Recommendations for a zoom lens that DOESN'T need a lot of light

Moray Nairn

Well-known member
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
Location
Edinburgh, UK
Hi all

I am thinking vaguely of buying a longer lens to complement the 18070 kit lens that came with my D70s, and, like everyone here, am looking for some advice.

I'd like at least up to 200m reach, but one of the most important criteria is going to be that it will have to cope in poor light. I live in Scotland where the scenery is lovely, the history stirring and the light...er....wintry most of the year!

I've seen good things written about the Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro for example, but also with the caveat that it needs a lot of light. There's no point in me getting a lens that will only produce sharp images at f8 in the middle of the focal length range in good light as this is not going to be available consistently.

I'll be using it for a range of things, including night photography, although I might just bite the bullet and get a 50mm f1.8 prime for that. I do indoor theatre photogprahy from time to time, so a good fast zoom is a must-have.

Thanks for the opinions....

Moray
--
http://www.pbase.com/moray
http://www.flickr.com/moray
 
night and zoom don't mix :-(
As for not needing a lot of light and going long:

there's (only?) a handful of options:

let's start with the nikkors: 70-200 2.8 VR. 80-200 (AFS used, or AF new)
sigma: 70-200. 100-300. 120-300.
and that's about it.
except for the 100-300 those are all f/2.8

and they're all large. and cost in the range of USD 1000-2000 (exception being a used 80-200 AF)
they are all heavy.

and at night, they're all pretty useless. (Except with a high powered flash unit with a AF light, but at higher ranges, you'll have to flash directly, so things will look ugly)

If you really want to shoot at night, there's almost no way around primes.

One of the f/2 portrait primes or one of the 85mm primes, those somewhat with available night. Long focal length are really only useful when you have at least some light to work with.
 
The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is a great option. i got mine new for $715
and it has served me well. The Nikkor version is twice the
cost...wasn't possible for me. Just one option of many i assume.
The Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is a great alternative to the 70-200. It's a legendary lens with no questions about quality, sharpness, etc. It's about $900 new. I had one for many years until I upgraded to the 70-200VR.
 
The newest version of the 80-200 2.8, IS it a AFS type lens even
though it doesn't say so.
Nikon made an af-s version of the 80-200/2.8 for a brief period, but discontinued it when they introduced the 70-200VR. The current version of the 80-200/2.8 is not af-s. It's focused by a mechanical link to a motor in the camera body.
I guess I really asking is " HOW FAST is the auto focus"??
The 800-200 AF ED (non-af-s) is very fast on my d70 and d200... fast enough for birds in flight...







... and even people in flight ;-).



--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
Thanks Uncle Frank , for the comment and the really cool pictures. I think I just might grab one of these for my collection, yet it will probably take me a few weeks to actually get the Nerve to press the order button.

I really love that Hummer ( your specialty ) it came out real nice.
D:
--
---------------
DaRhAwK
I know where your parked and I've been eating Berries all morning!

 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top