Looking for a cheap Nikon telephoto lens

[maniac5999]

So, I've been shooting digital for almost a year now, and have been doing mostly the same things that I did with film--generally art shots that I end up printing in the 11x14" range. Back in my film days in college, I used an old FM and a 50mm f1.4 almost exclusively. (and man, let me tell you, you haven't experienced fast until you've shot a superfast prime with something like T-max 3200--I've got a couple nice night landscapes from doing that) Anyway, in addition to the 50mm, I currently have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and use a D200. I'm thinking that although I don't see myself using it much, it would be nice to get a telephoto lens to round out my collection. I don't see myself shooting sports, and I've got a nice collapsible aluminum tripod that I'm willing to carry around with the camera, so something relatively slow probably wouldn't be a big deal for me.

Now, I've found a really cheap Tamron 100-300mm for sale at Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20486238.html but I'm having trouble finding reviews. Is it a decent lens? Is there a better option?

 

[radhak]

I would not get that lens. The max aperture range of 5-6.3 is way too small to be practical in anything but the brightest of daylight.

I have a cheap Quantaray 70-300mm that works for me, partly because it is 4-5.6. But it's out of market now.

Your (better) choices are the Nikon 70-300mm, or the similar Tamron or Sigma Note that I'm not listing any VR/VC options - they add a lot of cost.

I realize that compared the $45 you saw, these are a C-note more, but trust me, you will thank me later. I commend ramen noodles for a week and you'd have made up the difference.

I'd suggest you also check out your local craigslist for cheap lenses. Sometimes you hit pay-dirt.

 

[blastingcap]

Image stabilization, such as from a tripod, only helps with hand-shake. It will not help much if the subject of the photo is moving. Generally speaking you will need at least 1/500th second exposures to get sharp photos of subjects in motion at telephoto distances, more or less depending on the focal length equivalent that you are using.

Also, if you have excess megapixels, you can crop down to give the appearance of extra zoom.

 

[maniac5999]

Image stabilization, such as from a tripod, only helps with hand-shake. It will not help much if the subject of the photo is moving. Generally speaking you will need at least 1/500th second exposures to get sharp photos of subjects in motion at telephoto distances, more or less depending on the focal length equivalent that you are using.

Also, if you have excess megapixels, you can crop down to give the appearance of extra zoom.

I'm not sure if I understand your statement, blastingcap. If I frame a shot so that someone takes up the full sensor, I should get the same amount of blur for a 1/100th exposure, regardless of if I have a focal length of 17mm or 300mm. The big difference is that with a 300mm length I can be much further away to take that same shot. Of course, given the longer focal length, and the much slower glass, the 2nd shot would likely be dramatically underexposed, which would force the photographer to compensate with a higher ISO (more sensor noise) or a longer exposure (more blur) or possibly even both. The only reason that people argue for needing faster exposures at longer zooms is that any camera shake is greatly exaggerated in the final picture. when using a tripod, the issue is more that lighting conditions, combined with slow glass force you to use a longer exposure.

Re: cropping, with only 10MP the D200 doesn't have any resolution to spare, but this was one of my favorite techniques back in my 35mm days.

radhak, is this the lens that you use? http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20484732.html
Would you reccomend going for that, or would spending an extra $20 for the nikon version in better condition be a wise choice? http://www.adorama.com/US 484732.html
http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url....com/US%20%20%20%20484732.html&user=u00000687

 

[CptObvious]

I'd go with a refurbished 55-200 VR ($134 at B&H Photo). The VR helps if you don't want to carry your tripod everywhere.

 

[blastingcap]

I'm not sure if I understand your statement, blastingcap. If I frame a shot so that someone takes up the full sensor, I should get the same amount of blur for a 1/100th exposure, regardless of if I have a focal length of 17mm or 300mm. The big difference is that with a 300mm length I can be much further away to take that same shot. Of course, given the longer focal length, and the much slower glass, the 2nd shot would likely be dramatically underexposed, which would force the photographer to compensate with a higher ISO (more sensor noise) or a longer exposure (more blur) or possibly even both. The only reason that people argue for needing faster exposures at longer zooms is that any camera shake is greatly exaggerated in the final picture. when using a tripod, the issue is more that lighting conditions, combined with slow glass force you to use a longer exposure.

Re: cropping, with only 10MP the D200 doesn't have any resolution to spare, but this was one of my favorite techniques back in my 35mm days.

radhak, is this the lens that you use? http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20484732.html
Would you reccomend going for that, or would spending an extra $20 for the nikon version in better condition be a wise choice? http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20484732.html
http://redirect.anandtech.com/r?url....com/US%20%20%20%20484732.html&user=u00000687

If you are looking at $45 lenses I am assuming that something like the 70-200 f/2.8 is out of your price range, which leaves the consumer-grade zooms at f/4-5.6 or worse... It's true that I should have made that clear (as you said, you need longer exposures to compensate), but more importantly, I left out a key variable which is how fast the subject is moving. I do think you want a brief exposure when possible, due to shutter lag and human lag times, and my frustrations with shooting birds in flight when they are at semi-close range and moving fast. But you are right that it doesn't necessarily need to be at 1/500th sec. if the target's angle relative to you isn't changing that fast.

I have owned the 55-200VR, 70-300VR, and Tamron 70-300VC and can recommend the latter two if you will be shooting mostly in bright light, like outdoors. The Tamron is almost a sharp and has a stronger-locking image stabilization, though that's not necessarily what you want all the time. The 55-200VR does ok but is slower to AF.

 

[fralexandr]

the Tamron 70-300 VC USD XLD > Tamron 70-300 DI LD Macro
at the price of a 70-300VC i'd also recommend looking at the tokina 80-400 which can be found on ebay for ~$300

the quantaray 70-300 LD is a rebadged Tamron 70-300 LD

the quantaray 70-300 LDO
gold trim is a just a bit better than the 70-300 LD (significantly less PF*, negligibly less sharp); sigma APO rebadge
green trim is just a bit worse than the LD (slightly less sharp, ~= PF); sigma 70-300 non APO rebadge (likely the macro super rebadge, although it might also be the APO macro super i've never fully worked this part out)

quantaray 70-300s can often be found on ebay for ~$80

just be aware that with some telephoto zooms (i.e. tokina 80-400 sharpness) you might have to shoot at f/8 - f/11 at the extremes to obtain better pictures
the tamron LD/sigma non APO have significant *purple fringing in many cases, which can be reduced by shooting f/8-f/11 or photoshop

pictures taken with a green quantaray (got it for $50 as the 2nd highest bidder from ebay, YMMV) mostly at the LA ZOO
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fralexandr/sets/72157627952335567/
note: these pictures are taken hand-held with a pentax k100d using in body Shake Reduction, none of them are cropped, none of them have post-processing

 

[maniac5999]

To be honest. I've never even shot a telephoto before, I did 90% of my work on film with the 50mm prime, and the other 10% with a 28-85mm zoom that I borrowed from my college's photo dept. How important would that last 100mm be compared to the first 130mm? should I just get the 55-200mm? I've also never used VR, always just opting for faster glass instead. Coming from a film background, I've always taken time to compose my shots, because at 36 shots for $4, you didn't want to waste them (developing the film was also the most miserable time in the darkroom, and you could only develop 2 rolls at a time) so I've used a tripod a lot, and imagine that I'd use it for most of my shots with whatever lens I get. With that in mind is VR/VC still worthwhile? Also, fralexander, how do those Quantarays compare with the Nikon 70-300 non VC? I'd put my maximum price around $150, but the less I spend, the happier I'm going to be, because this lens is basically just going to round out my camera bag, and only be used when I say "gee, I really need a tighter shot than 50mm can provide, and I'd have to crop like crazy to make this shot work at 50mm" It's not going to be anywhere near my "go-to" lens.

 

[fralexandr]

i have no experience with the nikon 70-300 non VC, but i'd expect it to be about the same as the quantarays optically, probably better build quality though.

the quantarays all have 1:2 macro (the nikon is ~1:4) (using a macro switch) if you want to try that

edit: couldn't find anything conclusive, though...
from what i could find, that version of the nikon 70-300 is probably worse than the quantarays optically, and maybe about the same build quality wise.

 

[maniac5999]

I'm probably not looking for any macro from this lens. the Tamron can focus about 10" away, and the Nikkor 50mm can focus about 18" away. When I go Macro, playing with DOF is one of my favorite games, and I doubt that any of these lenses will allow that. One of my all time favorite shots is a 7/8ths top down view of a Pineapple on a white background (In B&W) the top leaves are in perfect focus, and it just blurs out on the way down. Nobody's ever even been able to tell me what it is until I tell them, although everybody likes it.

 

[Syborg1211]

To be honest. I've never even shot a telephoto before, I did 90% of my work on film with the 50mm prime, and the other 10% with a 28-85mm zoom that I borrowed from my college's photo dept. How important would that last 100mm be compared to the first 130mm? should I just get the 55-200mm? I've also never used VR, always just opting for faster glass instead. Coming from a film background, I've always taken time to compose my shots, because at 36 shots for $4, you didn't want to waste them (developing the film was also the most miserable time in the darkroom, and you could only develop 2 rolls at a time) so I've used a tripod a lot, and imagine that I'd use it for most of my shots with whatever lens I get. With that in mind is VR/VC still worthwhile? Also, fralexander, how do those Quantarays compare with the Nikon 70-300 non VC? I'd put my maximum price around $150, but the less I spend, the happier I'm going to be, because this lens is basically just going to round out my camera bag, and only be used when I say "gee, I really need a tighter shot than 50mm can provide, and I'd have to crop like crazy to make this shot work at 50mm" It's not going to be anywhere near my "go-to" lens.

Just curious - what are you looking to shoot with your telephoto? What situations have you run into that 50mm is not enough for you?

 

[CptObvious]

VR makes a big difference, especially with slower glass. At 200mm on a crop sensor body like yours, a minimum handholdable shutter speed would be around 1/300s to eliminate camera shake. The VR on the 55-200 is good for about 2 stops (more expensive lenses have 3 or more stops), which means you can handhold at 200mm at about 1/80 or 1/100. On slower glass with a max aperture of f/5.6 on the long end, VR is a must if you don't have a tripod or aren't in broad daylight.

 

[radhak]

radhak, is this the lens that you use? http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20484732.html
Would you reccomend going for that, or would spending an extra $20 for the nikon version in better condition be a wise choice? http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20484732.html

Weird - that first link fails for me, but I'm able to find it here : http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20474218.html

And yes, that is my Quantaray.

Personally, for just a $20 difference, I'd go for the Nikon, unless there's definitive proof that it's inferior.

As for the VR/non-VR discussion, depends on what you are shooting. My primary subject for my 70-300 is the kids' soccer pictures, and the VR would be useless for those. If you are into shooting birds or scenery, particularly in the late evening, then the VR would be useful.

 

[fralexandr]

if buying from adorama of those 2 i'd go with the nikon, since the quantaray is in worse condition, i dunno if 'd want to risk it having hazy/scratched glass (you could probably play the return game if it does, though that's probably not worth the hassle)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/915599
adorama lens ratings with a bit on KEH and bhphoto

keh does have a few nicely priced ones
http://www.keh.com/search?store=cam...=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=150&r=SE&e
there are several sigma apo macros for cheap there (if only they had a sort by price; edit: changed the url to filter for <$150), and lots of prime telephotos, like the nikon 300mm f/4.5 non AI (as per kenrockwell non AI will work on the D200, but not some of the newer bodies) for $76 or the AI ones (if you feel like upgrading bodies later) for more

as you're probably aware, going prime will give you a wider aperature/faster lens and usually better glass at the cost of fewer focal length options given a specific price range

oh wow, they have some mirror lenses too hah (they have donut bokeh which is distracting, generally not considered good optical quality, there are some exceptions i.e. canon mirror lenses, tamron 500 sp; the tokina 500mm is ok $120)
i kind of want a mirror lens for the donut bokeh and because my longest telephoto is the 70-300 >.<

and as for what focal length you need, it would depend on what subjects you're shooting and how much of a crop is acceptable
in general based on your 50mm prime at any given distance:
200/50 = 4x, the subject will appear 4x closer, and will take up 16x the area of the photo (4*4)
it's easy to apply this for any other focal length, given a static distance (note: some lenses don't actually achieve the max focal length stated, they might be short by 10% i've only seen this in zooms though, it'd be weird for primes to do that)

 

[maniac5999]

if buying from adorama of those 2 i'd go with the nikon, since the quantaray is in worse condition, i dunno if 'd want to risk it having hazy/scratched glass (you could probably play the return game if it does, though that's probably not worth the hassle)

keh does have a few nicely priced ones
http://www.keh.com/search?store=cam...=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=150&r=SE&e
there are several sigma apo macros for cheap there (if only they had a sort by price; edit: changed the url to filter for <$150),

FWIW, if I do B&H or Adorama, I'd physically go to the store and try it out before I bought, and for that reason I've normally avoided KEH. (KEH's website is also miserable) I was never able to find those lenses on the KEH site, but for about $50, I'm definitely going to get the Tamron or Sigma 70-300 from them. Quick question, which one would you recommend? I like being able to take manual control of focusing, and the fact that I need to flip a switch before focusing on the Tamron 17-50 annoys me. I also wonder if one of those bunch has noticably better IQ than the others.

 

[fralexandr]

the $50 lenses are the older versions, especially the 75-300 ones
of the $50 lenses i'd recommend the tamron 70-300 172d

otherwise i'd recommend any of the sigma 70-300 APO macro
probably the APO macro super for $70

or one of the primes

i think the biggest (or maybe only) difference between the DG/DI (digitally integrated) versions and the previous non DG/DI is the presence or lack of a flare reducing coat

the biggest difference between the tamron and the sigma 70-300 apo macro versions will be the amount of purple fringing

a lot of the lenses are going to have the mf/af switch though , i think it costs money in the form of electrical contacts and maybe paying nikon? to allow for quickshift features

heck, for some reason the older sigma bigma for pentax still has an af/mf switch (WHY?!?) even though it uses pentax's in body AF screw-drive. thus to switch between mf and af, you have to flick 2 different af/mf switches

 

[Throckmorton]

I would not get that lens. The max aperture range of 5-6.3 is way too small to be practical in anything but the brightest of daylight.

I have a cheap Quantaray 70-300mm that works for me, partly because it is 4-5.6. But it's out of market now.

Your (better) choices are the Nikon 70-300mm, or the similar Tamron or Sigma Note that I'm not listing any VR/VC options - they add a lot of cost.

I realize that compared the $45 you saw, these are a C-note more, but trust me, you will thank me later. I commend ramen noodles for a week and you'd have made up the difference.

I'd suggest you also check out your local craigslist for cheap lenses. Sometimes you hit pay-dirt.

Is this the Minolta equivalent of your Quantaray? I'm thinking about buying it for the A35 I'm getting next week. Better or worse than Tamron's 70-300mm? http://honolulu.craigslist.org/mau/pho/2894754407.html

 

[fralexandr]

Is this the Minolta equivalent of your Quantaray? I'm thinking about buying it for the A35 I'm getting next week. Better or worse than Tamron's 70-300mm? http://honolulu.craigslist.org/mau/pho/2894754407.html

that lens is a rebranded SIGMA APO (most likely the DG, though maybe the APO macro super "II") (see the gold trim), which is almost exclusively better than the tamron 70-300 DI LD

 

[Throckmorton]

that lens is a rebranded SIGMA APO (most likely the DG) (see the gold trim), which is almost exclusively better than the tamron 70-300 DI LD

Looks like a good deal then, thanks

 

[radhak]

Is this the Minolta equivalent of your Quantaray? I'm thinking about buying it for the A35 I'm getting next week. Better or worse than Tamron's 70-300mm? http://honolulu.craigslist.org/mau/pho/2894754407.html

Yes, that's exactly like mine! I'd say he's very hopeful to quote $110; try to bring him down.

note : I see he says 'made for film SLR'. So not sure how it'll work for you; please check it out with your camera first.

If the Tamron is at a similar price, you might want to get that, because the Quantaray may not have any tech support to back it now.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yes, that's exactly like mine! I'd say he's very hopeful to quote $110; try to bring him down.

note : I see he says 'made for film SLR'. So not sure how it'll work for you; please check it out with your camera first.

If the Tamron is at a similar price, you might want to get that, because the Quantaray may not have any tech support to back it now.

Thanks, maybe I'll offer $80. All the Minolta A mount lenses are supposed to work with the Sony Alpha cameras, plus you get image stabilization because it's sensor shift

 

[fralexandr]

that 70-300 supports full frame cameras (usually film, though there are expensive digital full frames, most digitals are APS-C), which is likely what the craigslister meant when saying "made for film"
that means it doesn't cause vignetting on them (many digital lenses cause vignetting on full frame sensors) (also some people like to introduce the vignetting effect artistically sometimes for some reason)

i'm pretty sure that it will work on digital bodies, though i'm not 100% sure about sony

also, yeah $110 is often the buyitnow price on ebay (esp. for mint/like new) :|, less (for the buyer) is always better
man based on that lens sony/minolta is more popular than pentax D: T.T

 

[JohnnyRebel]

So, I've been shooting digital for almost a year now, and have been doing mostly the same things that I did with film--generally art shots that I end up printing in the 11x14" range. Back in my film days in college, I used an old FM and a 50mm f1.4 almost exclusively. (and man, let me tell you, you haven't experienced fast until you've shot a superfast prime with something like T-max 3200--I've got a couple nice night landscapes from doing that) Anyway, in addition to the 50mm, I currently have a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and use a D200. I'm thinking that although I don't see myself using it much, it would be nice to get a telephoto lens to round out my collection. I don't see myself shooting sports, and I've got a nice collapsible aluminum tripod that I'm willing to carry around with the camera, so something relatively slow probably wouldn't be a big deal for me.

Now, I've found a really cheap Tamron 100-300mm for sale at Adorama: http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20486238.html but I'm having trouble finding reviews. Is it a decent lens? Is there a better option?

The Nikon 70-210 AF (not AF-D) is a really sharp lens. Ken Rockwell ran up the price of the AF-D version with his positive review, but the non "D" version sells used for under $100. Push/pull zoom, good AF speed on the D200. You won't find this sharpness in other lenses in this price range.

The 28-85 AF is also really sharp (sharper than my Tamron 17-50) and works great on the D200. I used these two zooms a lot on my D200 and had about $150 in the pair.

JR

 

[Throckmorton]

that 70-300 supports full frame cameras (usually film, though there are expensive digital full frames, most digitals are APS-C), which is likely what the craigslister meant when saying "made for film"
that means it doesn't cause vignetting on them (many digital lenses cause vignetting on full frame sensors) (also some people like to introduce the vignetting effect artistically sometimes for some reason)

i'm pretty sure that it will work on digital bodies, though i'm not 100% sure about sony

also, yeah $110 is often the buyitnow price on ebay (esp. for mint/like new) :|, less (for the buyer) is always better
man based on that lens sony/minolta is more popular than pentax D: T.T

Yeah, all A-mount lenses except a few work. Not sure why those few have problems.

Is the same lens usually the same despite different mounts? If a review says X lens is good, does that mean all versions of it are good?

 

[fralexandr]

lenses are optically pretty much consistent across different mounts for a given release.
it'd seem silly to redesign the lens optics for each different mount.

that said, lenses will vary depending on time.
sometimes there are minor changes like lens coatings and such
a lot of the time there are optics and other changes though.

my brain feels sluggish atm, can't seem to smoothly make myself coherent