Reading mode: Light Dark

Best Inexpensive Telephoto Lens?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bruce Leech
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Ben Kape said:
Also, the 80-400VR is no way near as good quality as the 300 AFS.
I have used used both lenses. In terms of sharpness, contrast and
rendition of colour the 300 AFS is streets ahead. If you don't need
the VR feature, forget this lense. It is optically quite average.
Click to expand...
sorry! but such a comment is just ridiculous! The 80-400VR is a great lens on a D-SLR. It might be soft at 400 wide open but stopped down to 8 or 11 it is as sharp as a prime. Don´t forget it is a 5x zoom that gives a lot of flexibilty and helps to avoid lens-changes in the field ( painfull with todays D-SLRs ( dust )). The AF-S 4/300 or the old 4/300 are one of the best telelenses no matter the price - they are definitly sharp even wide open BUT your optically average might lead some readers to guess that the 80-400VR is like a 70-300 for $300 and thats simply not the case!

This picture is taken at 400 wide open from the closest possible distance ( the hardest test for every telelens! ). 1/125s handheld!


Ben Kape said:
Lord of the Badgers said:
Joachim Gerstl said:
If you like the flexibility of a zoom go for the 80-400VR. I wrote
a review of the lens on my website and there are a lot of samples
too.
Or buy the 4/300 AF-S or the old 4/300 AF lens.
The old AF 4/300 from Nikon might be the best budget buy because it
gives you really great performance at a very low price.
Forget about the 70-300 lenses - it makes no sense to put such a
thing in front of a D-SLR.

--
Joachim
http://www.joachimgerstl.com
Click to expand...
--
I am Badger, hear me snuffle!
http://www.pbase.com/rob_r/galleries
D100, 18-35 IF ED, 24-120 (will be sold...!)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Joachim
http://www.joachimgerstl.com
 
Ridiculous? Well perhaps you would like to explain to me the series of slides I am looking at right now that suggests otherwise?

I was thinking about buying one of these 2 lenses, so I shot a roll of E100VS with each lens handheld at every available aperture. At lower shutter speeds the VR works well, providing sharp handheld shots at 400mm with speeds as low as 1/30th sec. This is what this lens was designed for. However, despite suffering from camera shake at far higher shutter speeds, I found the 300 afs images to be clearly superior. They were brighter, visibly sharper, with more contrast and better colours. The 300 F4 AFS is a fantastic lens.

In the end I decided not to buy either of them, and I got a used 300 f2.8 instead, which is better than both of them.

Despite your protestations, on a film camera anyway, the VR offers the type of quality I would expect from a 5x zoom. If ultimate optical quality is what you are after (as I am), you will be happier with the 300 F4 AFS.
Joachim Gerstl said:
Ben Kape said:
Also, the 80-400VR is no way near as good quality as the 300 AFS.
I have used used both lenses. In terms of sharpness, contrast and
rendition of colour the 300 AFS is streets ahead. If you don't need
the VR feature, forget this lense. It is optically quite average.
Click to expand...
sorry! but such a comment is just ridiculous! The 80-400VR is a
great lens on a D-SLR. It might be soft at 400 wide open but
stopped down to 8 or 11 it is as sharp as a prime. Don´t forget it
is a 5x zoom that gives a lot of flexibilty and helps to avoid
lens-changes in the field ( painfull with todays D-SLRs ( dust )).
The AF-S 4/300 or the old 4/300 are one of the best telelenses no
matter the price - they are definitly sharp even wide open BUT your
optically average might lead some readers to guess that the
80-400VR is like a 70-300 for $300 and thats simply not the case!

This picture is taken at 400 wide open from the closest possible
distance ( the hardest test for every telelens! ). 1/125s handheld!


Joachim Gerstl said:
Lord of the Badgers said:
Joachim Gerstl said:
If you like the flexibility of a zoom go for the 80-400VR. I wrote
a review of the lens on my website and there are a lot of samples
too.
Or buy the 4/300 AF-S or the old 4/300 AF lens.
The old AF 4/300 from Nikon might be the best budget buy because it
gives you really great performance at a very low price.
Forget about the 70-300 lenses - it makes no sense to put such a
thing in front of a D-SLR.

--
Joachim
http://www.joachimgerstl.com
Click to expand...
--
I am Badger, hear me snuffle!
http://www.pbase.com/rob_r/galleries
D100, 18-35 IF ED, 24-120 (will be sold...!)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Joachim
http://www.joachimgerstl.com
Click to expand...
 
Bruce Leech said:
I'm interested in a Telephoto lens for the D100 but I don't want to
pay a very large price since it will only be for occasional use. I
have looked at the 50-500 Sigma lens which is in the price range
and focal length I am looking for. Does anyone have advise on this
lens or other lens in this range?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.)
Nikon D-100/MB-100 grip with
AF 18-35 ED Nikkor
Sigma AF 15-30 D
AF 80-400 ED VR Nikkor
AF 35-70 Nikkor
AF 60 Micro ED Nikkor
Kenko Tube ext
Tamron 2X converter
SB29s and SB 22 flashes. Vivitar 283 flash
Assorted Tiffen/Cokin/Hoya filters
Sony DSC-S50 (2.1 MP that is working great)

http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle
 
Since everything is relevant, inexpensive to me is any lens that is 1/2 the price of a comprobable Nikon lens. If this a fair description of inexpensive?

Thanks everyone for all the great advice (and great sample pics). I will take all into account before making my decision.

Regards.
Yves P. said:
--
If you don't snap it, nobody will snap it for you ...
Kafrifelle (Yves P.)
Nikon D-100/MB-100 grip with
AF 18-35 ED Nikkor
Sigma AF 15-30 D
AF 80-400 ED VR Nikkor
AF 35-70 Nikkor
AF 60 Micro ED Nikkor
Kenko Tube ext
Tamron 2X converter
SB29s and SB 22 flashes. Vivitar 283 flash
Assorted Tiffen/Cokin/Hoya filters
Sony DSC-S50 (2.1 MP that is working great)

http://www.pbase.com/kafrifelle
Click to expand...
 
So that would be about $4000. Since the best telephoto lenses I know of are the 400mm F2.8 AFS, 500mm F4.0 AFS and 600mm F4.0 AFS. For about $4000 you can get the 300mm F2.8 AFS II. Sweet lens and very sharp. Only weighs 5 lbs. Works great with the TC-14EII and TC-20EII.

I guess everything is relative. But I like my 500mm F4.0 AFS.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m
Bruce Leech said:
Since everything is relevant, inexpensive to me is any lens that is
1/2 the price of a comprobable Nikon lens. If this a fair
description of inexpensive?

Thanks everyone for all the great advice (and great sample pics).
I will take all into account before making my decision.

Regards.
Click to expand...
 
Derek, now thatTiger capture is in my opinion, Awsome
Derek Kataniak said:
Bruce Leech said:
I'm interested in a Telephoto lens for the D100 but I don't want to
pay a very large price since it will only be for occasional use. I
have looked at the 50-500 Sigma lens which is in the price range
and focal length I am looking for. Does anyone have advise on this
lens or other lens in this range?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I was in same situation when I was looking telephoto.
I know that 300mm is not enought since I had 80-200 F/2.8
I coudin't get prime so I had two choices 80-400mm or Sigma 50-500mm.
After litle resurch I got the sigma from ebay for $720.

I didin't expect to be any good since all my lences are f/2.8 and
my 50mm is f/1.4 but the sigma is f/4-6.3, let me tell you I was
supriced with the picture qt.
So far I only used it on my D1H but soon I will try it on my d100.

Check those out.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1144211&size=lg

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1144210&size=lg

http://www.katanapoto.com
Click to expand...
 
Optically, the 70-300mm D lens uses Nikon's ED glass for at least one of the lenses elements. The G version has none.

Another important thing is that the D version has a metal lens mount, where the G version only has plastic.

John
Jason Busch said:
Mike,

Older "G" versions are not as good optically. Not to mention the
70-300G sells for ~$130 and the "D" version sells for $300. Big
difference, and I'm sure that $200 is not do solely because of the
missing aperture ring.

Both 70-300 versions are multicoated, but the D version has a more
"solid" build.

I don't mean to say the older G lenses are bad as a Golden Rule,
because the older G lenses will have a pricetag most welcome to new
DSLR owners who could barely afford the D100. However, I think
Nikon has come a long way in making better "G" lenses. The AF-S
24-85 G and the soon-to-be 70-200 G lenses for example.

--
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
http://d100.topcities.com/
http://e10club.topcities.com/

Click to expand...
--

My Nikon SB-28 Flash is for sale on eBay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15238&item=1945947284

And my Nikon 28-80mm f3.5-5.6D AF Zoom Nikkor Lens is also for sale on eBay http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3343&item=1945912657
 
Yesterday I checked the difference between the G and the ED 70-300mm. It appears that the main difference was that the D had the aperture ring. However if you want to use the AF feature of your camera, there is no difference how you set the aperture. The second thing I noticed was that the G has less moving parts and appear to be more sturdy. I checked it on my D100 - focuses accurately and fast. An incredible lens for 100 bucks - cannot beat this deal.
Check this hand-held photo of the moon in New York last night:
300mm f6.3 shutter 1/125 (spot metering, Manual mode)

http://www.mjjsoftbooks.com/public/moonoverny_20021223.htm
reis said:
Trent Mulkern said:
Regards,
Trent
Bruce Leech said:
I'm interested in a Telephoto lens for the D100 but I don't want to
pay a very large price since it will only be for occasional use. I
have looked at the 50-500 Sigma lens which is in the price range
and focal length I am looking for. Does anyone have advise on this
lens or other lens in this range?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The salesman at B&H insisted that the lenses are the same optically despite the ED glass element. The feel of them (and I mounted both on my D100), and the handling gave me a lot more confidence in the G over the D.

The only reason to get the ED over the G is for backward compatability with convertors that prevant you from setting the aperture in the camera, so you need the Aperture ring of the ED, nut then you don't use the AF, no matrix metering and you might as well get a cheaper camera.

The G at $104.95 beats the $300 ED hands down - no questions in my mind. I suppose the aperture ring adds to the cost of manufacturing. If you have the D100 - no reason to get the D.
More expensive is not always better.
John_T said:
John
Jason Busch said:
Mike,

Older "G" versions are not as good optically. Not to mention the
70-300G sells for ~$130 and the "D" version sells for $300. Big
difference, and I'm sure that $200 is not do solely because of the
missing aperture ring.

Both 70-300 versions are multicoated, but the D version has a more
"solid" build.

I don't mean to say the older G lenses are bad as a Golden Rule,
because the older G lenses will have a pricetag most welcome to new
DSLR owners who could barely afford the D100. However, I think
Nikon has come a long way in making better "G" lenses. The AF-S
24-85 G and the soon-to-be 70-200 G lenses for example.

--
http://pub103.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
http://d100.topcities.com/
http://e10club.topcities.com/

Click to expand...
--
My Nikon SB-28 Flash is for sale on eBay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15238&item=1945947284

And my Nikon 28-80mm f3.5-5.6D AF Zoom Nikkor Lens is also for sale
on eBay
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3343&item=1945912657
Click to expand...
 
while some "G" and "D" lenses are comparable in certain focal lengths, the "G" version of the 70-300 is a very bad piece of glass when compared to the "D" version, hence the JUSTIFIED 3X price difference. The picture you just showed points out all of that, ghosting, blurry, etc.

for $100.00 it might be cheap, but it is no higher quality than the built-in lens from some $89.00 point and shoot.

remember: sometimes when something seems too good to be true.... it's because it is.

greg
 
1. I think that for a casual shot made hand-held with 300mm lens - it is pretty good. Had it been on a tripod, it would have been even better (I used 1/125, as the rule of thumb goes, 1/300 would have stopped blur).

2. If a salesman who makes more comission on a $300 piece than $100 one tells you there is no difference, I tend not to suspect him.

3. If you go by the price than the D1X is 2.5 times better than the D100, correct? I don't think so.

4. Show me one review that claims and proves that the D is better than the G on that lens- I have found it.

Jacob
Greg Savel said:
while some "G" and "D" lenses are comparable in certain focal
lengths, the "G" version of the 70-300 is a very bad piece of glass
when compared to the "D" version, hence the JUSTIFIED 3X price
difference. The picture you just showed points out all of that,
ghosting, blurry, etc.
for $100.00 it might be cheap, but it is no higher quality than the
built-in lens from some $89.00 point and shoot.

remember: sometimes when something seems too good to be true....
it's because it is.

greg
Click to expand...
 
didn't mean to offend
my point was that i'm sure that YOUR TALENTS are better than THAT lens

in life that which is more expensive is not ALWAYS better (like in the 50mm lens choices between the 1.8 and the 1.4) but in the 70-300 MOST on this board would say that the "G" lens is inferior.

as the old saying goes, "the chain is only as strong as the weakest link"

i know that MOST on this board have already stretched their limits financially to buy this camera body alone, and that we must save money on glass because of it. We just must remember that we do this D100 NO justice by using inferior glass with it.

a $1000.00 camera with a $1000.00 zoom lens can take a better picture than a $2000.00 camera with a $100.00 zoom lens

IMHO

greg
 
Almost everything boils down to Dollars and Cents at the end. As an owner of the D100 for about a month, 24-85mm G f3.5-4.5 and the 70-300mm is not a bad start. For as much as I use telephoto, right now the 70-300mm is more than enough.

If money was no object, we wouldn't have this forum, because all of us would have owned the 14mm f2.8 and the 17-35mm and the 80-400mm VR , etc. However, my opinion, without much testing, is that as a basic telephoto the 70-300mm G for a mere $100 , is a bargain, most new users of the DSLRs ought to try. I will not rule out buying the 80-400mm in the future as well as the 12-24mm DX (or the Sigma 15-30mm) and the 105mm f2.8 Macro.

To summarize, in my opinion many of the D100 owners would enjoy the 70-300mm enough to justify a $100 investment.

Jacob
Greg Savel said:
didn't mean to offend
my point was that i'm sure that YOUR TALENTS are better than THAT lens
in life that which is more expensive is not ALWAYS better (like in
the 50mm lens choices between the 1.8 and the 1.4) but in the
70-300 MOST on this board would say that the "G" lens is inferior.

as the old saying goes, "the chain is only as strong as the weakest
link"
i know that MOST on this board have already stretched their limits
financially to buy this camera body alone, and that we must save
money on glass because of it. We just must remember that we do
this D100 NO justice by using inferior glass with it.

a $1000.00 camera with a $1000.00 zoom lens can take a better
picture than a $2000.00 camera with a $100.00 zoom lens

IMHO

greg
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top