PDA

View Full Version : Zoom lens - Which BUDGET one?



herc182
07-10-2007, 02:43 AM
Thinking of getting a zoom lens in the range from 50 or 70mm to say 200 (or better 300mm).

How much am i looking to pay?

Which do you recommend?

Looking to cap it at 200.

Would like a 70-300 VR but that is a tad too expensive :(

Any comments (or links to other posts) welcome. WIll have a trawl through the forum (but at work hence the lazy post!).

Thanks in advance...

K1W1
07-10-2007, 03:05 AM
I have been very happy so far with my Nikon 55-200VR at around 150 pounds in Australian dollars.
Another common lens in that range is the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro which is about the same price here. I also have that and was content with it until I purchased the Nikon lens. The Sigma does have a bit more reach plus the pseudo macro function but it is noticeably slower to focus which is not a problem if your subjects are not moving quickly.

Rooz
07-10-2007, 03:18 AM
I have been very happy so far with my Nikon 55-200VR at around 150 pounds in Australian dollars.
Another common lens in that range is the Sigma 70-300 DG APO Macro which is about the same price here. I also have that and was content with it until I purchased the Nikon lens. The Sigma does have a bit more reach plus the pseudo macro function but it is noticeably slower to focus which is not a problem if your subjects are not moving quickly.

i would have thought at 200mm the sigma was sharper ?? would be interested to hear your opinion on the significant differences in lens' cos it is quite a common question people have around here when they cant afford the 70-300mmVR.

herc182
07-10-2007, 03:33 AM
Rooz....just noticed you have the 70-200 f2.8!!! thats a serious bit of kit....I can take it off your hands for 200. Deal?

Rooz
07-10-2007, 03:43 AM
Rooz....just noticed you have the 70-200 f2.8!!! thats a serious bit of kit....I can take it off your hands for 200. Deal?

lol thats the deal of the century ! lol
btw: i bought it from here and they are fantastic, not sure if the pricing is good for you.

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-70-300mm-AF-S-70-300-VR-f3-5-4-6-Lens-NO-UK-Duty_W0QQitemZ200124879699QQihZ010QQcategoryZ30035 QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Nikon-55-200mm-55-200-AF-S-ED-VR-Lens-Free-UV-Filter_W0QQitemZ200126871872QQihZ010QQcategoryZ300 35QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItem

herc182
07-10-2007, 03:54 AM
ok ok. that was cheeky. I will cap it at 250 including delivery and a polarisor.

Thanks.

Those links are good but will have a look around on ebay to see what is out there....would like the VR but not essential. Willing to boost the iso.

Alternatively i could go down the finance option :D

longroad
07-10-2007, 06:25 AM
You could always get the cheap non-VR non-ED version of the 70-300mm.. keeping in mind you get what you pay for. Im sure it cant be THAT bad though :confused:

achuang
07-10-2007, 06:25 AM
I just attended a friend's wedding this past friday and it was a dark church with a high black ceiling so i couldn't use bounce flash. Since I was just a guest, not an "official" photographer of any sort i didn't want to walk around or disturb the ceremony too much so i pretty much stayed in my seat and took photos. My 85mm f1.8 which i used previously for a wedding was just not long enough from where i was sitting. I thought it was the perfect opportunity to push the 55-200VR. At ISO 1600 and 200mm, I was shooting at shutter speeds from 1/15-1/60 with no flash. At 200mm! and all turned out sharp, obviously the grain at ISO 1600 reduced the sharpness but I found it very acceptable given the conditions. VR worked a miracle shooting at such slow shutter speeds. With my tamron 70-300 i never used it indoors just because of the shutter speeds it needed. With the VR on the 55-200 it's opened a whole new door.

herc182
07-10-2007, 07:21 AM
Any chance we can see any of those photos?

Understand if you dont want to!!

thanks

tcadwall
07-10-2007, 08:13 AM
Yeah, VR certainly is NO gimmick. In situations like this where the subject isn't moving, it is amazing what it can accomplish.

Shiney_McShine
07-10-2007, 08:20 AM
You could always get the cheap non-VR non-ED version of the 70-300mm.. keeping in mind you get what you pay for. Im sure it cant be THAT bad though :confused:

I just got one of those and for the price, I am impressed.

XaiLo
07-10-2007, 08:47 AM
VR makes for an excellent assistant when you need one. :)

herc182
07-10-2007, 08:52 AM
there is a 70-300 going for about 70 new on ebay at the mo. 10mins left.

a 55-200 VR new is about 117 (50mins left!).

cue auction sniper....

herc182
07-10-2007, 09:27 AM
anyone ever considered the tamron 55-200?

herc182
07-10-2007, 09:43 AM
there is also a sigma 28-300 lens on sale.....cant find a review on it!

tell a lie:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Sigma-28-300mm-f35-63-DG-Macro

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0103sb_sigma/

K1W1
07-10-2007, 04:38 PM
i would have thought at 200mm the sigma was sharper ?? would be interested to hear your opinion on the significant differences in lens' cos it is quite a common question people have around here when they cant afford the 70-300mmVR.

Haven't done anything like a scientific test but my feeling is that at 200 they are very similar. Most of the shots I take for the kids sports (where I use the lens) are in the 70-150 range anyway so my aim in buying the lens was to see if I would miss the 200-300 range and the answer at this stage is no. If I get a chance at the weekend I may break the tripod out and try some set shots.

K1W1
07-10-2007, 04:40 PM
there is a 70-300 going for about 70 new on ebay at the mo. 10mins left.

If it's the "G" lens I hope you didn't buy it because they are not even worth that much IMO.

achuang
07-10-2007, 06:14 PM
Ok here are 2 photos with the 55-200VR lens.

1. 1/20, f5.6, ISO 1600, 200mm

achuang
07-10-2007, 06:17 PM
2. 1/50, f4.5, ISO 800, 90mm

r3g
07-10-2007, 07:03 PM
Yo... AWESOME shots. Kinda makes me wonder why i hardly ever use ISO1600. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/rockei5.gif

achuang
07-10-2007, 07:05 PM
The D70s has pretty poor high ISO noise compared to newer cameras like the D80, D40, etc. When looking at 100% the noise is pretty bad, and because I shoot raw there's no in camera noise reduction done to it, i did it in photoshop. At ISO 1600 it would be decent if printed at smaller sizes but I wouldn't blow it up more than say an 8x12.

K1W1
07-10-2007, 07:47 PM
So I guess you are happy that you took advantage of Teds pre tax sale generosity. :):)

achuang
07-10-2007, 07:52 PM
So I guess you are happy that you took advantage of Teds pre tax sale generosity. :):)

I am very happy with the lens. Although I may miss the extra 100mm of the tamron outside, the nikon is just so much more versatile with the VR so it can be used indoors. If the 55-200 VR was $400 like most other places i probably wouldn't have bought it. How are you finding the autofocus speed when you're using it for sports?

K1W1
07-10-2007, 09:19 PM
School holidays - no kids sports until this weekend.
The one day I did use mine it poured with rain and I was able to get much better photos than with the Sigma because I could use a lower ISO (VR!).

Here is a non sports from another very wet overcast day.

Exposure: 0.04 sec (1/25)
Aperture: f/5.6
Focal Length: 175 mm
ISO Speed: 200

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1295/743585029_3d961d11fb_b.jpg

r3g
07-10-2007, 09:35 PM
How are you finding the autofocus speed when you're using it for sports?


I find is to be very fast both indoors and outdoors (i have pix of you want.)

achuang
07-10-2007, 10:13 PM
I find is to be very fast both indoors and outdoors (i have pix of you want.)

That'd be great if you have the time. Thanks r3g

r3g
07-10-2007, 10:22 PM
Indoor sports:
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5340/dsc3170tn1.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/176/487274639_abb4b3dddf_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/196/487265652_b46f76a971_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/169/487249536_90e35cd98b_o.jpg





Outdoor sports

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1371/763231432_c1ac98836b_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/763231398_4bca3f9e8e_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1103/763231686_24197380ce_o.jpg


I realize a rodeo isnt usually as speedy as oh say basketball BUT in a sprint those horses reach speeds of 30+ mph. Hope these are of some use to you.

achuang
07-10-2007, 11:02 PM
Those are some great shots there. They show me that the AF speed of that lens is able to keep up to most action. Thanks for those photos, and keep enjoying the lens.

herc182
07-11-2007, 03:19 AM
Thanks everyone. Great photos. Thanks for the wedding shots. They were awesome.

Well I finally did it and bought the 55-200 VR. It had too many good things going for it. And to be honest, i had the panasonic FZ20 which goes out to 432mm and rarely used that length. Bought for 140 from Ebay (new).

Will see when it arrives.

Thanks for your help everyone....(and great photos!)

achuang
07-11-2007, 06:00 AM
Great buy herc, I was a bit iffy about buying the 55-200 VR at first but the price was just so tempting. The quality for its cheap price is amazing. If i had the money I'd go for the 70-300VR but this lens is excellent for what it is and is intended to be. Post some shots with the new lens. Happy shooting

Rooz
07-11-2007, 06:24 AM
great shots achuang and reg.
that lens is really the bargain of the century.

fionndruinne
07-13-2007, 01:10 AM
Gosh I must get me this lens.

Those wedding shots were fantastic. For f/5.6 at 200mm, even with ISO 1600, that's a feat!

achuang
07-13-2007, 02:07 AM
Gosh I must get me this lens.

Those wedding shots were fantastic. For f/5.6 at 200mm, even with ISO 1600, that's a feat!

Thanks for all the nice comments everyone. I was surprised too, 1/20 at 200mm was something that i didn't think was going to happen even with VR.