Which lens?

[Hyrax]

Hi there, I'm new to the forum and I've only been photographing birds for about a year so please forgive any naivety:

I'd like some advice on my next lens purchase, my current telephoto (a cheap tamron 70-300) whilst producing good results initially on my D50 is now in desperate need of replacement having lost a lot of quality over the past year.

As I see it my options are either one of the cheaper sigma/tamron telephotos now on the market ie. the tamron 200-500 f/4-6.3 or the sigma 170-500 f/4-6.3 (actually they might be f/5-6.3) or a higher quality but inevitably lower focal length lens like the nikkor 300mm f/4.

My budget would be at £1000 as an absolute maximum (even then I'll be buying nothing other than food until the new year). I'm faced with a compromise between focal length and quality but I suppose my main question is how good are those cheaper, longer lenses? Are they worth buying or should I shell out the extra cash for a quality 300mm and try and get closer to the birds!?

Any advice/ recommendations would be most welcome

[ikw101]

Hyrax

Welcome to the forum.

£1000 is a fairly decent budget for what it's worth I'd go for a D80 (extra 4 Mpix) plus a 2nd hand 300mm/f4 and a Kenko Pro x1.4 TC.

If you've got a strong dislike for tripods and you're willing to go down the ebay route to the far East suppliers you'll probably have just about enough for the D80 and Sigma 80-400mm OS zoom.

I don't know too much about the Sigma 170-500mm but the 50-500mm has a good reputation. However I'm not convinced about it on the D50. Ideally it needs a beefier AF motor eg. the D200.

As I'm sure you've found out by now the closer you get to the bird the better the photograph. Frequently people have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved with a long lens. A bag hide (http://www.warehouseexpress.com/?binsandscopes/hides/baghides.html#bh) will allow you to get a lot closer for relatively little money.

[Hyrax]

I see the logic in the D80 plan but I'm already saving with the intention of buying a D300 (review depending) in the summer, or possibly a 200 as it's still a great camera. So I'm happy to use whatever lens I opt for on the D50 this spring at least.

Having said a maximum budget of £1000 I really need to keep it as low as possible so I would only spend the extra on the nikkor 300 f/4 + converter over one of the cheaper 500mm if it really was going to make a major difference over the next few years.

You're right about distance, I often find that just sitting within a few meters of a perch is enough for all but the most tentative species, 10-20 minutes without moving and they seem to forget you're there. But thanks for the bag hide link that should definately improve my success rate - bullfinches don't seem to share the bravado of the other species at the forest farm reserve and simply refuse to turn up no matter how long I'm motionless! Perhaps some camouflage will help.

Thanks again for the advice

[Guidenet]

I bought the Tamron 200-500 a couple of months ago and am truly impressed. At 500 and wide open (6.3) it's really tight sharp as most of the reviews say. I almost bought the Sigma 50-500 because of it's HSM motor and high build quality, but the weight and the fact that it really isn't as sharp at 500 made my choice. My brother has that Sigma and you can see the difference with large prints. Tamron's contrast is a little better IMO, as well.

That said, I would have loved to have purchased Nikon's 300 f4 and Nikon's 1.7 teleconverter, but at $1800 USD it was a thousand more. From my understanding, it's even sharper, though I can't see how. I'm now in love with that Tamron until I can afford a 500 prime by either Nikon or Sigma, which might be never.

[rezMole]

Same position - using Tamron 200-500. A great lens for the price. Not good with a teleconverter though. Saving for a 500 prime (Sigma) - but it will be a while b4 I can get one.

[Dirk Hiemstra]

For 1.000 GBP ? Have a look at the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) as it will surprise you over the Sigma 170-500 and Sigma 135-400 (both soft at 500mm). Also the Tamron seems to suffer from a little softness. Certainly look at the Nikon 80-400 VR or Sigma 80-400 OS. Personally I prefer a second hand prime like the Sigma 400mm APO tele Macro (77mm version !!), but they are hard to find.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Gear: Nikon D80 - Sigma 400mm APO Tele macro - Nikon 105mm Micro - Nikon 28-200mm G - Kenko 1.4 - Kenko 2.0 - wihtmfm (wish I had the money for more)

[Duke Leto]

Hi, I started of with a 300mm IF-ED Nikon and a Sigma 1.4TC, the older 300mm IF-ED is bomb proof and has a really nice focus limiter to help speed up the slow focusing it also has a slightly larger main optic at 82mm and a built in lens hood, matched to a TC there was no noticeable loss of quality but af may be sluggish in low light. Its a superb lens and can be picked up for a steal on eBay etc for under £250.00 and the sigma 1.4 for under £100, to be fair with a £1000 budget you could get the newer 300mmAF-S and a TC1.7 (or 1.4) and this would equally give fantastic results and still have change from £1000 (if you buy from the right sources)
Ironically there appear to be none on eBay at the moment??
The Sigma as mentioned would be a good alternative but the Nikon would hold better 2nd hand value and trade in terms
I haven't experienced the big zooms so can't comment
Hope it helps

[gary gas]

The afs 300mm f4 is a great lens and with the nikon 1.4tc gives you 420mm with very little loss of quility and autofocus is superb

[Keith Reeder]

You could do a lot worse than the Sigma 80-400mm OS (http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/142/perpage/24/sort/7), which will actually come in at under a grand (around £800, typically) even in the UK - no need for the Ebay route.

Or you can have mine (the one in my review above, in excellent condition and in original case and box) for around £600..!

;)