Long(ish) Nikon telephoto

Hertsman

Hertsman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,243
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Im looking for advice on the best glass I can put in front of my D500 for the (least) best money.

I currently have the Nikon 70-300 and find it ok for length 85% of the time.

Considerations are:

Nikon 70-200 2.8 and 1.4 ext

Maybe Sigma 150-600 C....but dislike the the short length quite a lot

Better budget would see me looking at the Nikon 80-400 AFS as I think it would work well - but at a price......

Mainly shoot zoo animals and motorsport with this length. Only one trip a year warrants 600mm I think, but I occasionally shoot garden birds, so the longer the better I think ?

Over to you chaps....
 
If it's only one lens then it's either the siggy or the nikon 200-500. I went for the nikon 300 f4 with a 1.4 tc as I already have a 70-200 and can use 2 bodies.
 
foggy4ever said:
If it's only one lens then it's either the siggy or the nikon 200-500. I went for the nikon 300 f4 with a 1.4 tc as I already have a 70-200 and can use 2 bodies.
Click to expand...

200 is way to long for me.
 
I too have the AFS 80-400 f4.5-5.6 G ED lens. it is a heavy beast and best with a tripod/monopod. With the D500 which has a crop sensor that would make the lens into a 112-600 mm lens
 
What about waiting to see what the new Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary is like?
 
snerkler said:
What about waiting to see what the new Sigma 100-400mm Contemporary is like?
Click to expand...

I wasant aware there was one coming, but could be of intererst.Whens it due and any idea of expected price ?
 
I had the 80-400 G but sold it. It was good at the short end but not so good at 400mm.
I think it is overpriced for the performance.

The Sigma weighs quite a bit less. If it performs I think it wil be popular.
 
Is this to replace the 70-300 or to run alongside it?
How about the Sigma 50-500? Shorter than the current 70-300 and longer at t'other end.
 
Nod said:
Is this to replace the 70-300 or to run alongside it?
How about the Sigma 50-500? Shorter than the current 70-300 and longer at t'other end.
Click to expand...

Ideally to to replace the 70/300 with higher quality optics.

Really not sure about sigma in general tbh. Have used a 150/600 sport and found t cumbersome .
 
Hertsman said:
Ideally to to replace the 70/300 with higher quality optics.

Really not sure about sigma in general tbh. Have used a 150/600 sport and found t cumbersome .
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of the new Sigma 100-400mm, apparently they've designed it to be compact and lightweight. I guess this is why it's f6/3 rather than f5.6.
 
snerkler said:
That's the beauty of the new Sigma 100-400mm, apparently they've designed it to be compact and lightweight. I guess this is why it's f6/3 rather than f5.6.
Click to expand...

1160g so not bad. 182mm in length with 67mm filter. Just a fraction bigger than the Nikon 70-200 f4.
 
JJ! said:
1160g so not bad. 182mm in length with 67mm filter. Just a fraction bigger than the Nikon 70-200 f4.
Click to expand...
So 410g (nearly1/3) lighter than the Nikon 80-400mm. Probably worth taking the 1/3 stop light hit then, especially if it's significantly cheaper (assuming good optics and AF).
 
Is the 70-200 and 1.4 not an option ? I thought they were supposedly a great combo.
 
f/4 and effectively (in terms of FoV) 105-280mm so more restricted at both ends than the 70-300, albeit a stop faster at the (shorter) long end.

OOPS! (Again!) got my sum wrong at the short end - I even checked that it was Nikon you're using, completely forgetting that we're talking 1.4x telecon rather than crop factor, even though I got it right at the long end!
 
Last edited:
I went from a 70-300 to a 300 f4 af-s and can highly recommend it, currently they are a used bargain. I now have the newer pf version, optically there is very little between the af-s and pf versions. The new version is much smaller and lighter, both work well with a 1.4tc Both would work very well on a D500, I use this pairing and find a really good lightweight combination.
 
Kaolin said:
I went from a 70-300 to a 300 f4 af-s and can highly recommend it, currently they are a used bargain. I now have the newer pf version, optically there is very little between the af-s and pf versions. The new version is much smaller and lighter, both work well with a 1.4tc Both would work very well on a D500, I use this pairing and find a really good lightweight combination.
Click to expand...

Ive heard this is a good lens, but I dont think a long prime would work for me at all.
The 70-300 is nigh on perfect for most use, a tad more length, a tad faster and maybe better optics and it would be perfect lol.
 
I use a 70-200mm VR with either 1.4x 1.7x and a 2.0 converters it makes for a very versatile combination and all with VR :)
 
realspeed said:
I too have the AFS 80-400 f4.5-5.6 G ED lens. it is a heavy beast and best with a tripod/monopod. With the D500 which has a crop sensor that would make the lens into a 112-600 mm lens
Click to expand...
What do you think of it @Realspeed ? I have to say. I think it fits my use perfectly, but at a large price.....
 
Last edited:
Hertsman said:
What do you see as the downside Steven ?
Click to expand...
I have the latest (VR II) version. It's expensive, it has a slowish/variable aperture, and it's a touch slow to AF IMO. I do think it's better than putting a 2x on a 70-200, or one of the 50/150- 500's; but not a lot by f/8-11 (where the 80-400 is best). And it is definitely better than the earlier version. I just don't think that it really justifies the price.

What I do like about it is the weight and versatility... it's a great lens to use from the goal end. But, you need decent light or a camera that handles higher ISO's well. And if you're wanting to separate the subject with shallow focus, you're going to have a harder time.
I generally prefer the Sigma 120-300/2.8, which costs about the same and works well w/ TC's... except for the weight. Or the 70-200/2.8 which I already had and weighs about the same. And if it's just casual shooting, I might prefer the 28-300 super zoom... that's the lens I would probably take to the zoo. And with wildlife I'm frequently at 800mm.

That's why I haven't really made a suggestion... it's just too variable. Personally, for most of your want list I would probably get the 200-500/5.6 and combine it with a decent wide lens which you probably have.
 
Last edited:
I'd go with the 70-200. It's a better lens than the others in the range it covers and that would (and did about 5 years ago) make the difference to me. I did also use with a 2x teleconverter and I'd say its just about usable but not ideal. 600 is nice but tbh it is far from essential for most things.
 
I think I am erring toward the 70-200 and 1.4/1.7 convertors....
 
Like Steven, I'm wary of commenting as there are lots of variables, but I'd be cautious of getting a zoom (even a 70-200) with the aim of using TCs most of the time, if that's your plan...

Then, looking at prices:

Both the 70-200VRII and 80-400G are around 1800 new, maybe 1200 (excellent) used, and 1.4+1.7 TCs are probably going to cost between 400-700.
(The 200-500 is around 1100, and they seem to go for just under 1000 used)
...you could reduce all of these a little by going for 'good' rather than 'excellent' used copies, but...​

I guess, as Steven suggests, it comes down to which compromise works best for you and which focal lengths you'll use most -- there are zoo animals and there are zoo animals :D

While it seems small for a 500, the 200-500 is just that bit bigger and heavier than the others so it probably isn't a lens you'll carry on the off-chance, whereas the 80-400, at about the same size as the 70-200, is quite portable and relatively easy to slip into bigger camera bags.
 
Can somebody help me with FX/DX lens length comparisons and FOV please.

Im struggling to compare apples with apples right now.

My DX 70-300 - is that actually 70-300 in terms of length ?

The FX 70-200 would be effectively 105-300 before any convertors are added....and then I get really lost.

The 80-400 I was considering is an FX lens so in reality 120-600 I think ?

This is proving soo difficult to decide.

Im almost ready to just buy a new 70-300 and forget about it.....
 
Hertsman said:
Can somebody help me with FX/DX lens length comparisons and FOV please.

Im struggling to compare apples with apples right now.

My DX 70-300 - is that actually 70-300 in terms of length ?

The FX 70-200 would be effectively 105-300 before any convertors are added....and then I get really lost.

The 80-400 I was considering is an FX lens so in reality 120-600 I think ?

This is proving soo difficult to decide.

Im almost ready to just buy a new 70-300 and forget about it.....
Click to expand...
Any lens will be the focal length stated in terms of fov when on an FX body in FX mode. On a DX body or DX mode it will be 1.5x the stated focal length.

The 70-300mm will give you a fov of 105-450mm when used on a dx body. On FF it will be 70-300 but would give severe vignetting as it's a DX lens so the image Circle is smaller.
 
Last edited:
Yep, if it's an FX lens (full frame) multiply by1.5 for Nikon, if using on a DX body.
(it doesn't actually make it a `longer` lens, but it's equivalent to)

Beaten to it. (& explained better above)
 
Last edited:
Also have the 70-200mm vr2 & the new 80-400mm.
Both have the uses, although only one is exceptional.
I love the 70-200vr2 & with the 1.4 its still incredible. The x1.7 I think sucks & the x2 is almost worthless in this country (need to stop down to f8 to be 'ok')
The 80-400 is a great 'allround' lens - although also think its only ok at 400mm.
I'd bolt on the 70-200, stick the 1.4 tele in my pocket & be happy with my shots..
This was at Whipsnade in Jan.. without the tele..

ZSL-9 by Pete Smith, on Flickr
 
Tell me if Ive got my maths wrong here....

a 70-200 on a Nikon crop gives:
105-300
with 1.4tc
147-420
with 1.7tc
180-510

My current 70-300 is actually 105-450


Fingers crossed....
 
Hertsman said:
Tell me if Ive got my maths wrong here....

a 70-200 on a Nikon crop gives:
105-300
with 1.4tc
147-420
with 1.7tc
180-510

My current 70-300 is actually 105-450


Fingers crossed....
Click to expand...
Pretty much, but if being precise with 1.7tc the 70-200 is 178.5-510 ;) :D
 
snerkler said:
Pretty much, but if being precise with 1.7tc the 70-200 is 178.5-510 ;) :D
Click to expand...
Actually, the 1.7x is just over 1.6 and 70mm will report as being around 117mm (w/o crop factor)... I would have to try it to get exact numbers...

Mark, it also makes the lens an f/4.8 max... Another thing to understand is that crop factor and TC's are *not the same thing as using a longer FL lens. They are both *only* enlarging the image that was transmitted by the lens.
 
sk66 said:
Actually, the 1.7x is just over 1.6 and 70mm will report as being around 117mm (w/o crop factor)... I would have to try it to get exact numbers...

Mark, it also makes the lens an f/4.8 max... Another thing to understand is that crop factor and TC's are *not the same thing as using a longer FL lens. They are both *only* enlarging the image that was transmitted by the lens.
Click to expand...

Steven,thanks for your reply. In reality, I suspect the lens alone will be fine for most use, with a some use of a 1.4 when required.
I only need 450 + for once a year, looking though my Flickr, majority are at 280 max and lower.
Im only looking at the numbers I mentioned above as a way of comparing apples with apples.

Nikon have always been behind Canon woth regard to lens choice IMHO.

The 70-200 is without doubt a fine lens and I just want to be sure it fits my needs before spending my dollar.

I could keep my 70-300 if I felt it was warranted fro extra lenght,or even splurge on a 300 F4.....
 
Hertsman said:
Tell me if Ive got my maths wrong here....

a 70-200 on a Nikon crop gives:
105-300
with 1.4tc
147-420
with 1.7tc
180-510

My current 70-300 is actually 105-450


Fingers crossed....
Click to expand...


Not sure exactly why you're bothering taking the crop factor into account if you only use Dx. Pretty sure that ALL Nikon fit lenses have their true focal length marked on them. The crop factor can be handy when chopping between Fx and Dx but if you only use one sensor size, it's pretty much irrelevant.

Personally, I'd stick with the 70-300 since it's significantly lighter than any of the 70-200 options, even if it is slower in terms of maximum aperture. This applies double if your 70-300 is the VR version.
 
Having read through this again I suggest the older (non PF) 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC.
It is highly rated and will work fine with a TC.
It is better glass than your current 300 zoom and will take a TC (your zoom will not).
Used from Nikon dealer I've just seen one at £600.

In FF equivalence you have 630.

If you have deeper pockets then I recommend the 300mm PF which is lighter by far.

If you need something with more than 300 on the barrel then I would suggest the Nikon 200-500, although I have not used one (weighs over 2 kgs though).
 
Nod said:
Not sure exactly why you're bothering taking the crop factor into account if you only use Dx. Pretty sure that ALL Nikon fit lenses have their true focal length marked on them. The crop factor can be handy when chopping between Fx and Dx but if you only use one sensor size, it's pretty much irrelevant.

Personally, I'd stick with the 70-300 since it's significantly lighter than any of the 70-200 options, even if it is slower in terms of maximum aperture. This applies double if your 70-300 is the VR version.
Click to expand...
All nikon lenses have the 35mm/FF equivalent focal length stated on them, even DX lenses AFAIK, therefore you need to know about crop factor and the equivalent FOV.
 
The only Dx lens I have is the 18-200 which has only 18-200 marked on it - no mention of EFL anywhere. FWIW, that has an EFL of 540mm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top