My arms arn't long enough.. I need more reach!

Messiah Khan

Messiah Khan

Santa is your dad
Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,666
Name
Alasdair Fowler
Edit My Images
Yes
Well, more reach with my lenses anyway. Im starting to have a quite nice collections of glass now, covering most of the things I like to shoot. However there is still a major gap in my collection; A long reach telephoto lens for things like wildlife etc. For now the lens is destined for a Nikon D40X, so ideally will need to be AF-S, AF-I or HSM so I can retain autofocus.

My research has led me to the Sigma 50-500, which does seem very good. The size and weight doesn't bother me to much, and the range it covers would be very practical. The only thing that lets it down however is the f6.3 at the long end. Looking around, it seems I could pick one of these up for £300-£400 second hand. However if possible id like to pay a little more (say <£800 second hand) and get a slightly faster setup. So are there any other lenses or combinations (ie, shorter lens+TC) I should belooking at for that sort of money?
 
I use the bigma on a D200 and it is a good combination, but you are right about the 6.3 at the long end. I have had a few problems in low light and had to compensate with a higher ISO than I would like to achieve a sensible shutter speed. However those occassions have been few and far between.

I think if you start looking at a faster set up at that range you are going to be talking some much bigger bucks!

I don't think you would be dissapointed.

Bob
 
A friend has this lens and I have given it a go and been very impressed by it both in terms of performance and quality ... :thumbs: ... it is fast and quiet in operation and generally well built too so in terms of value for money, for a long reach zoom, it will be very hard to beat imgo ... :D ... but yes the main downside will be the slow aperture at the long end ... :shrug: ... if you can live with that you will not be disappointed with the glass overall ... :suspect:




:p
 
Sigma 300mm f/2.8 HSM & 1.4x TC would be achievable for about £1000 2nd hand. Infact there is a nikon fit sigma 300mm f/2.8 HSM for sale here and its a bargain imo.
 
I'm speaking as a "Canon" man so it may not be strictly valid.

I don't know what else you have in your lens arsenal but the quality in your gallery looks very high. With this in mind, I'm not sure that you'd be happy with the quality available from 10X zoom.

I have a Canon 35-350L and, whilst it's got it's uses for walkaround snapping, it is too far from the quality of the 300/4 to be used for anything serious.

Based on this, I would suggest a 300 or 400 with a 1.4t/c or a zoom with a much lower "X factor".

Bob
 
Lol, touche' Alexisonefire.

Thanks for all the suggestions so far. For those who have used both, does using a prime really make a drastic difference to IQ? Enough of a difference to sacrifice functionality of a zoom (even a short zoom range)? Im just worried that going with a prime for things like birds is going to give me a very limited 'sweetspot' in terms of range and framing of the shot.
 
Messiah Khan said:
Lol, touche' Alexisonefire.

Thanks for all the suggestions so far. For those who have used both, does using a prime really make a drastic difference to IQ? Enough of a difference to sacrifice functionality of a zoom (even a short zoom range)? Im just worried that going with a prime for things like birds is going to give me a very limited 'sweetspot' in terms of range and framing of the shot.
Click to expand...

Add some TCs for additional versatility. :)
 
I have the older version of the sigma 50-500 (non DG version or what ever it is, so it can be used on film SLR bodies.) And I must say it gets a little anoying to use sometimes as it looses focus lock when on AF-C, and as such seeks alot. Admitedly though it tends to do this when contrast on the subject is low. Now, I dont know whether this has been sorted in the newer version, or whether its just the shoddy low end focusing system in my D50. But it is my intention after upgrading to the D200 to get the 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4 or 1.7 adapter. Because to be honest, the difference between 400 and 500mm is not that huge.

Unless however I'm loaded at the time, which of course is unlikly, ill get the 200-400 as well. but as per your OP, the 200-400 is a bit expensive!

Back to the point, 70-200 is my recommendation. top quality lens. Can be bought new for around £1000 and second hand for less. TC's on top of that of course.
 
300/4 is excellent optically, but has a wobbly tripod mount.

You can fix that by wedging it with something, e.g. a film can, or by getting the replacement tripod mount from Kirk (Warehouse Express sell these).

Another approach might be to upgrade the camera to e.g. a D80 or D200. That then lets you look at various classic older Nikkors, and might actually pay off fairly quickly given that you can get some great bargains in older lenses.

For example, there are very few lenses at any price, Leica and Zeiss included, that can compare with the image quality of the 180/2.8 (any ED version) and yet you can get a nice one for a couple of hundred pretty easily. It's a bit short for your purposes I suspect, but it's a useful illustration of what becomes possible with an AF motor.
 
Joe T said:
Thats 300 2.8 I linked to is an absolute bargain. I reckon its around £200 underpriced. In other words, buy it now! :D
Click to expand...

I know. And I want to buy it now, but my Bank manager says no! :( *Looks at pay off overdraft account* No, i mustn't !

sakura said:
i use the sigma f2.8 70-200mm as my long lens

and recently i bought a 2x teleconverter - it loses 2 stops but i can live with that
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. I think 200mm is a little too short for me though. I think im going to say that I want 300mm minimum. The 300mm f2.8 certainly is looking like an option as it would give me a 600mm f5.6 with a 2X TC.

Woodsy2k said:
I have the older version of the sigma 50-500 (non DG version or what ever it is, so it can be used on film SLR bodies.) And I must say it gets a little anoying to use sometimes as it looses focus lock when on AF-C, and as such seeks alot. Admitedly though it tends to do this when contrast on the subject is low. Now, I dont know whether this has been sorted in the newer version, or whether its just the shoddy low end focusing system in my D50. But it is my intention after upgrading to the D200 to get the 70-200 f2.8 and a 1.4 or 1.7 adapter. Because to be honest, the difference between 400 and 500mm is not that huge.

Unless however I'm loaded at the time, which of course is unlikly, ill get the 200-400 as well. but as per your OP, the 200-400 is a bit expensive!

Back to the point, 70-200 is my recommendation. top quality lens. Can be bought new for around £1000 and second hand for less. TC's on top of that of course.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the lack of focus lock on AF-C could be really annoying. I wonder what the IQ difference is like between a 70-200mm @ 200mm and a 50-500mm@ 200mm.

Druid said:
300/4 is excellent optically, but has a wobbly tripod mount.

You can fix that by wedging it with something, e.g. a film can, or by getting the replacement tripod mount from Kirk (Warehouse Express sell these).

Another approach might be to upgrade the camera to e.g. a D80 or D200. That then lets you look at various classic older Nikkors, and might actually pay off fairly quickly given that you can get some great bargains in older lenses.

For example, there are very few lenses at any price, Leica and Zeiss included, that can compare with the image quality of the 180/2.8 (any ED version) and yet you can get a nice one for a couple of hundred pretty easily. It's a bit short for your purposes I suspect, but it's a useful illustration of what becomes possible with an AF motor.
Click to expand...

Don't temp me please. Ive only had the D40X for less than 3-4months and really can't justify upgrading the body just yet. Also if I was to upgrade the body I would want to go with a D200, or possibly even a D2Xs which would cost a few pennies.


So now the current list looks like ;

Sigma 50-500mm
Nikon 300mm f4 with 1.4X TC
Nikon 300mm f2.8 with 2X TC

Any more suggestions?
 
I know it's a bit shorter, but your budget would stretch to a used 80-200 AF-S in good condition, probably with enough left over for a t/c.

I haven't tried one personally, but the build quality is very good and I'm told they're almost as good as the 70-200 vr from an optical point of view, which is pretty damn good.
 
I thought the 80-200 was optically better than the 70-200? But the 70-200 has faster AF and VR.
 
I think though, given what you've said about wanting more reach than a 200 and based on the quality of work that I've seen from you on here, that you should go for the 300/4, plus teleconverter. Used from a reputable supplier you should be able to get a nice one within your budget and it focusses pretty close for such a long lens, which might be a decisive benefit given your style.

Here are some pbase samples.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/300_4_afs
 
alexisonfire said:
I thought the 80-200 was optically better than the 70-200? But the 70-200 has faster AF and VR.
Click to expand...
Well, as I say, I haven't used the AF-S 80-200, just fondled one a bit and read various reviews.

Maybe they're thinking of the older, pre AF-S, AF 80-200?

From what I recall reading there's a bit of vignetting on the AF-S one at the long end, which is absent on the 70-200.

Academic for me, because I've got a peerless old 180 that's light enough to keep in my bag just in case, and I don't fancy lugging a big zoom around.

I've seriously thought about getting a 300/4 though because the quality is breathtaking in a lot of the samples that I've seen and it focusses close enough that it'd be excellent for flower photography. You'll note from the pbase gallery I linked that it even works for bug shots.
 
Thanks guys. Yeah, the 300mm f4 does look tempting and would fit nicely within budget. Has anyone tried this lens with a 2x TC? Will the AF go to pot? Im not too concenered about the closeup ability of the lens Joe, as I would use my Sigma 150mm f2.8 for anything close. This lens is mainly intened as a wildlife lens and for things like airshows etc.
 
Right, ive gone through my D40X lens list and picked out any that might be what im after. Ive also got the prices for them all off warehouse express are a reference. I will probably be buying second hand so the prices will be about half(?) what i have listed. Anyway, ther candidates are;


Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM - £678
Sigma 100-300mm f/4 EX DG APO IF HSM - £748
Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF HSM - £748
Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG APO RF HSM - £749
Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED AF-S - £798
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR £1148
Sigma 300mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF HSM - £1523
Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED AF-S VR - £2499
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S VR - £2930
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 AF-S II - £2978
Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED AF-S VR - £3830
Click to expand...

I will also need to factor for a TC (Probably 2X if its a f2.8 or a X1.4 if its a f4 lens). I think im going to say a budget of around £800. A TC will set me back about £100 (Probably go with a Kenko 300Pro) so im looking at around £700 for the lens which pretty much removes the Nikkor 200mm f/2G down. Hmm.:thinking:
 
On an AF-S lens in decent condition, half price might be a bit optimistic. I'd estimate more like 3/4. e.g. right now Ffordes have a couple of 300/4's in stock for about £600.

If you try Aperture UK, Ffordes and Grays of Westminster websites, you'll get a pretty accurate idea of prices on most options, with Ffordes usually being the cheapest.

You might get a bit cheaper privately or via e-bay, but I doubt it'd be that much cheaper.
 
Thanks for everyones help. Looks like ive got a Sigma 300mm f2.8 hsm on its way.:thumbs::lol: Im doing a final checkover in terms of compatibility, but im probably going to order a Kenko PRO 300 AF 2x Teleconverter as well to take me up to a 600mm f5.6. :D
 
moomike said:
Very nice lens mate, congrats (bet your wallets kicking you right now :lol:)
Click to expand...

More like its my bank manager kicking me right now.:lol:

alexisonfire said:
Ooooh, nice choice ;)
Click to expand...

Aye, its more expensive than I origionally planned, but it sure is a far better lens than I ever expected to get.:)

Joe T said:
Nice one! :D

2x converters can affect IQ quite a bit, so you might find you want a 1.4x converter aswell/instead.

And I would buy Sigma's DG converters for use with this lens. Maximum functionaltiy comes from using the same brand as the lens.
Click to expand...

I'll make another thread on this issue, but from what I can see the Kenko teleconverters are still highly regarded and are far more compatible with different lenses than the Sigma or Nikon TCs.
 
MK - I'd be interested in your thought on the teleconverters - I'm thinking of getting one for my Sigma 70-200 2.8 (Nikon D80). If you can save me mucho research time I'd be obliged!
 
Phil T said:
MK - I'd be interested in your thought on the teleconverters - I'm thinking of getting one for my Sigma 70-200 2.8 (Nikon D80). If you can save me mucho research time I'd be obliged!
Click to expand...

Ive done a bit of reseach some time ago, but id like to get some comments from other people, so ive created another thread;

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=339367#post339367

Hopefully this will results in some answers. Its quite a confusing issue though, as from Nikon's point of view, they have created a huge range of them over the years, with varying compatiblity issues. Have a look at the following website for some info;

http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/teleconverter/index.htm
 
Its just turned up! :D Lets hope the weather stays decent so I can test it this weekend. Might see if I can get myself the Low Barns Nature reserve. Im still determined to get a shot of one of the Kingfishers there.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top