Recommendation on a zoom lens

I recently purchased a D70 about a month ago and so far I love it to death =D Along with the kit lens, I've also purchased a 50mm f/1.8 because the majority of the pics I take are of the whole import car scene which is usually in dimly lit parking lots.

Anyways, there's going to be a car show this month that will involve drifting as well, (basically cars sliding around in a parking lot) and I feel kinda limited with the 70mm zoom. Don't bash me on this.. but I decided to get the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G lens from Best Buy to see how it is in comparison to pics I've seen online. Only reason I got one is because I have the ability to return it tomorrow and get a full refund =]

I wasn't too impressed with the sharpness or the focus, but then again this is probably one of the cheapest zoom lenses out right now. Pictures at 100% crop seemed extremely soft and quite a few were out of focus as well.

I need you guys to give me a suggestion on what you reccomend I should get. My budget is around $300-$350, I have more to spend, but the thing is, the telephoto lens will be the least used lens out of my gear, so I don't wanna drop much cash on it just yet. I basically need something that'll produce sharp images like my kit lens which I love to death, and also have pretty decently quick focusing.

I've heard tons of good things on the Nikkor 70-210mm f4-5.6 D Lens, but I've looked around, cheapest I've found it was around $400 + shipping which is insane. The Sigma 70-300mm super macro II lens also seems pretty nice, but I've heard the AF is slow like the nikkor lens I got from best buy.

And while I'm making a post, is it a huge difference from say.. 200mm to 300mm? I keep looking at the 300mm lenses, but when it comes down to it, the 200mm lenses usually produce a sharper picture right? By the way, here's some sample pics with the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G lens that I was talking about. I had to apply an insane amount of USM to make them look somewhat post worthy.







Anyways, thanks for taking the time to read this post, I know it was kinda long =X

anyone...?

i have heard really good things about the AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED.

aparently surprizingly sharp all the way out to 200mm, anthough it still is not AF-S so the focus speed may be a bit slow.

i settled on the sigma, 70-300mm super macro II, and as long as you work within it's limitations it can be quite sharp.

one of the problems with telephotos it that camera shake is a big problem, thought of stabilizing with a tripod? a good tripod is essential for good telephoto shots.
--
mostly snapshots with the occasional photo that i am 'almost' happy with:
http://imageevent.com/the_yattering

I love this lens for the money. It is sharper and faster focus than either of the 70-300's.

If you are budget minded and don't have the bucks for the 70-200 VR or any of the 2.8 lenses, then this one will get you there.
Good luck on auctions.

Here's a couple of shots from this lens ...





--
http://www.pbase.com/mmccreary
http://www.McCrearyRealty.com
Nikon D70
18-70 Kit Lens
70-210 F4-5.6 D
50 F1.8 D

Hello,

I feel Ken Rockwell has single handedly made this lens a classic. it is sharp, focuses fast, light weight.

It is in my mind a better performer than the shameful 70-300's.

I owned a 70-210, then a 70-210 "D". frankly i say go on ebay and pick up a 80-200 f2.8 "D". These are supper fast lenses, supper sharp and real pro glass. the 70-210 is a push pull lens and an older design. It is not well suited for the D70, it really requires a pro body for best auto focus performance. I feel you well be much more pleased with the 80-200!

Please check out Ken's comments on the 80-200's here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm

Try to get the lens with the tripod colar if possible.

Negatives? It is bigger and heavier then the 70-210 but the f2.8 opens up new opportunities.

Regards,
--
Jeff Morris
Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

I just got my 80-200 f\2.8 from Ebay for 700$ this lens is amazing. I also got Tamron 2x SP AF tele-converter which gives me 400mm.

Before I got this lens I went to the store and tried 70-300D and 70-300ED, both of them were performing badly in poor light conditions. If you are shooting in dim light then 2.8 is a must. I know 700$ is a lot of money but it is well worth.

There are so many of these around - I recently picked up a Mint condition one, which looked like it had never been on a body for US$172 - quite good value.

I also own a 75-300 Nikkor, which is sharper everywhere, but a little slower focusing and a little heavier. I basically keep it for the 300mm reach (which conveniently becomes a 450mm on digital).

Both a quite solidly built for 'non-Pro' lenses - not like the cheesy new 70-300's....

Cheers

Home Rental Pro said:

I love this lens for the money. It is sharper and faster focus
than either of the 70-300's.
If you are budget minded and don't have the bucks for the 70-200 VR
or any of the 2.8 lenses, then this one will get you there.
Good luck on auctions.

Click to expand...

...snip..

Home Rental Pro said:

--
http://www.pbase.com/mmccreary
http://www.McCrearyRealty.com
Nikon D70
18-70 Kit Lens
70-210 F4-5.6 D
50 F1.8 D

Click to expand...

Wow, $700. I guess for now I'll keep looking for the 70-210mm f4-5.6 D lens, or the 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6. If worst comes to worst, and I don't have a telephoto lens by the time the drift show gets here, I could always borrow the 70-300mm lens from work again =\

I really appreciate all the replies so far though

Quite a few? Where would be the best place to look for them, other than ebay? They all seem to go around for $400 + on there. I was watching an auction last night actually, it went from $207 to $400 or so in the last 5 minutes.

jberth said:

I also own a 75-300 Nikkor, which is sharper everywhere, but a
little slower focusing and a little heavier. I basically keep it
for the 300mm reach (which conveniently becomes a 450mm on digital).

Both a quite solidly built for 'non-Pro' lenses - not like the
cheesy new 70-300's....

Cheers

Home Rental Pro said:

I love this lens for the money. It is sharper and faster focus
than either of the 70-300's.
If you are budget minded and don't have the bucks for the 70-200 VR
or any of the 2.8 lenses, then this one will get you there.
Good luck on auctions.

Click to expand...

...snip..

jberth said:

--
http://www.pbase.com/mmccreary
http://www.McCrearyRealty.com
Nikon D70
18-70 Kit Lens
70-210 F4-5.6 D
50 F1.8 D

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I grabbed mine from a local auction house which was clearing some NOS items from a closed camera store.

Check out your local papers - I see a few there quite often too. I nearly bought one a while back but the guy wanted AUD$250 so I passed.

You have to remember that the ability to buy things existed before eBay did.... !! Switch to wide angle - quick !

Cheers

Costas92 said:

Quite a few? Where would be the best place to look for them, other
than ebay? They all seem to go around for $400 + on there. I was
watching an auction last night actually, it went from $207 to $400
or so in the last 5 minutes.

Click to expand...

Help me understand what happens when you put a 2x on a lens like the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8? Does it basically make it a 160-400mm f/5.6? What are the pro's and con's of useing teleconverters?

---------------------------------
Randy
Nikon D70
Nikon DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED

Just a suggestion ... did you ever consider a 'Digital Only Lens' like the

Sigma 55-200 ... I don't have it, but from what I red in reviews (photomagazins as well as the web) this one is quite good performer ... especially for the price.

But it will not work if you want to use it on film SLR's as well. And it certainly will not compare to a Nikon F2.8 lens ... but it's only about 20% of the price as well.

One thing ... stay away from the super-zoom lenses like the 28-300 (no matter what brand). I have a Sigma 28-300 and was quite happy with it on my N-80 ... now on a D70 I see the shortcommings. Very hard to use and very limiting in what aperture and focal length you can use to get reasonably sharp pictures.

Archer

Well, the thing is, I'm pretty new when it comes to SLR cameras so I don't really know what my options are. Infact, I didn't even know digital only lenses existed, lol. I'll only be using this on my D70 so something like that would work out in my favor.

Yeah 80-200 with tele- converter 2x becomes 160-400mm
Pros: increased focal length, and decreased DoF by ½

Cons: in bad light you need to bump it up ISO,
At 160mm you still have f2.8, but at 400mm it is similar to 200mm f/5.6

In good light you have same crisp sharp pictures, I got it because I paid just 80$ and in store they are for 200$. I can’t afford Nikon 400mm f/1:2.8 D

I got my 80-200 because of f/2.8, with tele-converter I have 400mm focal range for just a fraction of the money, and the quality is still there.

You can get several of these 'digital only lenses' from different manufacturers like Sigma, Tamron, Nikon ... by the way, the Nikon 18-70 Kit lens is 'digital' only (sort of ... I believe you can mount it to a film SLR, but you will not cover the whole film frame).

Anyway, check out http://www.BHphotovideo.com or http://www.Adorama.com . Either site will give you a good overview on available lenses (brand and 3rd party), technical nformations, and some of the best current prices in the US.

Good luck.
Archer

Definitely consider the 28-200G lens.

I bought one and used it at a historic race meeting at Phoenix Int'l Raceway and at a rodeo in Scottsdale. On both occasions I was more than happy with the results. Have a look here at the rodeo pics - absolutely nothing done to them, straight out of the camera (large jpegs) :

http://photos.juleshatton.com/-hg?26

If you dont mind the weight, Id say stick with a used 80-200 2.8 (tripod mount version) They are all over Ebay for around $550-600.



You said in you original post you had to apply a bunch of USM to the image, could it bee that you may have been shooting at a shutter speed that was a little to slow to stop camera shake? I just cant imagine hand holding 300 at 5.6 and getting crisp images very often, go for the 2.8

regards
Ray

--
http://www.pbase.com/ray645

It seems that they are chaper at ebay Germany. Not that much of the Ken Rockwell effect there. Then, the non-D version is also cheaper.

You might want to look for the older 75-300/4-5.6 too. Sharper than the 70-210 but you don't see them as often.

Then there is the 80-200/4-5.6, which is about as sharp as the 70-210, but performs better wide open at the tele end. Stopped down they're about the same.

Best option, but a little over your budget, would be a used 80-200/2.8. Goes for about $500 and up.

Costas92 said:

jberth said:

I also own a 75-300 Nikkor, which is sharper everywhere, but a
little slower focusing and a little heavier. I basically keep it
for the 300mm reach (which conveniently becomes a 450mm on digital).

Both a quite solidly built for 'non-Pro' lenses - not like the
cheesy new 70-300's....

Cheers

Home Rental Pro said:

I love this lens for the money. It is sharper and faster focus
than either of the 70-300's.
If you are budget minded and don't have the bucks for the 70-200 VR
or any of the 2.8 lenses, then this one will get you there.
Good luck on auctions.

Click to expand...

...snip..

Costas92 said:

--
http://www.pbase.com/mmccreary
http://www.McCrearyRealty.com
Nikon D70
18-70 Kit Lens
70-210 F4-5.6 D
50 F1.8 D

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You lose quite a bit of sharpness when using a 2x TC. To get the best possible sharpnes you would probably have to stop down to f/11 or so (depends on lens).

A lens with the same effective focal length will most certain be much sharper. That said TCs give a more flexible solution, but if not necessary you should keep away from at least the 2x converters, an settle for a 1.4x instead.

Sebastian Z said:

Yeah 80-200 with tele- converter 2x becomes 160-400mm
Pros: increased focal length, and decreased DoF by ½

Cons: in bad light you need to bump it up ISO,
At 160mm you still have f2.8, but at 400mm it is similar to 200mm
f/5.6

In good light you have same crisp sharp pictures, I got it because
I paid just 80$ and in store they are for 200$. I can’t afford
Nikon 400mm f/1:2.8 D
I got my 80-200 because of f/2.8, with tele-converter I have 400mm
focal range for just a fraction of the money, and the quality is
still there.

Click to expand...

WOW! That quality is amazing! I think I'm sold to this one. How fast is the focusing?

Ethel said:

Definitely consider the 28-200G lens.

I bought one and used it at a historic race meeting at Phoenix
Int'l Raceway and at a rodeo in Scottsdale. On both occasions I
was more than happy with the results. Have a look here at the
rodeo pics - absolutely nothing done to them, straight out of the
camera (large jpegs) :

http://photos.juleshatton.com/-hg?26

Click to expand...