What is the cheapest way to get something at least sort of decent above 300mm? I have the 55-200VR and I had the 70-300G and neither had enough reach for some of the wildlife shots I tried to get last week. I am wondering if there is an affordable way to get much longer than that? I passed on the 70-300VR because I wanted a lighter lens for everyday use, I only shoot wildlife fairly rarely. Most of the time we are in a boat blind and it can be pretty difficult to move to a closer location. I have seen the 650-1300mm cheap lens, which I have considered, but the general consensus is that it is just plain horrible. It appears that there is no way to get anything affordable with more reach than a 70-300, the lowest price I have seen being the Sigma 150-500 at a grand.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Any cheap way above 300mm?
- Thread starter Kyledoo
- Start date
Jogger
Veteran Member
Find a place where you can rent a lens for a while.
Skywalker23
Senior Member
Is this Tokina 80-400mm cheap enough? It's the cheapest I could find from a valued brand.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/429084-REG/Tokina_ATX840AFDN.html
No VR, unfortunately.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/429084-REG/Tokina_ATX840AFDN.html
No VR, unfortunately.
ethegolfman
Member
EDIT - erased by user
Andrew Koenig
Leading Member
Crop.
Skywalker23
Senior Member
Hahahaha, now that is very true...
$600-800 depending on the used market deals you can find. But you get AF.
If AF isn't important, the 400mm F5.6 ED AIS goes for around $450-500.
That's about it, that I'm aware of, if image quality wide open is important to you (Most cheaper lenses above 300mm are ok stopped down to F8 or so, at least from what I've seen).
Or you can do the 500mm reflector lenses which are pretty cheap, but the doughnut bokeh is so nasty, I personally won't consider them.
If AF isn't important, the 400mm F5.6 ED AIS goes for around $450-500.
That's about it, that I'm aware of, if image quality wide open is important to you (Most cheaper lenses above 300mm are ok stopped down to F8 or so, at least from what I've seen).
Or you can do the 500mm reflector lenses which are pretty cheap, but the doughnut bokeh is so nasty, I personally won't consider them.
Cheap and decent are often mutually exclusive.
Yesterday, I shot with an 500mm F/8 + 2X converter on a 1.6x crop camera. Total cost of the lens + converter = around 50 euros. It aint very good, though. You get what you paid for.
Yesterday, I shot with an 500mm F/8 + 2X converter on a 1.6x crop camera. Total cost of the lens + converter = around 50 euros. It aint very good, though. You get what you paid for.
N
neil holmes
Guest
Also Tamron adaptall 300 2.8 (usually comes with a matching 1.4x converter for a 420mm f4 and often a 2x converter for a 600 5.6 that is still useable)
Is a LOT heavier than the OP wants though..
It is better on brands that are stabilized in body but you can use it on different brands thanks to the interchangeable mounts.
The 300 2.8 makes a GREAT portrait lens as well.
They often go for between 500 and 800, sometimes more.
You could even get one of those modified TC-16a from ebay and use it auto focus 480mm f4.48 though the lens and TC will put you out to around 1000 but should be able to get for a bit less and get converter later.
I do not use my 300 2.8 on my D50 but only because it is stabilized on my K-x (and autofocuses with a Pentax equivalent to the TC-16a).
neil
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26884588@N00/
SantaFeBill
Senior Member
Look for a used Sigma 80-400 OS. Decent IQ, AF, and it's stabilized.
tlong3234
Senior Member
Sigma used to make a 400 5.6 APO. It had pretty decent image quality and was not too heavy. I would think it would not cost too much on the used market...
--
Tracey
--
Tracey
RBFresno
Forum Pro
Hi!
Again, your price range would be useful info. Some consider a couple of thousand dollars affordable, others consider $400 unaffordable.
If money is tight and you want the most reach with the best IQ, consider a non-zoom ("prime) lens like the 300 f/4 and and 1.4TC. This might require some cropping, but the IQ will be much better than your 70-300G; much better.
As suggested above, if your need is infrequent, consider renting.
Best regards,
RB
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
Not sure what your definition of "cheap" or "decent" is.
OK, so we're talking at least 400mm.
Affordable?
Again, your price range would be useful info. Some consider a couple of thousand dollars affordable, others consider $400 unaffordable.
So you want something lighter than the 70-300VR, but with more reach? Depending on your definition of accepatable image quality, that may not be possible.
The ability to get a lot of reach, with good image quality (IQ), for minimal money comes up frequently in this forum. Tough to do. The reason some folks shell out thousands of dollars for long lenses is not that they like to spend money! For years I used a Tamron 200-400 as my long lens (the newer verion, the 200-500 is better); it was OK, but no comparision for a high end prime lens like the 300 f/4.
If money is tight and you want the most reach with the best IQ, consider a non-zoom ("prime) lens like the 300 f/4 and and 1.4TC. This might require some cropping, but the IQ will be much better than your 70-300G; much better.
As suggested above, if your need is infrequent, consider renting.
Best regards,
RB
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile
SteveCooper
Senior Member
depending on what you consider inexpensive, I bought the Tamron 200-500mm - no VR, but it is well built and as long as you use a monopod or tripod, it produces very nice pictures. Tamron is usually running a rebate promotion, so you might want to check into that.....
--
http://pages.prodigy.net/midiman/
--
http://pages.prodigy.net/midiman/
Keith Aitken
Veteran Member
Sounds like your two-lens solution is your 55-200VR,
PLUS the Sigma 150-500 you mentioned. If you keep
such a lens for 20/30 years, it is not sooo expensive
As RB says, we all have differing cash standards. Cheap and
high-quality are not two expressions you see in the same sentence
describing telephoto lenses . . .
Another rationale for getting over the expense hump is that if you
find yourself not using it enough, it can be sold for same price or close,
and you have then effectively just "rented" it for a period of time.
Good luck in your research
--
. . .
PLUS the Sigma 150-500 you mentioned. If you keep
such a lens for 20/30 years, it is not sooo expensive
As RB says, we all have differing cash standards. Cheap and
high-quality are not two expressions you see in the same sentence
describing telephoto lenses . . .
Another rationale for getting over the expense hump is that if you
find yourself not using it enough, it can be sold for same price or close,
and you have then effectively just "rented" it for a period of time.
Good luck in your research
--
. . .
ralphcramdon
Senior Member
300/4 afs + 1.4tc
Hella sharp setup for sure!Thanks to everyone that replied. I am not too hurried making this decision, I don't really have the money right now (I could probably swing one of the mirror lenses, but that's all) I have to try cropping once I get some better shots (gotta get out in the middle of the day in full sun sometime!) I am considering either a long lens, a wide angle, or the 35mm f1.8 and until now had been leaning towards the wide angle. I haven't really taken enough shots with my digital SLR yet to know which focal lengths I use most, but I like to research everything in advance. Being a college student, I want every dollar I spend to get me the most bang possible! To answer the question of my budget: In January I will get a rebate check for the amount left from my scholarships after paying for tuition. This amount will be approximately $1000 after subtracting expenses such as books, etc. However I'd say come that time of year, I will be looking at spending no more than $500 on photo gear, whichever route I decide to go on lenses.Sounds like your two-lens solution is your 55-200VR,
PLUS the Sigma 150-500 you mentioned. If you keep
such a lens for 20/30 years, it is not sooo expensive
As RB says, we all have differing cash standards. Cheap and
high-quality are not two expressions you see in the same sentence
describing telephoto lenses . . .
Another rationale for getting over the expense hump is that if you
find yourself not using it enough, it can be sold for same price or close,
and you have then effectively just "rented" it for a period of time.
Good luck in your research
--
. . .
Thank you everybody for the great info, I did find a few lenses cheaper, but having VR, OS, etc. on a 400 or 500mm lens is probably VERY important, so I will have to keep that in consideration. To start out I may just pick up one of those mirror lenses if they aren't just a total waste of money. They are, after all, almost 1/10 the price of a comprable lens. That would get me into the ultra zoom category cheap and I could find out from there if I want to upgrade at a later time. Any comments about these lenses besides that they are slow, won't meter, and the donut bokeh?
I tried one of those mirror lenses at one point in time and took it back the same day I got it. IMO, it's a waste of money. It would be better to save for a little bit and get good gear than to blow it on crappy gear today. YMMV... I personally would use a Spiratone MF 400mm $25 lens before I would get a $500 mirror. HAHAThanks to everyone that replied. I am not too hurried making this decision, I don't really have the money right now (I could probably swing one of the mirror lenses, but that's all) I have to try cropping once I get some better shots (gotta get out in the middle of the day in full sun sometime!) I am considering either a long lens, a wide angle, or the 35mm f1.8 and until now had been leaning towards the wide angle. I haven't really taken enough shots with my digital SLR yet to know which focal lengths I use most, but I like to research everything in advance. Being a college student, I want every dollar I spend to get me the most bang possible! To answer the question of my budget: In January I will get a rebate check for the amount left from my scholarships after paying for tuition. This amount will be approximately $1000 after subtracting expenses such as books, etc. However I'd say come that time of year, I will be looking at spending no more than $500 on photo gear, whichever route I decide to go on lenses.Sounds like your two-lens solution is your 55-200VR,
PLUS the Sigma 150-500 you mentioned. If you keep
such a lens for 20/30 years, it is not sooo expensive
As RB says, we all have differing cash standards. Cheap and
high-quality are not two expressions you see in the same sentence
describing telephoto lenses . . .
Another rationale for getting over the expense hump is that if you
find yourself not using it enough, it can be sold for same price or close,
and you have then effectively just "rented" it for a period of time.
Good luck in your research
--
. . .
Thank you everybody for the great info, I did find a few lenses cheaper, but having VR, OS, etc. on a 400 or 500mm lens is probably VERY important, so I will have to keep that in consideration. To start out I may just pick up one of those mirror lenses if they aren't just a total waste of money. They are, after all, almost 1/10 the price of a comprable lens. That would get me into the ultra zoom category cheap and I could find out from there if I want to upgrade at a later time. Any comments about these lenses besides that they are slow, won't meter, and the donut bokeh?
PHXAZCRAIG
Forum Pro
Hmmm - you think the 70-300vr is heavy? Seems odd. Anything longer is likely to be noticeably heavier than that.
I had the 70-300g for a few years. (Eventually gave it away when I got an 80-400vr). It was exceptionally light - too light. So light I couldn't really hold it steady at 300. I've seen some 70-300vr's, and they didn't look much heavier.
I've heard the Tamron 200-500 is light, and decent. Not shot one.
I'll sell you my 1995 era Sigma 400 F5.6 APO (autofocus) prime for under $400. But I'm not sure you'd like it much!
I had the 70-300g for a few years. (Eventually gave it away when I got an 80-400vr). It was exceptionally light - too light. So light I couldn't really hold it steady at 300. I've seen some 70-300vr's, and they didn't look much heavier.
I've heard the Tamron 200-500 is light, and decent. Not shot one.
I'll sell you my 1995 era Sigma 400 F5.6 APO (autofocus) prime for under $400. But I'm not sure you'd like it much!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum