flanken
C-GU11
Hey all. I'm looking over my options for replacing my existing telephoto lens. I'm still a bit of a DSLR newbie so go easy on me, and do let me know if I don't know what I'm talking about.
I'm currently using the Tokina 80-400mm (the AT-X D version) on my D90. While the size and build quality are wonderful, it's quite soft and low-contrast at 400mm, and the AF speed is adequate at best. But the real problem is that it suffers from rather horrendous purple fringing, as seen in the attached 100% crop. I can remove most but not all of it in post-processing, but obviously it affects image quality. Admittedly, I'm not really that much of a pixel peeper, but the purple fringing is noticeable even on zoomed-out images. I'm not sure if it's something characteristic in the optical design (as some of the reviews online seem to confirm) or if it's specific to the one I have.
At any rate, I plan on selling the Tokina, and replacing it with one of the potential candidates below, so I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on any specific lens, or on which one is the best option. Just to give you a better idea about my needs, I mostly shoot a) gulls on the ground or in flight, b) the chickadees and finches at my backyard feeder, c) aquarium fish, and d) my silly indoor cat. Obviously, this new lens would be mostly used for a) and b), as I have plenty to cover the other two.
As far as lenses go, I've found that I don't mind hauling around something slightly bulkier and/or heavier than the Tokina. I'd like to spend around $500-600 USD on a new lens; I know that limits my options, but I might consider something pricier if that's absolutely what's needed. I also have a Tamron 18-270mm VC f/3.5-6.3 that I always have on hand around for wider shots and as a backup, so any lens that would be largely redundant with that probably wouldn't be worth it (although at close ranges, the Tamron is not a true 270mm, more like 180mm due to its design, plus its AF is a little on the slow side for in-flight shots). Since I know I can't have everything, I can't decide whether I'm more willing to sacrifice a 400mm focal length, lack of VR, sharpness, or fast AF; I suspect sharpness, and then fast AF are probably the most important, but let me know if I'm not correct.
With all that said (as brevity isn't my strong suit), here are some of the lenses I'm considering:
And a couple of more expensive options; I'd like to avoid spending this much, but might consider them if it's really worth the extra cost:
Obviously I could analyze this to death, but I figured I'd get everyone involved in my paradox. Thanks in advance for any opinions or advice!
I'm currently using the Tokina 80-400mm (the AT-X D version) on my D90. While the size and build quality are wonderful, it's quite soft and low-contrast at 400mm, and the AF speed is adequate at best. But the real problem is that it suffers from rather horrendous purple fringing, as seen in the attached 100% crop. I can remove most but not all of it in post-processing, but obviously it affects image quality. Admittedly, I'm not really that much of a pixel peeper, but the purple fringing is noticeable even on zoomed-out images. I'm not sure if it's something characteristic in the optical design (as some of the reviews online seem to confirm) or if it's specific to the one I have.
At any rate, I plan on selling the Tokina, and replacing it with one of the potential candidates below, so I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on any specific lens, or on which one is the best option. Just to give you a better idea about my needs, I mostly shoot a) gulls on the ground or in flight, b) the chickadees and finches at my backyard feeder, c) aquarium fish, and d) my silly indoor cat. Obviously, this new lens would be mostly used for a) and b), as I have plenty to cover the other two.
As far as lenses go, I've found that I don't mind hauling around something slightly bulkier and/or heavier than the Tokina. I'd like to spend around $500-600 USD on a new lens; I know that limits my options, but I might consider something pricier if that's absolutely what's needed. I also have a Tamron 18-270mm VC f/3.5-6.3 that I always have on hand around for wider shots and as a backup, so any lens that would be largely redundant with that probably wouldn't be worth it (although at close ranges, the Tamron is not a true 270mm, more like 180mm due to its design, plus its AF is a little on the slow side for in-flight shots). Since I know I can't have everything, I can't decide whether I'm more willing to sacrifice a 400mm focal length, lack of VR, sharpness, or fast AF; I suspect sharpness, and then fast AF are probably the most important, but let me know if I'm not correct.
With all that said (as brevity isn't my strong suit), here are some of the lenses I'm considering:
- Nikon 300mm f/4 ED-IF (older non AF-S version): I'm especially interested if anyone has had any experience with this one, especially regarding its AF speed, sharpness, and general usefulness for bird photography. Also, has anyone tried this one with a Kenko 1.4x TC?
- Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR f/4.5-5.6: I'm renting this one for a couple of days. Seems pretty nice so far; I'm also renting the 300mm f/4 AF-S, and the differences in image quality between this lens and that much pricier one isn't yet apparent to me.
- Sigma 170-500mm APO f/5-6.3 (used)
- Tamron 200-500mm f/5-6.3 (used)
And a couple of more expensive options; I'd like to avoid spending this much, but might consider them if it's really worth the extra cost:
- Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S
- Sigma 100-300mm f/4
Obviously I could analyze this to death, but I figured I'd get everyone involved in my paradox. Thanks in advance for any opinions or advice!
Attachments
Last edited:
