# $2000 lens budget.. most/sharpest zoom???



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

I've got a $2000 (roughly) budget and I'm looking for the best zoom/sharness quality that I can get.
Hoping for 300 or 400mm, as I'm mostly shooting wildlife.

I'm shooting with a D200, so obviously I need a Nion setup.

Any one have any suggestions?


----------



## Overread (Feb 23, 2009)

Best quality would be a prime lens at either 300mm or 400mm focal length. I know nikon make a very good 200-400mm zoom and for your focal range ideas that is what I choose if you want a quality zoom - however I think it is outside of your price range.
Look up the nikon lenses in the 300mm and 400mm focal lengths and have a look at what is on offer in that price range.


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

Thanks for the response. I think my biggest concern would be the speed.
I've owned a sigma 70-200 2.8 (which I'm selling) and I've used a Sigma 300mm 2.8 prime (which I'd love, but its still out of my range).

I think that anything decent in the $2000 range is going to be a 4.0.. 
Does anyone use a 4.0 (300 or 400 mm) for wildlife/ birds?


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

These are a few that I'm considering.. does anyone have any experience with these? Or something else in the same range?

NIKON VR 80-400F4.5-5.6 D ED AF

NIKON 300MM F4 IF-ED AF-S

SIGMA 100-300MM F4.0 APO EX DG NIKON


----------



## Overread (Feb 23, 2009)

The sigma 120-300mm (I think its that one) actually gets better reviews than the sigma 300mm! (one of the few cases where zoom beats a prime in similar qualty areas)

Wildlife is certainly possible with an f4 lens - the only downside I would see is that its going to be less good (than an f2.8) in dimmer weather and it won't take a 2*teleconverter for added use - though a 1.4teleconverter would be a good way to get a 400mm+ lens (not as good as a 400mm prime lens, but with a good enough quality to be worth doing)


----------



## Reel1 (Feb 23, 2009)

I am not sure about the 100-300 Sigma that you indicate but I have this one.

Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM, 

Here is t a link to it.  

Sigma APO 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM: Digital Photography Review

I am happy with the lens.


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

The Sigma 120-300 is a 2.8 (so $3500+ range).. It would be nice, but not this year.

I would consider a 1.4 TC, but I would never again use a 2x TC. I just sold mine yesterday after 6 months of use, I never earned a single worthy shot with it (2.0 TC with the 70-200 2.8 sigma).


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

Reel1 said:


> I am not sure about the 100-300 Sigma that you indicate but I have this one.
> 
> Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM,
> 
> ...




Do you happen to have any examples of shots in the 300 to 400mm range that you could share?


----------



## Overread (Feb 23, 2009)

Digi - even on a canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens the 2* is a tricky beast to use. They generally work best on the topend prime lenses only (the f2.8 sort) and do take getting used to. I found that stopping down can help a lot!


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 23, 2009)

Being CDN with a $2000 budget and looking to buy new the Nikkor 300mm F4 with a 1.4 tele seems most logical...


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 23, 2009)

I would look into a Nikon 80-200 AF-S 2.8 and a teleconverter. This lens has prime quality, and is effectively 120-300 on a D200. It also works nicely with teleconverters, and costs less than half of what you are willing to spend.


----------



## Overread (Feb 23, 2009)

I use a 70-200mm and it is too short for normal wildlife work (I find).
Its great in zoos and such- but even with a 1.4TC its just a bit too short. A 300mm prime would be a better investment for a wildlife lens (f4 or f2.8 variety).
I consider my 70-200mm part of a set - which includes a 300mm --- I just have to get a 300mm


----------



## sabbath999 (Feb 23, 2009)

For that money I would buy a Nikon 70-200 VR and a TC-17 Teleconverter.

That combo would give you a 70-340 range at either f/2.8 or f/4.8 (depending if the TC was on it). The TC-17 does NOT degrade image quality, and it is the only one of the TC series that lets the VR continue to work (unless Nikon has updated that within the last 6 months) with the TC on.

I use this combo, you can get it new for about $2K and it not only would give you long/fast but also VR and an excellent shorter range option as well when you are not using the TC.


----------



## Overread (Feb 23, 2009)

huh?
first I am a bit dubius as to the claim that the TC has no effect on image quality - I would expect there to be some degradation (all be it very minor).
But VR does not work with TCs? odd since the canon IS still works with teleconverters (though granted it might have less of an effect since the focal range is increased)


----------



## tsaraleksi (Feb 23, 2009)

All TCs will degrade image quality. That is just the way it is. A good TC on a good lens like a 70-200 VR will leave you with quality images, but that's not because the image wasn't degraded, it's because it started with high enough quality that you don't readily notice it.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 23, 2009)

Another vote for the 70-200.  That by itself is already awesome on a D200 (have that combination myself), and if you are using the Nikon 1.7X TC, I cannot tell you whether it degrades image quality or not... becuase I sure had a VERY hard time seeing that degradation even when pixel peeping.    Tripods do become almost mandatory when using it, but if it is bright enough and shutter speeds are quick, it can be hand-held easily enough.

The VR does work, that I can vouch for.  I tested this Nikon TC but ended up not buying it... rather I decided on keeping the Nikkor 14-24mm F/2.8 fund going.


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

I"m really not convinced on the 70-200 nikkor... I know its far superior to the sigma version, but it can't be THAT much better can it?
Would a 1 piece 300mm f4  not be better that a 2-piece (70-200 + 1.7TC)

I think I like the idea of the 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC the best, but I'm aiming for quality.. so that's my goal, is to figure out which is going to produce the best image at the end of the day.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Feb 23, 2009)

DigiJay said:


> I"m really not convinced on the 70-200 nikkor... I know its far superior to the sigma version, but it can't be THAT much better can it?
> Would a 1 piece 300mm f4  not be better that a 2-piece (70-200 + 1.7TC)
> 
> I think I like the idea of the 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC the best, but I'm aiming for quality.. so that's my goal, is to figure out which is going to produce the best image at the end of the day.




I didn't even see you already had a 2.8 70-200 with 2xtele ... in this case definitely 300 f4 with 1.4 or 1.7 tele

Sabbath must have a great 1.7 copy because the detail loss for my 70-200 1.7 is quite noticable.... but i'm a pixelpeeper....

all reviews of the 300 f4 that I've read proclaim it to be very sharp.... f4 being it's biggest weakness because after you add a tele and stop it down a couple of stops for sharpness you are into slow territory...


----------



## kundalini (Feb 23, 2009)

*These examples* aren't songbirds fifty feet away, but it might help (or not).

I like the 300mm f/4.  My 1.7 TC isn't that bad for degradation IMO.

*Moonshot* taken while drinking moonshine.  300mm + 1.7 TC (cropped)


----------



## kundalini (Feb 23, 2009)

Oh yeah...... and if the rumor mills are true about another price increase, I'd make a decision by the end of the month.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 23, 2009)

You can buy a mf 300mm f2.8 lightly used for about $1500... that would be my choice.

You can also find af versions for that price on the used market as long as you're willing to live with some cosmetic blemishes.


----------



## anubis404 (Feb 23, 2009)

When I recommended the 80-200, I assumed that you either would be shooting in zoos or that you were good with animals. If you're thinking about running off to some obscure African country to shoot some giraffe, then I wouldn't settle for anything less than 400mm (which is out of your budget).


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> When I recommended the 80-200, I assumed that you either would be shooting in zoos or that you were good with animals. If you're thinking about running off to some obscure African country to shoot some giraffe, then I wouldn't settle for anything less than 400mm (which is out of your budget).



Funny you say that.. I haven't been to a zoo in over 15 years... and I first got into photography after a trip to Madagascar, South Africa and Uganda where I was lucky enough to play with a Nikon dlsr setup (I didn't even know what I was using at the time).

Anyway, to me, wildlife is just that WILD. Zoos don't count for me, and even sanctuaries are border line. I love to shoot raptors, and large mammals. Of course, during the slow times, I'll shoot anything that moves.

I actually want to build a website, and eventually (long term) put together a book on urban wildlife in my city. My job keeps me driving around the city at all hours of the night so I see so many different types of wildlife that most people would never imagine walk through their back yards.


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

djacobox372 said:


> You can buy a mf 300mm f2.8 lightly used for about $1500... that would be my choice.
> 
> You can also find af versions for that price on the used market as long as you're willing to live with some cosmetic blemishes.



Please tell me where the heck would you find a 2.8 in good condition for $1500?? I've been looking! There certainly isn't much in my area, and I don't want to spend that kind of coin unless I can personally inspect the glass myself (so e-bay is pretty much out of the question). As for cosmetic blemishes, they just add character


----------



## dhilberg (Feb 23, 2009)

For another $650 you could have the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 from B&H. It's $3000 at most other places.


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 23, 2009)

dhilberg said:


> For another $650 you could have the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 from B&H. It's $3000 at most other places.



Unfortunately, I deal with Canadian currency.. that puts me at about $3300 cdn, plus duty and taxes assuming that they are added on.. so BH isn't an option.. 
If I could afford the extra $1000, then I can get it for $3000 here anyway.. but it's just not going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## Kinz (Feb 24, 2009)

I would think with a $2000. budget you should be able to get a nice lens.  I'm in the US though.  And like Reel1, I'm saving now for the Sigma 120-400 with O.S.  It looks like a really nice lens from all I've seen as I've checked the many reviews.


----------



## dhilberg (Feb 24, 2009)

DigiJay said:


> Unfortunately, I deal with Canadian currency.. that puts me at about $3300 cdn, plus duty and taxes assuming that they are added on.. so BH isn't an option..
> If I could afford the extra $1000, then I can get it for $3000 here anyway.. but it's just not going to happen anytime soon.



Oops, sorry I didn't realize you were in Canada.


----------



## Joves (Feb 24, 2009)

Well I have the 80-400VR myself and lover it. Granted it is a bit slow due to not having its own AF motor. But I have learned to work around it too. I am fairly quick at going from manual focus and getting close then throwing it to AF. It is also soft wide open but gets good at f/8 and up. But it is a long range budget lens after all. It does the job though and isnt that what counts.
Here is a sample shot at ISO800 f/9 handheld. I could have esily shot at ISO400 and got the same results but, I was stalking something in the shadows, that got away and this was a target of opportuntiy.


----------



## djacobox372 (Feb 25, 2009)

DigiJay said:


> Please tell me where the heck would you find a 2.8 in good condition for $1500?? I've been looking! There certainly isn't much in my area, and I don't want to spend that kind of coin unless I can personally inspect the glass myself (so e-bay is pretty much out of the question). As for cosmetic blemishes, they just add character



Well I guess you're out of luck since you fear ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-300mm-f2-8-ED-LENS-nikkor300mmLENS-Film-Digital_W0QQitemZ190289457356QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item190289457356&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72%3A1234|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50

Nikon MF 300mm f2.8 AIS lens w/Case 60 DAY WARRANTY - eBay (item 330300317458 end time Mar-13-09 09:52:24 PDT)


----------



## DigiJay (Feb 26, 2009)

Joves said:


> Well I have the 80-400VR myself and lover it. Granted it is a bit slow due to not having its own AF motor. But I have learned to work around it too. I am fairly quick at going from manual focus and getting close then throwing it to AF. It is also soft wide open but gets good at f/8 and up. But it is a long range budget lens after all. It does the job though and isnt that what counts.
> Here is a sample shot at ISO800 f/9 handheld. I could have esily shot at ISO400 and got the same results but, I was stalking something in the shadows, that got away and this was a target of opportuntiy.


 
Nice shot, and I checked out your smugmug.. you've got a lot of sweet shots with that lens..
I didn't even realize that it doesn't have it's own AF motor..
I'm still all over the board... I'm thinking I might get the 80-400 for now and then save for a sigma 300 2.8.. I keep my lenses in perfect condition so I shouldn't have a problem re-selling it down the road..


----------



## Joves (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks! I got this till I could afford something better or actually with more reach. Like the Sigma 300-800 which is one of the things Im saving for. Also Garbz made a point that the Kenko TCs work on the Nikons so I may try one of the Pro series and, see how well they work.


----------



## AlexColeman (Feb 26, 2009)

I love my 70-200! Something like a 1.4, might be best.


----------

