Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

How to Choose a Lens


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

 

That's why I said:

 
Not suggesting that any of these are cheap :)
 
I don't think I'd even classify the 70-300 as inexpensive, but it is certainly less than the 80-400...

 

I keep going back to the original post. Not to say it never happens but I think it's rare to see someone with a entry level camera looking at lenses over a certain price point. And, yes, the 70~300AFS VR is definitely pushing that price point. However,I believe the OP would be happier with that lens than one of the lesser Nikkor 70~300 lenses that are still being sold. And, I'm not excluding any of the current aftermarket options. I just don't have any experience with them. 

 

I agree with everything else you mentioned, especially the point about aperture. In fact, sometimes I think I'd love to have about 5 minutes with the guy who came up with the variable aperture scheme. Argh! Many years ago I had a Vivitar Series 1 70~210 f3.5 lens that I really loved. A tad slow but at least it kept that aperture all the way through the zoom range. Man was that a nice lens.

 

--Ron

  

 

 



#22
iNYONi

iNYONi

    Rob

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationLivingston, Scotland

Site Supporter

I have both the Tamron 70-300 (got this for my 3100 for £90) and the Nikon 70-300AFS VR, purchased with my 7100. If on a budget then the Tamron is a very good lens, i've gotten some fantastic shots with it. Close shots of wildlife in Africa. Ok at the far end the quality drops off a bit but to be honest unless i was wanting to sell the prints and blow them up to a massive size...then they are great shots and really hard to tell the difference when online.

The Nikon 70-300AFS VR...well thats a great lens too...very sharp, a bit on the heavy side but managable.

If you have an entry level camera then I suspect that you'll want to keep the cost down but not comprimise in picture quality. I can recommend both lenses.

The shot below was taken with my 7100 and 70-300 AFS VR (just to give you an example of what it can do)

 

Swan

 

This shot was taken on my 3100 with the Tamron 70-300

 

Blue Herron Maldives

 



#23
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

iNyoni, those are both beautiful images. But I have to say that I really like the one taken with the 3100 and theTamron!

 

--Ron



#24
iNYONi

iNYONi

    Rob

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationLivingston, Scotland

Site Supporter

iNyoni, those are both beautiful images. But I have to say that I really like the one taken with the 3100 and theTamron!

 

--Ron

Thanks Ron, that was taken in the Maldives. I managed to get very close to the Herron plus lots of  bright sunligh, making the Tamron lens work great. with the Nikon 70-300,  I had the VR turned on when I took the swan picture, however I've since found that this gives quite a bit of noise to the pictures.



#25
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City
Are you saying that VR actually adds it's own noise to a photo? I don't believe I've ever heard that before.

--Ron

#26
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

I've never heard that either, but the VR artifacts can be a bit "pepper- and salty"

 

/Peter



#27
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

I'm going to have to do some testing I guess. I pretty much keep VR turned on but I can't ever recall seeing that type of noise. 

 

--Ron



#28
iNYONi

iNYONi

    Rob

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationLivingston, Scotland

Site Supporter

Are you saying that VR actually adds it's own noise to a photo? I don't believe I've ever heard that before.

--Ron

Hi Ron , it's more that the pictures arent as sharp with the VR turned on than when taking pictures when it off. I see from the thread below that others have this same issue

VR on or off - Photographic Technique - NikonForums.com


  • Ron likes this

#29
dem

dem

    Active Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Country Flag

One thing to take into account if going for a prime lens, is that composing images is going to become more difficult. You will no longer be able to zoom out, find that bird in the tree, place it in the middle of the image and then zoom in on it.

Most "birders" (who are often after small and timid birds) seem to use bridge cameras with a tiny sensor and up to 1200 mm eq. zoom lens. But then you'll be losing some image quality and the camera shake will become a problem as you have to keep ISO low.

I'd try to get out as much as I could from the 50-200 mm lens. There will always be a "better" lens than the one you've got.



#30
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

Hi Ron , it's more that the pictures arent as sharp with the VR turned on than when taking pictures when it off. I see from the thread below that others have this same issue

VR on or off - Photographic Technique - NikonForums.com

 

Thanks for the pointer to that thread. Some very interesting reading there, especially the link to Thom Hogan's discussion of VR do's and don'ts! 

 

--Ron



#31
TBonz

TBonz

    Sportz Guy

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,652 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationOn A Field Somewhere...

Site Supporter

I have never done a real test with and without VR...but, I have shot with VR on and off on a monopod with my 70-200 and found no significant issues either way...maybe I'll get a chance to do a real test over the spring where I shoot something with and without VR back to back and try to do a serious comparison...



#32
whitelotus9

whitelotus9

    Junior Member

  • Forum Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationKissimmee, Florida USA

Site Supporter

You could always look into going with a 500mm f8 mirror lens though most of the ones available are strictly manual focus.  Putting a 2x behind the lens would give you 1000mm though you would definitely want to be tripod mounted to keep your breathing from shaking the camera.



#33
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

You could always look into going with a 500mm f8 mirror lens though most of the ones available are strictly manual focus.  Putting a 2x behind the lens would give you 1000mm though you would definitely want to be tripod mounted to keep your breathing from shaking the camera.

 

A number of years ago I used a Minolta 500mm f8 CAT lens and loved it. On a number of occasions I've seen mentions of the Nikkor version and wondered how it would do on a digital camera. At f8 it's already so slow as to render the range finder practically useless.... or at least it would seem so. Adding a teleconverter would only serve to exuberate that problem. 

 

--Ron



#34
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

The 500 cat works well on a D700 or a D300, on bodies with cheaper prisms, not so much. The resolution is not quite up to the D800 sensor, but as it works on the D300 it should be usable on a D600/D610 too. It has some CA, strangely enough, but it can be corrected in post. The Tamron Adaptall2 500 cat is as free from CA as you would expect from a catadioptric formula. I haven't used them myself, but a childhood friend likes his and uses both a lot. The Nikon resolves some more detail, but with CA...


  • Ron likes this

#35
Ron

Ron

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,255 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationMagic City

I wonder how it would work on my D7000. The CA you mention is surprising. My Minolta CAT had very little detectable chromatic aberration and was very very sharp.

 

--Ron  



#36
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,588 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

It is probably caused by the coating, I've never heard of any other CAT with CA either. The D300 often reveals CA that wasn't revealed with the same lens on film.


  • Ron likes this