Lens Advice please.

[fender]

Hi all,
I would appreciate some good advice upon the lenses below please;


1) Nikon 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G AFS VR IF ED
2) Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 VC Di AF
3) Tokina 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 AT-X

I am looking for a lens with good build quality,that's reliable and gives a sharp image and is ok for handholding when needed. I would also appreciate any other lens suggestions that might suit my requirements...preferably within the £500 price range ( all the above are)

If i decide upon a lens i will be using it with the Nikon D300.

Regards, Phil.

[Neil]

Phil,
I wouldn't consider the first two for bird photography. I don't know the Tokina but the Nikon and Sigma equivalents are great walk-around bird lenses and you should get reasonable AF on the D300.
Neil.

[fender]

Phil,
I wouldn't consider the first two for bird photography. I don't know the Tokina but the Nikon and Sigma equivalents are great walk-around bird lenses and you should get reasonable AF on the D300.
Neil.

Thanks Neil...just a bit confused as you say you would'nt consider the first two...and then mention that the Nikon is a great walk-around equivalent..my no 1 choice being a Nikon?

Could you clarify please?

Phil.

[bkrownd]

Thanks Neil...just a bit confused as you say you would'nt consider the first two...and then mention that the Nikon is a great walk-around equivalent..my no 1 choice being a Nikon?

He means the Nikkor 80-400 VR - equivalent focal length range.

[postcardcv]

Phil,
I wouldn't consider the first two for bird photography. I don't know the Tokina but the Nikon and Sigma equivalents are great walk-around bird lenses and you should get reasonable AF on the D300.
Neil.

but they are also both a good deal more than the Tokina and will be over budget. I recently picked up a copy of the Tokina 80-400 to test and was reasonably impressed with it - it's very small for a 400mm zoom and feels solid and well made. The focus is fairly slow and noisy but not too bad and the image quality is fine (good for the money). If possible, try before you buy.

[Neil]

Thanks Neil...just a bit confused as you say you would'nt consider the first two...and then mention that the Nikon is a great walk-around equivalent..my no 1 choice being a Nikon?

Could you clarify please?

Phil.

Phil,
The Nikon equivalent to the Tokina is their 80-400zoom but I imagine almost twice the price.
Neil.

[stoop]

Go for #1. I use it with the D300 and love it. I just spent bucks on a 300mm f4 and 1.4 tc and am unhappy. The AF-S 70-300mm VR is nimble and sharp! Check out my gallery.

[Duke Leto]

Stoop, I would love to know why you're unhappy with the 300 & 1.4, IMHO its gotta be the best combo for a Nikon body by far and very well liked in all circles. If its not used with a monopod at the least the focal length will be a problem when hand holding.
Phil, if you can try all do so, I like Tokina lenses, bought a 28-70/2.8 and its ace for the measly £150.00 I paid for it, solid, well built, my 12-24 is equally a very nice Tokina Lens. Don't ignore the possible benefits of this budget lens.

[fender]

Hi guys,
Thanks for all your advice, i will consider it all. Checked-out your gallery Stoop... very impressive,nice sharp images...you sure have some nice birds there. Were they all taken with the 70-300 Nikon lens?

I find that i tend to lean towards the 70-300mm Nikon,but will keep my options open for a while to see if any more views or suggestions are posted.


Regards, Phil.

[greypoint]

Another vote for the 70-300mm vr - a remarkable lens for the money. Of course with birds the longer the better but a sharp shot from a 300mm and a bit of cropping beats a less good 400mm shot - and you need to spend a bit more to get a quality 400mm. The other point is the personal preference for zoom or prime. If you're always going to be using the long end then a prime is worth considering but it can be as frustrating when something is just too close as when it's too far away!
some humble 70-300mm vr shots of all sorts of subjects

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greypoint/sets/72157611526629915/

[fender]

Another vote for the 70-300mm vr - a remarkable lens for the money. Of course with birds the longer the better but a sharp shot from a 300mm and a bit of cropping beats a less good 400mm shot - and you need to spend a bit more to get a quality 400mm. The other point is the personal preference for zoom or prime. If you're always going to be using the long end then a prime is worth considering but it can be as frustrating when something is just too close as when it's too far away!
some humble 70-300mm vr shots of all sorts of subjects

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greypoint/sets/72157611526629915/

Hi, thanks for views and photo link..nice shots, seems a very capable lens..not too happy at having to pay so much more for it now than you paid towards the end of last year though! But i guess all other optics have had their prices increased too.

Regards, Phil.

[bkrownd]

... very impressive,nice sharp images...

Any lens can accomplish that with the right conditions.

[Duke Leto]

300mm is too short for the majority of birding shots in the UK, especially if you're just walking around

[fender]

300mm is too short for the majority of birding shots in the UK, especially if you're just walking around

Hi Steve, a fair point...i could have got some nice shots of a Stonechat family recently..if only my lens was more than it's 300mm max.

What i really could do with is a zoom that reaches say 400 or 500mm but is not too heavy or bulky as i often have a rucksack, plus scope/tripod and camera at the ready(like most birders i guess!)

Suppose the Sigma 120-400 or 150-500mm might well suit?

Like your website by the way...some really nice captures there.

Phil.

[bkrownd]

when the 300mm f/4 finally gets VR we won't have to have threads like this, but Nikon isn't listening. I met someone with the 300 f/2.8 VR once...oh how I wish I was less financially responsible! I have the cash, but I just can't go that far.

[Duke Leto]

Phil thanks for the comment, if you really only want the focal length then a prime is the best option and for the money;
either a 300/4 & 1.4tc (I have this combination and its superb, but use a monopod) actually the monopod make it easier to carry as it sits on the shoulder nicely) or
Find a Sigma 400/5.6, these come up second hand.
If you can stretch a little try looking for a used Sigma 300/2.8 and use either a 1.4 or 2 x tc.
No budget options get a Nikon 200-400vr............

If a zoom offers the better options then the other members are best to advise, I have seen threads rating the tamron 200-500 but I can't comment personally

when the 300mm f/4 finally gets VR we won't have to have threads like this, but Nikon isn't listening. I met someone with the 300 f/2.8 VR once...oh how I wish I was less financially responsible! I have the cash, but I just can't go that far.


If Nikon were listening they'd offer a 400/4vr or a 500/5.6vr.......

[greypoint]

Well I still stick by the premise that I'd rather have a sharp 300mm than an iffy 400mm - even a 500mm won't give you frame filling small birds unless you're quite close. But, of course, I don't just shoot birds. I've been using a Tokina 400mm [now in the for sale section!]which is a fairly lightweight cheap oldish lens - had some fun with it and yes it did get me just that bit closer but I still found I preferred the convenience of the zoom so, as it now just sits there, decided it may as well go. All a matter of personal choice, budget and where and what you mainly shoot I suppose. I did use one of the older Tokina 80-400mm on a Canon 10D and it did display a fair bit of purple fringing etc. - I think the new one is better. I did handle the Tamron 200-500 and it's remarkably light for such a lens - sent one in error by W/E a while ago as it was in the wrong box. They said I could use it over the weekend but of course it rained continuously so never got the chance to test it!

[fender]

Thanks again guy's
I have been doing a bit of re-assessing regards the type of photography i will mainly be doing and feel think that a zoom would suit me better than a prime. I did some research on these in the w/exp site and found that the Sigma 150-500 might well be the one...a lot of very good user reviews on there...just need to stretch my budget a bit though!


Best Regards, Phil.

[rioja]

If Nikon were listening they'd offer a 400/4vr or a 500/5.6vr.......

Been here before Steve, they do.

Nikons 300mm f2.8 VR and a 1.4TC is cheaper than the Canon 400 f4 IS by about £1200.

[Neil]

I picked up a second hand Nikon 1.7x teleconverter today to use with my Nikon 300/2.8 AFS VR and 500/4 AFS VR. I'll be doing some testing on Wednesday.
Neil.

[fender]

I picked up a second hand Nikon 1.7x teleconverter today to use with my Nikon 300/2.8 AFS VR and 500/4 AFS VR. I'll be doing some testing on Wednesday.
Neil.

That will interesting Neil, will look forward to seeing the results.

Phil.

[Neil]

Finally got the Nikon 1.7x AFS Teleconverter out to the local park today on the Nikon 300/2.8 AFS VR. I had read in several places that the best results from the 1.7x come when used with f2.8 lenses. I had tried it on the 300/4 and 500/4 previously and hadn't been that impressed.
I did use it today with the VR switched on which I don't usually do as the pollution levels were high and the light levels were very low. I needed iso 800/1600 . I used a monopod and the distances were 5 metres to 22 metres.
Focus speed was fast ( felt as fast as the 500/4 AFS ) on the D3 and it was easier to manoever than the 500/4 mm . As it's lighter than the 500/4 I might be using it more in future.
Here are a few from today, Neil.

Hong Kong,
China.
Oct 2009

[fender]

Finally got the Nikon 1.7x AFS Teleconverter out to the local park today on the Nikon 300/2.8 AFS VR. I had read in several places that the best results from the 1.7x come when used with f2.8 lenses. I had tried it on the 300/4 and 500/4 previously and hadn't been that impressed.
I did use it today with the VR switched on which I don't usually do as the pollution levels were high and the light levels were very low. I needed iso 800/1600 . I used a monopod and the distances were 5 metres to 22 metres.
Focus speed was fast ( felt as fast as the 500/4 AFS ) on the D3 and it was easier to manoever than the 500/4 mm . As it's lighter than the 500/4 I might be using it more in future.
Here are a few from today, Neil.

Hong Kong,
China.
Oct 2009

Nice shots Neil, looks like you have a good set-up there |=)|

Phil.

[nirofo]

I've used the Tokina 80-400 for several years now on my D200 and can heartily reccommend it, sharpness and contrast is very good at nearly all focal lengths. The focussing can be a bit slow at times but doesn't cause me too many problems. I find it very useful for using out of the car window resting on a bean bag, I've also had great success hand holding for flight shots. The main thing is, as with any lens practice makes perfect. You won't regret going for this lens.

Here's a couple of shots taken with one.

nirofo.

[Duke Leto]

Nirofo, thanks for confirming my first thread in this post, never underestimate Tokina lenses

[Fozzybear]

I have a Sigma 150-500, Nikon 70-300VR and a Nikon 300mm f/4 (old style AF version that I use with a Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DG teleconverter).

The Sigma is the weakest of the three, I am on my second copy and although it is ok and does get you to 500mm I find the results lacking in detail and can be a little 'bloomy'. Some of the problems I've heard attributed to needing to get used to such a long lens but I'm used to getting pretty high quality heavy crops from the 300mm prime with teleconverter (which would be 420mm) and probably is a combination of the two but I'd say it's more down to the lens than technique. It's also a huge thing and makes a wildlife walk a lot less enjoyable for me just because of it's bulk. I use it only very rarely.

The 300mm prime and T/C (out of your league new perhaps but my second-hand 300mm was £340 from ebay) gets you to 420mm which is less but the lens is far, far sharper and suffers from much less image distortion so you can crop in and get detail where on the Sigma you'd get a slightly mushy image. It's still quite a bulky setup to take on a walk, you certainly know it's there, but it much more manageable than the Sigma.

The 70-300VR is my everyday lens, it doesn't have the quality of the prime but it is flexible because of the zoom, it focuses close enough to allow me to get fair shots of insects, the VR allows me to shoot handheld in lower light than the prime and the image quality I find good even cropped very heavily. It's also compact and light so perfect for walking. It's not going to be very good if you are always shooting distant birds from hides or need ultimate quality but for a general walkabout wildlife lens I find it a good choice.

These are some cropped shots taken with the 70-300, some heavier than others, as you can see you do get a loss of fine detail from cropping hard but it depends on your needs and what you want to get out of the photography really:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/258451/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/254572/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/251588/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/250000/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/247678/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/221432/ppuser/69297

The last shot (of the Goldcrest) was cropped rather hard and was taken in very dingy conditions in a wood, as was the Wren shot. You can see that cropping in does mean that detail can look a bit 'thick lined' but it still produces reasonable images, at least in terms of my personal needs! I've a few shots taken with the 70-300VR from hides at Cley looking across at distant birds but they're not on BF, here's a couple taken with my old D80:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/2737717415/ - larger size here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/2737717415_f98a1dbb6e_o.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/2604483605/ - larger size here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/2604483605_ee0962008f_o.jpg)

and with the D300 at Titchwell:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/3627793585/ - larger size here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3627793585_5375371857_o.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/3624827534/ - larger size here (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3624827534_235768dc81_o.jpg)

What it comes down to is what you want out of your photography - if you want the photography to be the reason for going out then you might well want to take a big lens but if you want to birdwatch 'and' do a bit of photography then you might feel encumbered by carrying around a large lens. If you get the Sigma you might find you get on better with it than I did, but you're likely to find it takes some work to make the most of it and even then you really need bright sun to do that because of the small aperture and need to stop down to maximise sharpness. I personally would prefer a slightly shorter lens of higher quality and crop in than a long lens that produces poorer images.

[fender]

I've used the Tokina 80-400 for several years now on my D200 and can heartily reccommend it, sharpness and contrast is very good at nearly all focal lengths. The focussing can be a bit slow at times but doesn't cause me too many problems. I find it very useful for using out of the car window resting on a bean bag, I've also had great success hand holding for flight shots. The main thing is, as with any lens practice makes perfect. You won't regret going for this lens.

Here's a couple of shots taken with one.

nirofo.

Like your photo's Nirofo, looks a pretty good lens to me.

Phil.

[fender]

I have a Sigma 150-500, Nikon 70-300VR and a Nikon 300mm f/4 (old style AF version that I use with a Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 DG teleconverter).

The Sigma is the weakest of the three, I am on my second copy and although it is ok and does get you to 500mm I find the results lacking in detail and can be a little 'bloomy'. Some of the problems I've heard attributed to needing to get used to such a long lens but I'm used to getting pretty high quality heavy crops from the 300mm prime with teleconverter (which would be 420mm) and probably is a combination of the two but I'd say it's more down to the lens than technique. It's also a huge thing and makes a wildlife walk a lot less enjoyable for me just because of it's bulk. I use it only very rarely.

The 300mm prime and T/C (out of your league new perhaps but my second-hand 300mm was £340 from ebay) gets you to 420mm which is less but the lens is far, far sharper and suffers from much less image distortion so you can crop in and get detail where on the Sigma you'd get a slightly mushy image. It's still quite a bulky setup to take on a walk, you certainly know it's there, but it much more manageable than the Sigma.

The 70-300VR is my everyday lens, it doesn't have the quality of the prime but it is flexible because of the zoom, it focuses close enough to allow me to get fair shots of insects, the VR allows me to shoot handheld in lower light than the prime and the image quality I find good even cropped very heavily. It's also compact and light so perfect for walking. It's not going to be very good if you are always shooting distant birds from hides or need ultimate quality but for a general walkabout wildlife lens I find it a good choice.

These are some cropped shots taken with the 70-300, some heavier than others, as you can see you do get a loss of fine detail from cropping hard but it depends on your needs and what you want to get out of the photography really:

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/258451/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/254572/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/251588/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/250000/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/247678/ppuser/69297
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/221432/ppuser/69297

The last shot (of the Goldcrest) was cropped rather hard and was taken in very dingy conditions in a wood, as was the Wren shot. You can see that cropping in does mean that detail can look a bit 'thick lined' but it still produces reasonable images, at least in terms of my personal needs! I've a few shots taken with the 70-300VR from hides at Cley looking across at distant birds but they're not on BF, here's a couple taken with my old D80:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/2737717415/ - larger size here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/2737717415_f98a1dbb6e_o.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/2604483605/ - larger size here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/2604483605_ee0962008f_o.jpg)

and with the D300 at Titchwell:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/3627793585/ - larger size here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/3627793585_5375371857_o.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulforsdick/3624827534/ - larger size here (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2478/3624827534_235768dc81_o.jpg)

What it comes down to is what you want out of your photography - if you want the photography to be the reason for going out then you might well want to take a big lens but if you want to birdwatch 'and' do a bit of photography then you might feel encumbered by carrying around a large lens. If you get the Sigma you might find you get on better with it than I did, but you're likely to find it takes some work to make the most of it and even then you really need bright sun to do that because of the small aperture and need to stop down to maximise sharpness. I personally would prefer a slightly shorter lens of higher quality and crop in than a long lens that produces poorer images.

Hi Paul, thanks for your input and images..some nice ones there. Your comments on the Sigma 150-500mm were surprising as i have looked at many reviews(there's a lot on the W/hse exp site) and almost without exception they give high praise and top marks in all aspects for this lens...there was an issue with an earlier model but apparently if you get one with the serial number starting with 103 then it's fine. Some rate it higher in resolution/sharpness than many Nikon lenses.

I take your point regarding weight etc for a walk-around lens...have to check-out how it feels etc before deciding. You also mention it's small aperature..is 86mm considered small for this type of lens then?

Regards, Phil.

[Fozzybear]

I'm very surprised to hear that it's rated higher than some Nikon lenses, unless they're comparing it to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6G, which was pretty awful. I've seen good reviews, I read one in Amateur Photographer which led me to buy the lens but the first one had horrible blooming and colour fringing and suffered really bad back focus. The replacement lens is much better but still has slight backfocus (I've corrected that with the D300 adjustments) and a little blooming. Sigma quality control is widely said to be pretty poor so if you do buy one make sure you get it from a local shop you can go back to for an exchange if the lens turns out to be duff.

First time I've heard of the serial number thing, do you have a link to that?

86mm is not the aperture, that's the diameter... f/5-6.3 is the aperture. You really need to shoot at f/9 or f/11 to get the best sharpness out of this lens though, which is far from ideal. I tend to shoot at f/7.1 or f/8 with the 70-300VR and don't need as high a shutter speed as you do with the Sigma. The image stabilisation also works a lot better in the Nikon.

[nirofo]

Thanks again guy's
I have been doing a bit of re-assessing regards the type of photography i will mainly be doing and feel think that a zoom would suit me better than a prime. I did some research on these in the w/exp site and found that the Sigma 150-500 might well be the one...a lot of very good user reviews on there...just need to stretch my budget a bit though!


Best Regards, Phil.

This thread seems to be going back over to discussing long zooms again, if that's the case then you need look no further than the Tamron 200-500!

nirofo.

[fender]

I'm very surprised to hear that it's rated higher than some Nikon lenses, unless they're comparing it to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6G, which was pretty awful. I've seen good reviews, I read one in Amateur Photographer which led me to buy the lens but the first one had horrible blooming and colour fringing and suffered really bad back focus. The replacement lens is much better but still has slight backfocus (I've corrected that with the D300 adjustments) and a little blooming. Sigma quality control is widely said to be pretty poor so if you do buy one make sure you get it from a local shop you can go back to for an exchange if the lens turns out to be duff.

First time I've heard of the serial number thing, do you have a link to that?
Need to think where i've seen this(looked on so many forums/reviews lately!) will give link when i find it.

86mm is not the aperture, that's the diameter... f/5-6.3 is the aperture.
Of course..silly me, wasn't thinking...senior moment!!

You really need to shoot at f/9 or f/11 to get the best sharpness out of this lens though, which is far from ideal. I tend to shoot at f/7.1 or f/8 with the 70-300VR and don't need as high a shutter speed as you do with the Sigma. The image stabilisation also works a lot better in the Nikon.

Anyway thanks for your help and info...it gives me something to consider!

Regards, Phil.