[Towert7]

Quote:

 
ISO 800 outside for overcast?

See, that would be entirely unacceptable to me.  400 at most.  Then again, I have a faster lens

Please remember that I am not suggesting you get the 70-300G.  I am recommending it to anoobis.  You can buy what ever you want for how ever much you want to spend.
For his budget, your lenses would *not* be acceptable for anoobis (price prohibitive).

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Please remember that I am not suggesting you get the 70-300G.  I am recommending it to anoobis.  You can buy what ever you want for how ever much you want to spend. For his budget, your lenses would *not* be acceptable for anoobis (price prohibitive).

Yes, I realize that.  All I'm saying is that for a modest increase in price you get a significant increase in performance and features in a smaller package.  There's a reason the 55-200 VR is Nikon's most popular tele and not the 70-300 AF-D.

 

[bigshot]

I thought the 18-200 was Nikon's most popular tele zoom.

 

[anoobis]

Guys, thanks for the replies, the discussion's really helped.
 
First off, you've pointed me in the right direction for much cheaper prices
 
On balance, I've decided the 55-300VR would be the best buy for me, though I'm going to hold off buying for the moment. Please let me know if there are any howlers in my thinking (obviously on the more objective points):
 
- why not just up the ISO on a non-VR lens? At 300mm I suspect it would take f/5.6 (i.e. wide open on these lenses) and ISO 800 to get a hand-holding shutter speed in many situations. This presents possible depth-of-field issues. I wouldn't want to go above ISO 800 on a D50. I don't know if the newer (non-pro) models are better for noise.
 
- why not just get a faster lens? To be honest, this may not be a bad solution. However, AFAIK, there's nothing with a similar focal length remotely in the same price bracket. Further, if you did want to slow the shutter speed for depth-of-field purposes (any other reason?), you're no better off.
 
- it seems the 300mm VR is optically superior to the G, especially at 200mm plus. It's not a huge difference (in lens terms!) to pay.
 
- do I need 300mm? No. Would I regret not having it? Yes. I'll justify the difference over the 200mm in two ways: a) VR(II) vs VR(I) (so what?!); b) I would expect the performance of the 300mm to be better at 200mm than the 200mm, as limits always seem worse and these lenses are so similar. I think I'm correct in saying that the 300mm max. aperture at 200mm is wider than the 200mm lens.
 
- how about 200mm + teleconverter? Well, it would have to be x2, otherwise I'd just get the 300mm lens. Too expensive.
 
- what about a non-Nikon alternative? I simply haven't found a stabilised or faster lens for less than the Nikon.
 
 
Once again, thanks for the help.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

On balance, I've decided the 55-300VR would be the best buy for me
 
 
Once again, thanks for the help.

 
 
Step 1:  Determine the focal length you are looking for
Step 2:  Determine the features you want
Step 3:  Buy the lens that satisfies step 1 & 2 as best as you can afford.
 
If the 55-300VR first your list, then there you are.
If in the end you still can't make up your mind, and can't seem to find any useful information from other people, just pick one and go with it.  Use it, and be happy.  Then you will get experience with it and start to see if your choice was a good one or not.  After you've used it for a while you will have a much better idea of what you *really* need in a lens.
 
Don't worry about VR1 or VR2.  Even VR1 works fantastic. 

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

If in the end you still can't make up your mind, and can't seem to find any useful information from other people, just pick one and go with it.  Use it, and be happy.  Then you will get experience with it and start to see if your choice was a good one or not.  After you've used it for a while you will have a much better idea of what you *really* need in a lens.
 

Exactly!  To be honest, until recently I was on a big rotation through lenses, trying to find what suited me.  For the last year and a half or so I've mostly settled down and gotten rid of all the lenses I never use.
 
And actually anoobis, if what you really want is performance at 300mm, Redcarmoose suggested the 300mm f/4.5 ED AI-S IF.  That's a really good lens, and the non-IF version (still AI-S) is even better according to Bjorn, but not so easy to focus (IF is a pleasure to focus for long lenses).  I haven't used either, but I hear nothing but praise for them.
 
The 300mm f/4 AF is very good as well, but has a small touch of CA and is very slow to focus.  It may be close to your budget, but it's big and the lack of flexibility means you're giving up a lot in return.  I did own that one, but sold it to fund the 300mm f/2.8 AI-S I had, which is a more or less near-perfect performer limited only by your ability to focus.  Same goes for the 180mm f/2.8 ED AI-S - that lens is so sharp it's scary.  I don't think I have ever seen any lens better than that one.  I just don't particularly like the 180-200mm focal length on DX, or on FX for that matter.  For whatever reason I tend towards liking specific lenses and focal lengths more than specific angles of view.  85mm, 135mm, and 300mm are what I tend to like in the long range.  I'm still kicking myself for selling my 135mm f/3.5 AI, but I'd love to replace it with a 135mm f/2 someday...

 

[Trysaeder]

 
Quote:

Guys, thanks for the replies, the discussion's really helped.
 
First off, you've pointed me in the right direction for much cheaper prices
 
On balance, I've decided the 55-300VR would be the best buy for me, though I'm going to hold off buying for the moment. Please let me know if there are any howlers in my thinking (obviously on the more objective points):
 
- why not just up the ISO on a non-VR lens? At 300mm I suspect it would take f/5.6 (i.e. wide open on these lenses) and ISO 800 to get a hand-holding shutter speed in many situations. This presents possible depth-of-field issues. I wouldn't want to go above ISO 800 on a D50. I don't know if the newer (non-pro) models are better for noise.
 
- why not just get a faster lens? To be honest, this may not be a bad solution. However, AFAIK, there's nothing with a similar focal length remotely in the same price bracket. Further, if you did want to slow the shutter speed for depth-of-field purposes (any other reason?), you're no better off.
 
- it seems the 300mm VR is optically superior to the G, especially at 200mm plus. It's not a huge difference (in lens terms!) to pay.
 
- do I need 300mm? No. Would I regret not having it? Yes. I'll justify the difference over the 200mm in two ways: a) VR(II) vs VR(I) (so what?!); b) I would expect the performance of the 300mm to be better at 200mm than the 200mm, as limits always seem worse and these lenses are so similar. I think I'm correct in saying that the 300mm max. aperture at 200mm is wider than the 200mm lens.
 
- how about 200mm + teleconverter? Well, it would have to be x2, otherwise I'd just get the 300mm lens. Too expensive.
 
- what about a non-Nikon alternative? I simply haven't found a stabilised or faster lens for less than the Nikon.
 
 
Once again, thanks for the help.

Don't use a teleconverter with those lenses, they will not work well and will cost more than the lens itself.
If you care about quality at 300, look at the tamron 70-300 VC, which is better than the nikon there (similar price).
If you've never used a 300mm before, I'd go out on a limb and say that you won't be using 300 very often. It's not very useful (450mm equivalent) unless you're photographing sports as a consumer.
Go out to a shop and try out a 200mm, then a 300mm and really think about how often you'll use it. The 55-200 is the only kit lens that I've found useful over some of the non kit alternatives, although my 85/1.4 is stopping me from getting one.
 
Here are some technical reviews of some telephotos under $500ish. Remember that normal usage is usually less demanding.
 
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr-review--test-report
 
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/250-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/592-tamron70300f456vceosapsc
 
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/249-nikkor-af-70-300mm-f4-56-d-ed-review--test-report
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/326-sigma-af-70-300mm-f4-56-apo-dg-macro-test-report--review
 

 
Quote:

 



 
 
If you can't take nice pictures with the 70-300G in well lit areas you're doing something very wrong.
For 150$ I think it's a great lens for the price!  I highly recommend it.
 
Once again, it should be noted that the 70-300G has a smoother bokeh than the new 70-300VR.

If you can't take nice pictures with a point and shoot in well lit areas you're doing something wrong.
 
If that's true (it isn't), avoid the new 70-300VR as well. The bokeh in that is frankly horrible.
Bokeh should be judged not too far behind the subject, not far off in the background. It's like comparing lenses at f/8. Anything will do decently as long as it is long enough.
 
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819402433_mdifE-O.jpg
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819401143_hNQW3-O.jpg
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819402232_jg3oj-O.jpg
That is good bokeh at 200mm. The background circles do not have rings around them and are not distracting. Close to the focal plane, it is still quite smooth.
 
 
 
 
Now, a bit about me.
 
I really really hate how there's no good DX equivalent of a fast 35mm (FX doesn't really have one either ). There's a 24/2.8 and 24/1.4, the first of which is pretty bad and the second is a bit expensive.
Perhaps a wide zoom that touches 24mm is a possibility, but I'm not a fan of killing two birds on the basis that there's always compromise (ie, 24mm end of some wide angles isn't very good and variable aperture zooms would leave me working with f/5.6).
I guess the 16-35/4VR is possibly a great two in one walkaround+wide angle though.
 
I love VR and I love primes, but sadly the two rarely ever mix. If I get a fullframe, I'll definitely be getting a 105/2.8 macro VR as well as the nikon 50. I actually started photography using a fullframe, with the 35L and 135L available to me, so this is a big annoyance.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

 
Don't use a teleconverter with those lenses, they will not work well and will cost more than the lens itself.
 

 
 
So true.  It depends how demanding you are - I've never been happy except with good 1.4x teleconverters on 300mm primes...  Other people I know will stick a bad 2x converter on a consumer zoom and be totally happy.  But as far as these zooms a TC is definitely a no-go.
 
 
Quote:

If you've never used a 300mm before, I'd go out on a limb and say that you won't be using 300 very often. It's not very useful (450mm equivalent) unless you're photographing sports as a consumer.
 
Go out to a shop and try out a 200mm, then a 300mm and really think about how often you'll use it. The 55-200 is the only kit lens that I've found useful over some of the non kit alternatives, although my 85/1.4 is stopping me from getting one.

 
Well, I'd certainly say it depends on your own style...  I love 300mm on DX for pretty much everything, but I know there's plenty of others that rarely ever want/need anything that long.  Certainly for a beginner it's not something that is strictly necessary.  I don't even have a 300 right now, out of practicality...  In fact, I honestly get better results on average by shooting at 200mm and cropping than with a slower (or manual focus) 300mm - for fast action, anyway.  If you've ever shot box lacrosse you'd understand what I mean.
 
 
 
 
Quote:

Now, a bit about me.
 
I really really hate how there's no good DX equivalent of a fast 35mm. There's a 24/2.8 and 24/1.4, the first of which is pretty bad and the second is a bit expensive.
Perhaps a wide zoom that touches 24mm is a possibility, but I'm not a fan of killing two birds on the basis that there's always compromise (ie, 24mm end of some wide angles isn't very good).
I guess the 16-35/4VR is possibly a great two in one walkaround+wide angle though.

 

 
I do lament the lack of a 24mm f/2 DX or similar, but when we've got an inexpensive zoom like the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 it's not so much of a big deal to me...  That lens is just insanely good, and at 24mm it's just about at its peak performance.
 

 

[Trysaeder]

I've tried the tamron and it's great bang/buck, but it just doesn't have the magic of the 35 equivalent primes.The build, image quality and handling of those lenses made them a joy to use.
I met a friend of a friend with a 5d2, 35/1.4L, 135/2L and some wide angle that I never got to play with. Since then I've been using the 85 on dx which feels great, but I don't really use/like my 35/1.8.
 
I just noticed the 24/3.5, which looks like a fun lens to use that'll be able to straighten up when things get traditional. Too bad it's still over 2k and has no autofocus when you need it. Might as well get a 14-24 for 1.9k and kill two birds without compromise on either. Too bad it's huge and heavy though.

 

[Szadzik]

 
Quote:

I've tried the tamron and it's great bang/buck, but it just doesn't have the magic of the 35 equivalent primes.The build, image quality and handling of those lenses made them a joy to use.
I met a friend of a friend with a 5d2, 35/1.4L, 135/2L and some wide angle that I never got to play with. Since then I've been using the 85 on dx which feels great, but I don't really use/like my 35/1.8.
 
I just noticed the 24/3.5, which looks like a fun lens to use that'll be able to straighten up when things get traditional. Too bad it's still over 2k and has no autofocus when you need it. Might as well get a 14-24 for 1.9k and kill two birds without compromise on either. Too bad it's huge and heavy though.

 
There are lots of 2.8 zoom lenses like those I have Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 both 2.8 and you can enjoy the truckloads of light you get with them the same way you would enjoy a prime lens. 
 
Unless you are a professional photographer making money out of it, what is the point of getting lenses for a few thousand dollars?

 

[Trysaeder]

Quote:

 


 
There are lots of 2.8 zoom lenses like those I have Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 both 2.8 and you can enjoy the truckloads of light you get with them the same way you would enjoy a prime lens. 
 
Unless you are a professional photographer making money out of it, what is the point of getting lenses for a few thousand dollars?

Because I'm a hobby photographer making money out of it (but not enough to justify getting $2k lenses).
 
I enjoy the weight and build quality of the primes. Once I tried them, I couldn't go back. There's a feel to the 85/1.4 that the 70-200 just doesn't have.
It's something that I just love. I'd take the 85/1.4 over a 70-200 any day, even though I could hold the 70-200 better in low light due to vr. I'd take a 35/1.4 (never touched a 24/1.4) over the 24-70 easily. There's no comparison with that one.
(I know what I'm looking for when I want a 24 and an 85. If I wanted a telephoto then of course I'd get the 70-200).
 
I know there has to be some zooms that are actually good, and I have nothing against them, but I don't need the weight and price of the extra focal lengths when I know that I will not be needing them at all. If I want a shot at 200 for some reason, I'll either miss it, take it and crop, or chuck on the kit lens to get it. When I go out shooting, I accept that I will be missing some great shots, but there are only 0-2 truly great shots per outing I do. None so far have been at a focal range that I couldn't meet with the 35 and 85, so I'm happy.
 
I'm just a little annoyed that there isn't a mid priced version of some of the popular primes. There's the 18-55 kit lens at dirt cheap, there's the 17-50 tamron/tokina/sigma at 300-600, and there's the brand name 17-55 at 1700. With the primes, there are old, expensive and wildly varying lenses around 300-600 that are only slightly ahead of the quality of the mid price zooms (however nikon (and sigma) got the 85 primes really really right).
 
There's no 50/1.4G quality and price at different focal lengths. Go up or down and the price exceeds 1.5k instantly.
 

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

 
If you can't take nice pictures with a point and shoot in well lit areas you're doing something wrong.
 
If that's true (it isn't), avoid the new 70-300VR as well. The bokeh in that is frankly horrible.
Bokeh should be judged not too far behind the subject, not far off in the background. It's like comparing lenses at f/8. Anything will do decently as long as it is long enough.
 
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819402433_mdifE-O.jpg
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819401143_hNQW3-O.jpg
http://photozone.smugmug.com/photos/819402232_jg3oj-O.jpg
That is good bokeh at 200mm. The background circles do not have rings around them and are not distracting. Close to the focal plane, it is still quite smooth.

Trysaeder, I know this comment was referring to what I said (since you quoted my picture), but I have no clue what you were trying to say.  Is it possible to rephrase this being more specific?
 

 

[Szadzik]

 
Quote:

Because I'm a hobby photographer making money out of it (but not enough to justify getting $2k lenses).
 
I enjoy the weight and build quality of the primes. Once I tried them, I couldn't go back. There's a feel to the 85/1.4 that the 70-200 just doesn't have.
It's something that I just love. I'd take the 85/1.4 over a 70-200 any day, even though I could hold the 70-200 better in low light due to vr. I'd take a 35/1.4 (never touched a 24/1.4) over the 24-70 easily. There's no comparison with that one.
(I know what I'm looking for when I want a 24 and an 85. If I wanted a telephoto then of course I'd get the 70-200).
 
I know there has to be some zooms that are actually good, and I have nothing against them, but I don't need the weight and price of the extra focal lengths when I know that I will not be needing them at all. If I want a shot at 200 for some reason, I'll either miss it, take it and crop, or chuck on the kit lens to get it. When I go out shooting, I accept that I will be missing some great shots, but there are only 0-2 truly great shots per outing I do. None so far have been at a focal range that I couldn't meet with the 35 and 85, so I'm happy.
 
I'm just a little annoyed that there isn't a mid priced version of some of the popular primes. There's the 18-55 kit lens at dirt cheap, there's the 17-50 tamron/tokina/sigma at 300-600, and there's the brand name 17-55 at 1700. With the primes, there are old, expensive and wildly varying lenses around 300-600 that are only slightly ahead of the quality of the mid price zooms (however nikon (and sigma) got the 85 primes really really right).
 
There's no 50/1.4G quality and price at different focal lengths. Go up or down and the price exceeds 1.5k instantly.
 

Lucky ar ethose who have hteir hobbies as their jobs/ even part-time.
 
I tried the 35 f1.8 some time ago and after one city trip I decide it was not what I wanted. Primes are great for their low distortion and low light capabilities, but not always useful.
 

 

[MorbidToaster]

So I just bought a D5100 and it may come in the mail today. I'm ridiculously excited and am already painfully aware of the fact I'll need a telephoto lens.

Seems like that has been discussed recently. Though it's hard to find somewhat of a conclusion on which is best. Hmmm...

Edit: You've been discussing the options I've been looking into

 

[xxhaxx]

Morbid: congratulation on your camera
 
I see a prime vs zoom argument 

First of all do not get the Nikon 24mm 1.4 on a crop body. You are paying a premium for a Full Frame lens that you wouldn't really need. I would recommend a sigma 30mm 1.4 
And if you are getting a 200mm I am really jealous... Shooting at f/2 and the way it renders the picture is fantastic