SANParks.org Forums

I have a Nikon D90 and this year hired a 70-200 F2.8 plus a 1.7 covertor (making it a 320mm lens).

This year I would like to buy a lense and practice with it before we leave in july.....so....

WHAT LENS SHOULD I GO FOR .

I have upto £1000 for a lens and I am willing to buy a second hand lens ( eg. the 70-200 is around £1000 second hand)

any help or experience gratefully recieved....especially from nikon users

thankyou all

john

As you know I'm not a Nikonian... But do you have autofocus with that combo? I guess you do, you won't hit the big bad f/5.6.

However I think 320 mm is a little short for Kruger. When I was shooting film with my 100-400 I often used the 1.4 converter (with AF). Now with the 1.6 cropfactor I still often want to grab the 1.4 (without AF) as the lens is "too short". But I bird....

You might be better off saving up for the big lens and hire one? Did you look into that?

Hi John

What little I know of your needs, my first choice would be to get a 70-200 f2.8 VR which also gives the option of exploiting the various converters that Nikon provides if you need the additional reach and IF you could get a 2nd hand one within you budget, that would be great. However, as it was totally out of my budget , even second hand, I opted to go for a new Nikon 70-300VR which, although too short for my specific desires and cannot take the converters, provides a reasonable budget alternative with great results. On the DX models, it provides for up to 450mm and the VR provides adequate opportunity to slow the shutter speed down to compensate for the higher f-stop. As a general-use lens I am happy very with it.

You need to clearly articulate your own needs proir to any planned lens improvements/acquisitions and these will clearly differ from person to person. Are you in the market for lenses for wildlife and/or birding for only a few days/weeks a year (if so then rent what you need) or do you intend to make full use on an ongoing basis? I am also fortunate enough to have the newer technologies in the D7000 which allows for cranking up the ISO's when low-light photography is required. My next acquisition will be a bigger prime, if and when budget allows, something that may be better for you than the pro-level 70-200 f2.8. if your desire is for birding

I have had and used too many non-nikon alternatives without great results, so while many on this forum may praise the benefits of (for example) the Sigma 150 - 500 or 50-500 and I will not knock them in any fashion, my personal experiences will not allow me to travel that road again.... get the best you can for your needs (within your budget limits as you define them) or alternatively rent the best for the short time you may need them....

Keep your eyes open on the Nikon Press releases, for there have been rumours of them bringing out a 70-200 f4 somtime, certainly a lens I am looking forward to...

thanks Duques, I know what you mean about the length of 320mm, but this year I found it only two short on a couple of occassions.

Scottm, thanks for that, I have the 70-300vr lens already but used the 70-200 F2.8 for photos on this years trip ( have a look at my trip report and see what you think?) I would love to push for 400 but reading the revews of the 80-400 nikon lens it seems a little slow to focus especially in low light and again ive never used a sigma and have heard various good and bad reviews.

I would like one mainly for the few weeks we are in kruger but I hope to broaden my experience here in the uk and get out more to practice, something you cant do if your hiring!!
and prime lenses seem to be very expensive...

john

Hi John

I had a brief look at some of your pics in your trip report - some good, some great, and a few clearly where your reach is just not sufficient Having said that, I can see no great reason where a 70-200.. f2.8 is likely to make a sufficiently dramatic difference to your portfolio to justify the additional cost. You already have the reach this lens gives you and I would believe that a longer lens would probably be the easiest way to improve your overall portfolio.

You need to consider whether a move to a 400mm over what you already have (33% increase) can be justified, or whether you should actually go test one of the Sigma zooms that would give you a reach to 500mm. I have made the historical error of getting lower-quality lenses initially, and then improving over time, without an improvement in reach, resulting in a huge overlap in what I currently have in my bag;

History has taught me to rather make do with what I have and wait till I can get what I really really want..... .... and that is a decent prime for birding... only 93 years of saving to go

cheers Scottm, if only I had bought a canon!!!!

you're kidding, right? you have great equipment....

I'm sure he's kidding!

Now, my 2 worth: I also have a D90 with various lenses of which the 70 - 300mm VR is one of them, but as all said so far, the reach is definitely not enough.

I'll probably get A LOT of flack for my next question / statement, I think DQ's especially... , but have you though of the Sigma 150 - 500mm HSM OS? I KNOW it does not produce the same quality of the Nikon lenses and I KNOW it is not the greatest, but for the PRICE...? I have a Sigma 150 - 500mm HSM OS and have a look at my old trip report in my signature - 90% of the pics were taken with that lens and are all the images THAT bad to completely throw the Sigma out of the window? I use it at F8 as I found that apperture to be a sweet spot for that lens. With the D90 I can bump up the ISO without worries to make sure my shutter speed is still fast enough (at least 1/500 @ 500mm). DOF is also very narrow at 500mm so F8 works great for me and the Sigma.

If I had the bucks I would've rented a 200 - 400mm VR Nikon F4 lens with a 1.4 TC - that should be ample reach. I am busy investigating that option for my upcomming KTP trip, with insurance it will cost me just shy of R6000 give or take. For that money I'm sure a lot will say it may be worth it, but still my old trusty Sigma will have to do the job - I can do a lot more with R6000 for now...

half kidding , I love the nikon body but the lens choice just hasnt the same depth as canons its either £300 or £2000 and there is little inbetween that recieves good reviews

Switchback, thanks for the reply if I went for the sigma i would probobly go for the 120-400, it seems to get better reviews has a slightly better F stop and although I like taking bird photos they are (at the moment) more of a secondary option.

thanks again all
john

you are half-right John, in that the canon range does fill some gaps that the Nikon range does not, but only really for the enthusiast. In the bottom and top ranges it matches canon very well. In my view, Nikon are missing a few f4 primes, (400f4 ?)

Just a word regarding the 120 - 400 range. I would question whether, given your current reach, adding an extra 33% is viable at the additional costs to be incurred. If your 70 - 300 does not satisfy your current needs, I doubt that the extra 100mm will bring satisfaction. Adding 66% by going to the 500mm "big ma" would probably give you more satisfaction under most circumstances. Then again, and only you can answer the question, is reach or lens speed the primary issue ......

Fortunately the D7000 has awesome noise-handling capabilities, so I am able to increase ISO without noticable loss in qualityand thus avoid having to break the bank on high-speed (read high price) lenses

Maybe you should consider an upgrade to the D7000 for its techie advances.... all reviews point to it being the best DX camera ever produced...... but be warned, being so good, it does highlight the flaws in any lens that is not at pro level... and has proven to me that, in my case, it is the skill behind the camera that requires an upgrade

Take care and may you have a wonderful and fruitful trip, no matter what equipment you may take with you.

Hi john n poppy,

I have a Sigma 80 - 400mm f:4.5 to 5:6 (Nikon fit) sitting at home doing nothing. If you cannot decide on what to buy, you are more than welcome to borrow it and have a play. It's not as good as the Nikon lenses, and a bit soft at full reach, but check out my TR on the link below to see what it is capable of. You pick up and bring back if you are interested though I'd be more than happy to let you take it to Kruger if you like it. Not very good with a converter though, I tried it and gave up as the pics were too bad even with a 1.4 converter.

Hi Scottm, I think your right over the lens length...and your not helping by adding in the...what about a new body my SO would kill me

Hi Barcud, thanks for the unbelievable offer but I really do need to bite the bullet, but thanks again.... and I will defo have a look at your trip report.

john

john n poppy, haven't been connected for a while and only managed to read your thread this evening.

I have a Nikon D50, my first of the serious, plus a D80 and a D90. Right from my first trip I realised that I needed something a little longer than 200mm and slowly built my kit.
Now includes a Nikon 80-400 mm, Sigma 300 mm f/2.8 and recently added a Sigma 150-500 mm. This last lens was actually given to me as a present and have enjoyed using it and very surprised by the overall quality.

My personal advise is to either get yourself a 80-400 plus a converter or go for a Sigma 150-500, which really gives you good quality together with a good reach, excellent when you're in the bush. Still prefer my Nikon 80-400 even if it weighs a little more than the Sigma.

The Sigma 300 mm 2.8 is a fantastic lens but draw backs are weight and of course it being a fixed focal one.

No worries,

I only use it as a back-up these days, so the offer is still open if you cannot decide.

Given the choice back when I first started, I would have opted for Nikon lenses all the time, but cost always came into the equation for me. I would go for Nikon lenses if the money is available, but the Sigma's are your best second option if on a budget, or look around for a good second hand Nikon one?

cheers Barcud and rumuruti,

after being outbid on sigma 150-500 im now going for the nikon 80-400...wish me luck!!


john