Long(ish) Nikon telephoto

Nod said:
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...
Click to expand...
On what body? On FF it will be 18-200mm, on crop it will be 27-300mm, not sure where you're getting 540mm from?
 
1 series. That's why lenses are marked with the actual focal length rather than any equivalent.


ETA on FF the lens will either send the body into crop/Dx format or vignette.
 
Last edited:
Actually, most fixed lens cameras have the FL marked as effective FL.
But FL and aperture are fixed characteristics of a lens independent of what it's put on, and that's why independent lenses are marked as such. A lens designer can't say what application may ultimately be used, the only thing they can do is design it for the intended application at the time. It wouldn't make much sense to label them all as 35mm equivalent... what about MF/LF lenses?
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
1 series. That's why lenses are marked with the actual focal length rather than any equivalent.


ETA on FF the lens will either send the body into crop/Dx format or vignette.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes, I forgot about the 1-series :oops: :$
 
sk66 said:
Actually, most fixed lens cameras have the FL marked as effective FL.
But FL and aperture are fixed characteristics of a lens independent of what it's put on, and that's why independent lenses are marked as such. A lens designer can't say what application may ultimately be used, the only thing they can do is design it for the intended application at the time. It wouldn't make much sense to label them all as 35mm equivalent... what about MF/LF lenses?
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? My compact cameras have always stated the actual FL and not the 35mm equivalent :confused: for example the RX100 states 8.8-36.8mm
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
"Not sure exactly why you're bothering taking the crop factor into account if you only use DX." "... 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."
Click to expand...

A Nod says.

Take your experience with the 70-300 as a guide -- a DX or FX 200 will be shorter, a 400 longer.
 
Last edited:
Im completely dazed and confused tbh....
I dont dislike my 70-300, but Ive had it a few years, and it has a bit of fungus on the glass. But it is a VR version and generally pretty good. Its only at the long end that its a bit soft that gets my GAS working....

Im sure the 70-200 2.8 will be better optically than the -300, and thats my primary desire.

To put it into car terminology, Ive bought a Porsche (D500) and have asked for Hankook tyres, when in reality, to get the best from it, it needs Michelin Pilot Cup Sports......

Someone put me out of my confusion and spend my money, please......
 
Hertsman said:
Im completely dazed and confused tbh....
I dont dislike my 70-300, but Ive had it a few years, and it has a bit of fungus on the glass. But it is a VR version and generally pretty good. Its only at the long end that its a bit soft that gets my GAS working....

Im sure the 70-200 2.8 will be better optically than the -300, and thats my primary desire.

To put it into car terminology, Ive bought a Porsche (D500) and have asked for Hankook tyres, when in reality, to get the best from it, it needs Michelin Pilot Cup Sports......

Someone put me out of my confusion and spend my money, please......
Click to expand...
If IQ is your priority then the 70-200mm f2.8 will be better than the 70-300, 80-400, and 150-600mm. If you start adding TC's to the party then it gets more complicated. Whether the 70-200mm with 2xTC will be better optically than the 80-400 (both giving the sane reach at the long end) then I can't comment without trying them. My suspicion would be that the 80-400mm would be better. If you don't need a zoom then the 300mm f4 PF is a good option, and I dare say that the 300mm f4 with 1.4x TC could well be better than the 80-400mm.

What is it you're intending to shoot with this lens?
 
snerkler said:
If IQ is your priority then the 70-200mm f2.8 will be better than the 70-300, 80-400, and 150-600mm. If you start adding TC's to the party then it gets more complicated. Whether the 70-200mm with 2xTC will be better optically than the 80-400 (both giving the sane reach at the long end) then I can't comment without trying them. My suspicion would be that the 80-400mm would be better. If you don't need a zoom then the 300mm f4 PF is a good option, and I dare say that the 300mm f4 with 1.4x TC could well be better than the 80-400mm.

What is it you're intending to shoot with this lens?
Click to expand...

IQ above all else for starters. I feel that about 420ish is about the max I need, until I make my annual trip to Silverstone for Motogp, and then 600 is needed - but happy to hire for that.
I suspect that I donly use the 1.4TC if required.
 
Hertsman said:
IQ above all else for starters. I feel that about 420ish is about the max I need, until I make my annual trip to Silverstone for Motogp, and then 600 is needed - but happy to hire for that.
I suspect that I donly use the 1.4TC if required.
Click to expand...
Are you needing a zoom? If not the 300mm would be my choice, would give 450mm equivalent focal length on crop body.

Is 600mm the focal length of choice for silverstone then? I'm going for the F1 (and possibly moto gp) and was going to take the 70-200 and 150-600.

Talking of the Moto GP how come it's moved back to Silverstone, thought it was supposed to be at that new track in Wales?
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I would want versatility over anything else... and I think you're getting wrapped up with pixel peeping.

I did a test of my 28-300. I compared it at 300mm against the 70-200 in DX mode (300), and the 70-200 w/ 1.4x (280). Granted, it was a good light situation that allowed me to use the 28-300 optimally, but can you tell the difference?


Lens test w/ D800 by Steven Kersting, on Flickr

Full Size BTW, they are not listed in order...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
sk66 said:
Honestly, I would want versatility over anything else... and I think you're getting wrapped up with pixel peeping.

I did a test of my 28-300. I compared it at 300mm against the 70-200 in DX mode (300), and the 70-200 w/ 1.4x (280). Granted, it was a good light situation that allowed me to use the 28-300 optimally, but can you tell the difference?


Lens test w/ D800 by Steven Kersting, on Flickr

Full Size BTW, they are not listed in order...
Click to expand...
TBH I don't personally find these kinds of things that useful, just like the 'lab tests' I posted above. Sure it can give an idea of sharpness and fine detail, but how a lens renders images, bokeh etc etc is more important to me. There's no doubt that the 70-200mm f2.8 gives far nicer images than the 28-300mm imo. Then there's the light gathering and subject isolation to consider. Granted these things are somewhat negated when using the lenses for something like slow shutter panning. But then there's AF speed too, the 70-200 for example is very fast.
 
Last edited:
snerkler said:
Are you needing a zoom? If not the 300mm would be my choice, would give 450mm equivalent focal length on crop body.

Is 600mm the focal length of choice for silverstone then? I'm going for the F1 (and possibly moto gp) and was going to take the 70-200 and 150-600.

Talking of the Moto GP how come it's moved back to Silverstone, thought it was supposed to be at that new track in Wales?
Click to expand...

Yes, a zoom is to flexible to ignore, because I cannot afford 6 different primes lol.
Silverstone needs length above evrything else, or you are stuck at Luffield.....
The COW is a flying pig and will never happen......
 
@sk66 You are probably correct, but basic rules dictate that some glass is faster/sharper than others.
Plus, as Toby said, bokeh too.

One of Nikons weaknesses in relation to Canon is the lack of depth of variety of genuine glass IMHE......
 
snerkler said:
TBH I don't personally find these kinds of things that useful, just like the 'lab tests' I posted above.
Click to expand...
There's no question that the 70-200 is the better lens, sometimes it matters and sometimes it doesn't.
FWIW, I'm not a wide aperture bokeh person... I tend to use FL for separation and aperture for sharpness/DOF.
 
Last edited:
Hertsman said:
One of Nikons weaknesses in relation to Canon is the lack of depth of variety of genuine glass IMHE......
Click to expand...

I admit I'm a Nikon user but I suspect you'd have the same problem with Canon... you seem to be after a single, high-quality lens that covers around 70-420, for motorsport, zoos, and birds... the closest seem to be the 80-400/ 100-400 lenses, these will be better than your 70-300 but might still be seen as 'general purpose', perhaps even 'compromise' lenses... a 70-200 will be faster and beat them at the short end, and something like a 200-500 will beat them at the long end -- but these don't cover the range. As has been said, a 1.4TC on a 70-200 would get you up to 280, but you seem to be wanting more.
 
Hertsman said:
@sk66 You are probably correct, but basic rules dictate that some glass is faster/sharper than others.
Plus, as Toby said, bokeh too.

One of Nikons weaknesses in relation to Canon is the lack of depth of variety of genuine glass IMHE......
Click to expand...
The primary reason I mention the super zoom as opposed to a prime or even a short zoom is the variety of situations you listed... IMO, the zoo is more of a "general purpose" type scenario where there is the potential for a wide range of situations. For me, when I have options, the FL is one of the later decisions. First is perspective/composition, and then the FL is chosen to allow for it.

In the end, photography is a "creative thing" and the finer points of IQ and other technicalities really don't matter that much (they only matter to photographers).
 
Hertsman said:
@sk66 You are probably correct, but basic rules dictate that some glass is faster/sharper than others.
Plus, as Toby said, bokeh too.

One of Nikons weaknesses in relation to Canon is the lack of depth of variety of genuine glass IMHE......
Click to expand...
I don't personally think Nikon have less variety per se, but they do lack a couple of options in telephoto such as 70-300mm options (Nikon only has one current FX option) and a 400mm f4.

If budget and/or weight isn't a consideration then there's always the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, lovely lens.
 
snerkler said:
If budget and/or weight isn't a consideration then there's always the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, lovely lens.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'd agree with that as I had one - until I checked on LR the amount of shots I'd taken at 120....
Sold it & bought the Nikon 300 VR2 - which nukes the 120-300...

But Its a lot heavier than the 70-200 or 80-400 - 1.5kg vs 3 kg..

High focal lengths are a real pain in that the best glass is really heavy, which then requires a 'heavy tripod, & head / gimbal...

If you are using this as a walkaround lens then the 70-200 is your Porsche.
If you want to save some money then the Sigma 70-200 OS is 'nearly' as good.. - & may mean you can get another lens...
 
Diving Pete said:
- until I checked on LR the amount of shots I'd taken at 120....
Click to expand...
..
Theres a way to let LR tell me how mnay shots were at different lengths ?

Diving Pete said:
If you are using this as a walkaround lens then the 70-200 is your Porsche.
If you want to save some money then the Sigma 70-200 OS is 'nearly' as good.. - & may mean you can get another lens...
Click to expand...

I think I need to buy the "holy trinity" Lens and see where I go from there tbh....
 
get the 70-200 2.8 with the 1.4tc you will be amazed at the results on your d500
thats what i use
 
I used to use a D7000 and 70-300 VR and was more than happy. Even sold loads of equestrian prints.

However I have no idea how it holds up on a more demanding camera.

Im not using a 70-200 F4 on FX and find it an excellent bit of glass.
 
sk66 said:
https://www.lightroomdashboard.com
Click to expand...

Thank you for that, makes some interesting viewing.....

Favorite Lens: 70.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6
Favorite Aperture: f/8

----------------------------------------
Lens Usage
----------------------------------------
55.0-200.0 mm f/4.0-5.6 (1 photos)
EF600mm f/4L IS USM (1 photos)
iPhone 4S back camera 4.28mm f/2.4 (7 photos)
iPhone 5s back camera 4.15mm f/2.2 (29 photos)
0.0 mm f/0.0 (31 photos)
90.0 mm f/2.8 (195 photos)
35.0 mm f/1.8 (290 photos)
50.0 mm f/1.8 (420 photos)
16.0-85.0 mm f/3.5-5.6 (845 photos)
TAMRON SP AF 90mm F2.8 Di Macro 1:1 272NII (1555 photos)
150.0-600.0 mm f/5.0-6.3 (1638 photos)
18.0-70.0 mm f/3.5-4.5 (2721 photos)
70.0-300.0 mm f/4.0-5.6 (4099 photos)
70.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6 (8023 photos)


----------------------------------------
Focal Length Usage
----------------------------------------
300mm (2997 photos)
70mm (2291 photos)
90mm (1870 photos)
270mm (1114 photos)
mm (690 photos)
18mm (635 photos)
240mm (531 photos)
50mm (510 photos)
220mm (486 photos)
195mm (396 photos)
280mm (386 photos)
135mm (385 photos)
35mm (381 photos)
170mm (374 photos)
150mm (338 photos)
600mm (335 photos)
230mm (266 photos)
100mm (255 photos)
95mm (251 photos)
110mm (250 photos)
 
Does that change anyones opinion on what Lens I should get ?
That report scanned ten years of images.....
 
I would still say the 200-500 paired with a shorter/kit zoom. Being that the lens most used is the 70-300, and that a majority of them are at/near 300mm I suspect you are frequently just out of reach. If you frequently pass on taking shots due to lack of reach, or frequently find you have to crop too hard, then I would put even more emphasis on longer reach.
 
sk66 said:
Being that the lens most used is the 70-300, and that a majority of them are at/near 300mm I suspect you are frequently just out of reach. If you frequently pass on taking shots due to lack of reach, or frequently find you have to crop too hard, then I would put even more emphasis on longer reach.
Click to expand...

Exactly ! Hence my thinking that the 80-400 would be perfect.....


Altho I do lust after the 70-200.....
and the 24-70....

God I hate being poor....
 
Gah, Im going insane trying to get this right......

Read a LOT of web reviews today that say the 80-400 is fine.



CANNOT get my head round whats best to buy.
 
What about the Sigma 150-600 C AND the Nikon 70-200 f4?
 
Im actually now seriously considering the Nikon 300mm f4 to go alongside a 70-200 2.8....

I can add a 1.4 to the prime for a bit of extra length if needed and still get to keep the native sharpness of the 70-200...

Good idea ?
 
Hertsman said:
Im actually now seriously considering the Nikon 300mm f4 to go alongside a 70-200 2.8....

I can add a 1.4 to the prime for a bit of extra length if needed and still get to keep the native sharpness of the 70-200...

Good idea ?
Click to expand...

@Hertsman ,

After a lot of chopping and changing with lenses, I've settled on the 300mm PF with a 1.7tc for my D500.

I did use the Tamron 150-600mm and the older 300mm AF-S with a 1.4tc.

But the 300mm PF and 1.7tc gives fantastic quality for an effective focal length of 500mm and an F stop of 6.7.

What I have learned though is that it's best to take off the 1.7 tc and use the 300mm PF bare on the D500 and physically get closer to the subject.

For your needs I'd suggest this combo or a Sigma 150-600 C.

Hope that helps (y)

Also, try some lenses out in shops. I can see you don't want to make the decision hastily as you started this thread over 6 weeks ago, so go out and spend a day trying the lenses that you've shortlisted. In truth, you'd probably be happy with all of them or none of them ;)
 
Last edited:
wezza13 said:
@Hertsman ,

After a lot of chopping and changing with lenses, I've settled on the 300mm PF with a 1.7tc for my D500.

I did use the Tamron 150-600mm and the older 300mm AF-S with a 1.4tc.

But the 300mm PF and 1.7tc gives fantastic quality for an effective focal length of 500mm and an F stop of 6.7.

What I have learned though is that it's best to take off the 1.7 tc and use the 300mm PF bare on the D500 and physically get closer to the subject.

For your needs I'd suggest this combo or a Sigma 150-600 C.

Hope that helps (y)

Also, try some lenses out in shops. I can see you don't want to make the decision hastily as you started this thread over 6 weeks ago, so go out and spend a day trying the lenses that you've shortlisted. In truth, you'd probably be happy with all of them or none of them ;)
Click to expand...
Do all Focus points work with the 300mm f4 and 1.7TC? As you say it makes it f6.7 so I'd assume only the more central ones work.
 
wezza13 said:
I'm not sure as I only tend to use the middle few focus points but I'm sure I've seen a link to an information sheet that shows which focus points work with the 1.7 tc.
Click to expand...
It's kind of in the manual but it's a bit of a grey area where the exact cut off is with the 1/3 stops.
 
snerkler said:
It's kind of in the manual but it's a bit of a grey area where the exact cut off is with the 1/3 stops.
Click to expand...
The manual is quite misleading in a way... Nikons do not "disable" AF points, they just don't work well, or at all. If I put a 2x on my 80-400 and extend it to 400mm (f/12.6 effective) I can still select all of the AF points and the camera will try to use them.
 
sk66 said:
The manual is quite misleading in a way... Nikons do not "disable" AF points, they just don't work well, or at all. If I put a 2x on my 80-400 and extend it to 400mm (f/12.6 effective) I can still select all of the AF points and the camera will try to use them.
Click to expand...
Sorry, poor choice of words ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top