Zoom Lens Advice Please

[AnnieP]

I have just upgraded to a D7000 with a 18mm to 105mm lens. I was going to keep my old 55mm - 200mm kit lens to use for now - but have had to sell it as a job lot with my old D40X.

My problem is that I really would like to have a larger zoom lens - it doesn't have to be fantastic - but something to get me a little closer to things when we go on holiday after Christmas.

The only other lens I have is the 90mm Tammy Macro which is fantastic - but obviously no good for any distance.

Any ideas please - I have $500 in the pot (which should really go towards the cost of the D7000) and could perhaps squeeze an extra few $100 - as long as hubbie doesn't go on this site!

Thanks

Annie

[kiwi]

70-300 VR ? only one I can think of

[N*A*M]

yep 70-300 VR is a winner and well within your budget if you go 2nd hand / grey import

[AnnieP]

thanks Guys - Are there any tamron or sigmna lenses that would compare or be better for the price?

[kiwi]

wash your mouth out

[fillum]

Nikon have a newish 55-300 (DX, AF-S, VR) but I don't know much about it. Looks to be around $380 - about $150 cheaper than the 70-300 VR. The 70-300 VR has a reputation as being a good performer for the money.

Sigma and Tamron both make a 70-300, but I have no experience with them so can't advise on performance. They are cheaper than the Nikkor version but have no VR (afaik).

If you can get your budget up past $800 you start to get into f/2.8 territory (eg Sigma 70-200).



Cheers.

[I @ M]

Phil ^ above has summed it up well I reckon.

The new ( and basically unreviewed as yet ) 55-300 is the replacement for your old 55-200 and I suspect will offer the same if not better image quality at a fairly modest price.
The 70-300 has been around for a while now and is a proven performer with very good to excellent reviews and image samples on the net which as a grey import comes in at just under your current " budget " and should give excellent results on your D7000.
The other thing in favour of the 70-300 is that it is an FX format lens and will work on any full frame Nikon body ( should you decide to buy one in the future ) whereas the 55-300 is really only suited to the DX series of bodies.

[geoffsta]

I'd go with the 70-300mm VR lens. It maybe a little dearer but you get what you pay for. I have a 70-300mm Sigma lens, and to be honest, it's crap. It takes a lot of getting use to, and if you don't have a decent tripod, forget about it.
And it also depends on what you want to use it for.

[arthurking83]

I think Tamron's new 70-300VC lens is supposedly as good as the Nikon 70-300VR(and yes I have washed my mouth out this morning! ).. but there really isn't much info on it from reliable sources.
According to photozone's forum site, the chief tester(Markus) there has one and is in the process of testing it (on the Nikon format). Hope he tests it on the D3x too tho.

There was one French website I found(via the Pz site) where they seem to think it's excellent even on a full frame body like a D700/D3, and many reports that it's sharper than the Nikon 70-300VR.

The price difference would have to be huge to make the Tammy a better option over the Nikon.

[OzzieTraveller]

G'day Annie

You ask ...

Are there any tamron or sigmna lenses that would compare or be better for the price?

You could look at the Siggy 70-300 APO - seems in your price range

Regards, Phil

[wolffman]

I've got the 70-300 nikon vr and it's great. I would get it again in an instant. Light, sharp and cheap as an import. The other makes would have to be a couple hundred cheaper to make me get one. I sold a sigma 70-210 f2.8 to finance it and don't regret it at all.

[AnnieP]

Ok so the Nikon 70mm to 300mm sounds like a really good buy for the money. However - hubbie has said that if I am likely to upgrade it in the next few years he would rather I got a 'better' lens now!!

What would be the next step up after this lens and is it worth it? I may look at photographing surfers and wildlife in the future?

Thanks for your input guys - it is really appreciated....

[geoffsta]

How much is he willing for you to spend?

[AnnieP]

How much is he willing for you to spend?

Well - I am the banker and I say ..... no more than $1000 maybe $1200 at a push!

[blissful]

I have the new Tamron SP 70-300, albeit on my Canon 7D, and I gotta say I am really impressed with it's sharpness, reasonably fast AF and great VC (VR, IS or whatever you want). It's also a good size as a travel lens.

I have read the reviews that said this was a sharper and "better" lens than the Nikon VR. I don't know that lens but I certainly vouch for this one. Here's a couple of pics I took with the Tamron at the zoo a couple of days ago.

[geoffsta]

You could have a look at the 150-500mm Sigma lens. For around $1000 it's a great lens for sporting and birding photography.
It seems to have very good reviews. Check here (one of our sponsers) http://www.digitalrev.com/en/sigma-a..._type=1&page=3
And ask around the forum for more advice.

[AnnieP]

Thanks Mike for taking the trouble to post your photos - it certainly seems a good lens.
I will also take a look at the sigma Geoff - I just have to make sure the lens is not too heavy.

[arthurking83]

Ok so the Nikon 70mm to 300mm sounds like a really good buy for the money. However - hubbie has said that if I am likely to upgrade it in the next few years he would rather I got a 'better' lens now!!

What would be the next step up after this lens and is it worth it? I may look at photographing surfers and wildlife in the future?

Thanks for your input guys - it is really appreciated....

bigger..... and heavier lenses.

From about this point and upwards you're starting to get into the realm of lenses that weight twice as much as your camera does.

if hubby is so accommodating then for sure(in Nikon terms) the Nikon 80-400VR is the way forward. That teeny 100mm at the long end can make a difference.
A few days back I found myself shooting wind and kite surfers from the very wind blown shore. The blustery conditions was primarily the reason for so much 'surfing activity' that day, but anyhow... I withstood the gale out and exposed for as long as I could(there's only so much sand blasting I care to put up with, so I eventually had to find some form of shelter in the shape of a high bush. This pushed me back slightly further again, and I only have access(easy access, that is) to a 70-200mm and then a manual focus 500mm. 200mm was about 100mm too short in many situations, and I think a nice sharp 300mm would have been nice(even if I had to shoot it at f/8 to get decent sharp pics. But i really wished I had a xx-400mm zoom for this occasion. I used the wider end of the 70-200 quite a lot in getting the kite surfer in the same frame as the kite he was surfing with, but then the limit at 200mm was simply not long enough for really good detail of the gymnastic wind surfers.

i'm about to post a few pics.... if you care to see the results from Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8.

When you're not used to them, these bigger and longer lenses can be a slight shock in usage terms for the first few times.

if you're willing to accept the size and weight of these sized lenses, I think ultimately the Nikon 80-400VR is the way to go.. Damned expensive tho at well over the $1500 price range.
The Sigma equivalents in this lens type (both 120-400mm and 150-500mm) are as equally as good(if not better) but there is always something about the images I see from this Nikon 80-400 that keeps me interested in getting that instead(despite the 2x price disadvantage.
I still kick myself for not getting the Nikon 80-400 a few years back tho.

[AnnieP]

Thanks Arthur.... I'm not sure I'm grown up enough or rich enough to go for the $1500+ Nikon 80-400 VR. So whilst it sounds a great lens I think I may stick with the Nikon 70-300 VR and in a few years when I know a bit more and have more experience under my belt I will up grade - dispite hubbies go ahead!