Which Lens to Buy

[redtail7]

I have right now a Nikon D-50 and a Nikon 70mm-300mm f5.6 VR lens. I've had it out all this summer with great results. I'm just getting into digital photography and next summer I want a lens with greater reach. I kind of narrowed it down to two choices, this is where I want your expert opinion. The choices are the Sigma 50mm-500mm f6.3 {reviews on this lens say it is actually only about 470mm} or the Nikon 70mm-200mm f2.8VR{reviews say this is an exceptional sharp lens even with a converter on it} and add a 2X converter to the Nikon. Since I want to upgrade to a better Nikon camera some day I read that third party lenses may not work on future cameras. Which should I buy?
Next question is should I abandon Nikon now and go to Canon which has OS in the camera body {I believe} and not the lens like Nikon which leads me to believe that any lens on a Canon will still give OS, is this true?

Thanks for any help Redtail7

[tjsimonsen]

Hi Redtail,

Canon doesn't have OS (or IS as it's called in Canon Land) in the camera body, but only in selected lenses, just as Nikon.
Personally I think that this is a better idea as the IS can be calibrated to suit a specific lens.
I have a friend (also here in Edmonton), who uses the Nikkor 80-400 OS with good results on a D80, so that might be worth considering. I personally am a Canon man and use the 100-400L IS and am very satisfied. But I don't know if it's better than the 80-400 OS, apart from the AF.

Thomas

[DFBHeron]

I just sold both my D50 and 80-400VR lens. I got the D200 and am finding it more difficult than the D50 to get good pics, but getting better as there are so many more settings on the d200 (which i don't seem to use much anyway--so keep the D50 unless you're making big posters). l really liked the 80-400VR, but it is an expensive lens, and at the 400mm end i often found it difficult to get sharp pictures, as i gather is often the case with zoom lenses. I had very good results with a relatively inexpensive sigma AF 400mm APO (non-macro, the less desired version) lens, tho it was slow to focus. I had the 70-300VR which just felt like it didn't have enough 'reach'. Check out the gallery and what nikon folks are using, and you'll see 300mm nikon primes with 1.4x and 1.7x teleconverters in use, with great results. Practice practice practice. Doesn't seem to matter which equipement I use, light, technique, and luck seem to get me better/worse results...

[redtail7]

Thanks for the input guys. I'm kind of looking to go the route of the Nikon AF-S 70mm-200mm f2.8 VR as to the older Nikon AF-D 80mm-400mm F5.6 as I will have an exceptional lens at 70mm-200mm f-2.8 and with a 2X converter I will get my 400mm with no real loss in quality from the test reviews I've read. I've also read that with the 400mm lens and a 2X converter there is loss of quality in the pictures. Am I right in what I'm thinking? Or is the 400mm still a good lens with the doubler bringing it up to800mm but at F-11?

Redtail7

[SLRShooter]

I have the Nikon D300 and love the combination of it and the 70-200mm lens. But, you should know there are rumors that Nikon is going to replace it with a 70-200 VR lens. Wait just a little bit before buying the lens.

Also, as for moving to Canon, they do not have anything like the D300 or the D3 - two of the best high ISO digital bodies on the market. In fact, I think you could say the best. What that does is give you an extra stop or two without degrading the image.

Any time you add the 2x converter, you are going to suffer lose. Best to try to stick with the 1.4 or 1.7. Both of those work very well with any of the lens as long as it does not go below f4. When you get to a lens of f5.6, none of the TC work well as they will "hunt" a lot because of the low light. AF doesn't like low light.

[Rob Chace]

"I have the Nikon D300 and love the combination of it and the 70-200mm lens. But, you should know there are rumors that Nikon is going to replace it with a 70-200 VR lens. Wait just a little bit before buying the lens."
The Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR lens has been out for quite a while now.

[rezMole]

How about the Tamron 200-500. I recently bought a Sigma 500mm with the idea of selling the Tamron, but I have decided to keep it as the quality isn't far behing the Sigma prime - and is is a super lans to use as a walkabout lens as it is very light for a lens going up to 500mm. And it is pretty sharp at 500mm too.

[Den]

Hi Redtail7

Uve been using Nikon Kit for 38 years now and for the last 20 a 600mm. First the 600mm f5.6 manual and later the f4 AfS-11 as my main bird photo lens.
My suggestion is to get a prime lens and not a zoom, something like the Sigma 500mm prime. I've seen the results from this lens and it is stunning and a sight lighter then my own. Zooms are OK but sharpness is still not there at the top end of the zoom compared to prime lenses. These Apochromatic lenses are good value. 'Reach' is all important in bird photography, as well as the ability to produce a pleasing background (bokeh). 500 and 600 mm lenses throw the background superbly out of focus compared with the zooms and give such pleasing results.

[Helios]

I had the Tamron 200-500 lens until recently. I gives fairly good results at 500mm if you go down a stop or two. One disadvantage is that its quite long when extended, and has a ridiculously long lens hood.

A couple of weeks ago, I got a good deal on a second hand Nikkor 300 f4 lens, which I combined with a 1.4 teleconverter, and I havn't looked back. Sharpness, even wide open, is on another level. I've taken some of my best photos ever these last two weeks, so I sold the Tamron last Saturday.

[kcactionphoto]

I agree with Den. I've been shooting Nikon gear for the last 5 years in youth sports and motor racing predominantly. Most primes and fixed aperture lenses are just better than zooms and lens that get slower as you zoom. Autofocus is faster, image quality is almost always better, and they'll work better with teleconverters as well. The bad part is that most of these lenses are professional grade and their price reflects this. You can find bargains. The Nikon 300 f4 AFS ED sells for around $1000, while the Nikon 300 f2.8 AFS II costs around $4000. Three grand more for two stops of light is a pretty steep jump. Its not as fast on autofocus because its the older AFS model, but its still a lot of money.

If you are worried about Nikon lenses and third partry lenses becoming non capatible, this will be because Nikon is switching their consumer lines over to all AFS. The D40 and D40X all both require lenses that have their own autofocussing motors as the body has no drive in it. I doubt that the pro line of Nikons will switch to this any time soon as Nikon still has beaucoup non-AFS lenses that are wicked sharp and desirable to pros. The new D3 is a full frame and the DX line of lenses will only work in high speed crop mode on this camera (1.5x crop). Nikon has always been great about supporting their own gear. There are old AIS lenses fro film that still work on even the new D3 and the pros are not likely to give up on their veteran lenses.

[redtail7]

Hi Everyone

Thanks so much for taking the time and providing such good expert advise it is priceless information. I wrote this tread on Nov 23, 2007 and on Nov 28 I came home from work and may house was broken into and yes amoung other things all my just recently {only 1yr old} camera equipment was gone. Not to worry insurance will hopefully be giving me the replacement cost. I am now looking at the camera body D-300. I will probably have about $5000.00 CDN to spend on camera and lens. I imagine all the good advise I've just read will still stand but any additional input would still be appreciated.

Tony Bell [Redtail7]

[Ian Latham]

Buy a guard dog!!

[redtail7]

To late now the horse is gone! You might want to know a story. It was about 36 yrs ago I started my photography and all my new equipment was Yashica and about one year after I bought it I had my only previous break-in to my flat and my camera equipment gone. Miraculiousy it was all recovered by the police the next day minus the camera. After cleaning of fingerprint dust from everything I purchased a new camera the Contax 139 Quartz which was compatible with all the lenses and used it successfully with no problems until I went digital last year, theres no turning back. All my old camera equipment is looking old and worn but still functioning fine, it was sitting in one of the bedrooms the creep ramsacked but was under a blanket and wasn't noticed. To bad he didn't get it as I could have got replacement value on it as well, would have been nice. Ironically now a little over one year after my new digital SLR i'm robbed again. Guard dog maybe but if crooks want in they get in. I think I'll make a secret nook somewhere rather than leave the stuff in full view for them if theres a next time. I'll be better prepared.

[Telecorder]

Sorry for the loss.. I know the feeling -- our house was broken into last October and we got hit for about $10K in gold jewelry. Unfortunately, its the wife's so she won't let me use the insurance for my digitals... I'm drooling over the D300 specs/reports...

Of course, about $1K of the insurance went into installing a full house wireless alarm system w/motion detectors and monthly monitoring at $10/month....

[redtail7]

Thanks.... My neighbor {two doors away} has an alarm for years now and has been hit six times when they were out. Police wont respond for hours so the alarm company or an agent comes out in about half an hour, long after the sirens of the alarm have shut down and the crooks are gone. On the next block they were able to confine the guard dog in the back porch and then proceed to loot the home. Afew years ago I read where they killed the dog. Like I say they know that this camera equipment will be replaced shortly plus they had a snoop around the house and know what inventory there is, all they need is a buyer. Most of my stuff now will be hidden I hope most of the time and wont be easy pickins next time.
Redtail7