

1540g = Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR II
1870g = Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 G ED VR II with TC-20E III
1970g = Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 DG OS HSM
2950g = Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM

These figures are from the manufacturers' web sites and they don't say whether they include hoods and tripod collars. Probably not, in which case the differences betwen the lenses are probably a bit bigger than this, because the bigger/heavier lenses tend to have bigger/heavier hoods too. So it's hard to be specific about the weight of the 50-500 vs the 70-200+TC, but I think you can rule out the 120-300 on the grounds of weight alone. Qualitatively it does feel like a significantly bigger and heavier lens. I'm happy to uise a 70-200/2.8 all day, but with a 300/2.8 I feel like I'd prefer to have a monopod available.
 
Last edited:
From what I've seen the 70-200 VR2+1.4 is as good as the bare 300 f4 - while you get only 280 rather than 300mm, you have the rest of the range too.

Both 70-200s are great, but if you can afford it spring for the second - it seem to work with the 2x TCs better, it ghosts less and resolves better at 200mm and 2.8. That difference mostly disappears after f4. That said, the VR1 is hardly a slouch. I kept the VR1 as it'll cost me £600 to upgrade and while the improvement is nice, there are other things I'd like to get first.
 
Phil Young said:
I just bought a sigma 120-400mm OS and it is supurb!!!!

Far better than the 50-500 or the 150-500mm.

Fast AF, sharp, nice size and ergonomics...8.5/10 for me!
Click to expand...

Like the OP I'm currently deciding between a few lenses, I can't justify spending mega money a a big prime so I've been looking at the Bigma OS (50-500 Sigma HSM OS), the 80-400 Nikkor and the 120-400 Sigma.

While consensus appears to be that the Nikkor is not the best choice due partly to the age of the technology behind the product opinion appear split between the other choices. Phil's post is a prime (no pun intended) example, he's getting on well with the 120-400 and getting some cracking shots comparing it positively against the Bigma, were others claim better sharpness throughout the range on the Bigma against the 120-400 and the split appear to be 50/50 Gah!

When your spending so much money its a difficult call to make :)
 
Puddle said:
Thanks everyone for your replies and suggestions. I don't know how to multi-quote yet so...

Rick, you sound like a man who's been on Safari :) Any photos you'd like to share? Unfortunately our budget wouldn't stretch to Sabi Sands. We're staying a bit further up:). I like your point about the early morning and evening drives and again this makes me inclined to go for a 2.8.

Puddle
Click to expand...


Puddle,

Only once, and only to Sabi Sands. Our lodge (Arathusa if you're interested) was all private but unenclosed. The game was CLOSE! I was new to photography and only using a D40 with the consumer 55-200 VR and still got some decent shots. These are all straight out of the camera jpgs with neutral settings. I kept the raws and they sharpen/color/contrast up nicely. These should mostly be uncropped so you can see what a 200mm max range gives there.


DSC_1739_2.jpg


DSC_1752.jpg




DSC_2006.jpg


DSC_2047.jpg


DSC_2277_2_2.jpg




DSC_2454_2.jpg


Thanks,
Rick
 
Last edited:
I've been reading this forum for a while as I'm also looking at getting a longer wildlife lens (also use the d7000). I've read good things about the sigma 50-500 os and the sigma 120-300. My budget is around half of yours so I'm looking at the s/h market but as its such a great outlay I'm thinking of hiring the chosen lens before taking the plunge and purchasing it.
 
Thanks GeordieStew, but I can't access the classifieds yet.

Stewart, thanks for that - it's great:thumbs: Didn't realise the 120-300 was quite so heavy. Think that one is definitely out of the equation - it will be all my hand luggage allowance in one go!

Thank you Ausemmao. I can only get the VRII as I'm buying from Jessops (Clubcard vouchers) and they don't have the VRI anymore, so your post is good to me:).

Talon, I agree with your post entirely:thumbs:. It's such a big investment and, as you say, so many conflicting reviews and opinions out there.

Rick - that's not close at all:lol: Wow, they are really close shots and make me hope that 300-400mm should be enough. Looks like you had some great sightings.

Think I am swaying towards the Nikon 70-200mm.

Thanks for all your help and input.

Puddle
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top