I’ve been looking for a good tele zoom for a while now but now that I’ve got all the funds together I need help pulling the trigger. I’ve been looking into the 70-300 vr and it looks like the best bang for the buck for getting more reach than my 18-135. I’m trying to get into nature/wildlife/bird photography and my budget is around $600 or so. I know this is kind of an oxymoron wanting to get into wildlife photography with this budget but it’s the best I can do. If you were in my position what would you do and why?

Thanks for the ideas and help

That's one option and a good one in your budget range.
Your other option is to look into a used AFS 300mm f/4 and a TC17II. But the budget has to stretch to around 1300-1500 in that case. But that gets you to 510mm of focal length and with your D80's crop, you're looking at an effective 750mm view.

I'm not much of a birder, so last March when I went to shot the Sandhill Cranes in Alamosa CO, I borrowed a friends 70-300VR. Those Sandies are large birds, and they are pretty used to people hanging around and yet with all that I cursed the 70-300, not for any particular quality (as it's a nice lens) but rather because it was way too short. If you are going to get serious about this I'd save up for either an 80-400 as a starter lens (every little bit of reach helps), get one of the big Sigmas, look for an older used 400 or 500, or save for a 300/4 and TC.

Peace,

Todd

I've been playing with a Sigma 80-400/OS (like VR) for the past couple of days. I don't like it as much as the Nikon version, but it's pretty close to it in overall performance. It's certainly much better optically than their newer 120-400/OS. This lens originally sold for about $900-1,000, so finding a clean one in the $650-750 range is very doable.

Compared to the 70-300/VR, I would say the the Sigma renders about as well, with roughly the same tonal range, but somewhat different hues. The OS performance is not quite as good as the VR of the 70-300, but it's good enough in most situations. The focus speed is actually better than the 80-400/VR. Most importantly though, 400 is a lot more reach than 300, more than numbers alone would suggest. You're not going to have much bird in the frame with a 300.

Take a look at the Tamron 200-500mm you should find one used in your price range. I just sold mine for $575. since I got my 300 f4 and 1.7 TC it has not seen much use but it was my main wildlife lens for a while. I think for the money you can't beat it. The lens is shrp but has trouble focusing in lower light. I used it with my D80 before I got my D300 so you should be OK

Hers some shots taken with the lens at 500mm







For some reason the lens does not get a lot of press but most people that have owned it have nothing but good things to say about it

Greg

Avi B wrote:
That's one option and a good one in your budget range.
Your other option is to look into a used AFS 300mm f/4 and a TC17II. But the budget has to stretch to around 1300-1500 in that case. But that gets you to 510mm of focal length and with your D80's crop, you're looking at an effective 750mm view.



+1

Start saving !

Andy

Problem is, there just isn't' any really good $600 options out there. You pay to play with long lenses.

I agree with the poster who say a 300 F4 and a TC are a good option. That, or an 80-400 might be OK too. (I'd personally go 300 F4 - oh wait, I did ) Super sharp and takes TCs really well.

Another option (and it hurts to say it), might be to go with Canon if you're not too invested with Nikon. A 40D or 50D with a 400 5.6 or 100-400 is a good option, plus you get IS (Nikon's 300 F4 isn't VR). Canon is a bit less expensive when it comes to longer glass (Of course, my Nikon seems to actually focus properly, so it's all a compromise).

Not saying any of my ideas help - or are what you want to hear - just throwing out options.

The Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S lens was my choice to scratch the itch of going long.

After being hugely disappointed with the results my 70-300 VR gave me in Denali NP 2 years ago (didn't focus fast enough in poor light; no way to extend the reach beyond 300 mm), I picked up a new 300mm f4 AF-S lens as well as the 1.4 and 1.7 TCs to put into action in Yellowstone last summer. MAJOR improvement in my results in terms of reach (especially if putting this stuff on a DX body), AF speed (even with the TCs) and image quality over the 70-300 VR.

Oddly enough, I may be selling my 300 mm f4 lens soon because I just purchased a 300 mm f2.8 AF-S II on the Buy & Sell board. I'm still debating about keeping the f4 lens though, the f2.8 lens won't be as easy to tote around, while the f4 is no larger than the 70-200 and easily fits inside my favorite bags. I've heard of people that keep both for these reasons . . .

Chris, sell your 300mm f4.0 to me
lol

I agree with the suggestion of the 300/4 with a TC or two. The AF-S with a 1.4x or 1.7x is probably the best quality you're going to get in the 400-500mm range without making a big jump to the 300/2.8 or beyond.

For a lower budget, the earlier 300/4 AF with a Kenko 1.4x can be had fairly readily in your budget, and the quality is very close to the AF-S version. Handling isn't as fast, but it's still good. I've had both 300/4 lenses, and the older one offers most of the performance for a lot less money.

These are with the older 300/4 plus Kenko 1.4x. Not anything award winning, but that's not the lens' fault:

Chris Noyes wrote:
I've heard of people that keep both for these reasons . . .

Or even 3. The f/4 lenses are nicelandscapes, when you want to reduce weight for those long hikes.

EBH

Thanks for the help everyone. I think I am going to stick with the 70-300 vr as I really like the size and weight of the lens. At this point I don't think I could justify spending more money on something like the 300 f/4. I know its an amazing lens but at this point being a college student = no $$$$. (Donations are always accepted though )

What a coincidence. I was just planing on doing a thread just like this.
I own the 70-300VR and it's a very nice lens but it has its limitations.
As mentioned it's not the sharpest lens and it's way too short for birds and wild life.
We have a lot of animals at work (I work at a refinery and it's a freaking zoo) including but not limited to roe deer, hares, hawks, foxes, ravens and Europe's largest owl, the Eurasian Eagle Owl which is a 70 cm high beast of a bird.
The owls and their kids are not at all afraid of people even thought they have sent some to the hospital so I've been less than 10 meters from them which is uncomfortably close.
Even then 300mm was a bit too short.

It seems I will need to hunt down a used 300/4 and a 1.7TC. So are there a whole bunch of different versions out there to loo out for?
I know there's a bunch of different TC's, how's the compatibility?

Hello,
Birds may be tough on a 300mm lens, but for pretty much anything else the Nikon VR 70-300 is a very nice lens. Works very well on a D300 or any other crop sensor body. See my link below from a few days ago for some samples.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/788769/0#7253005
Jack

Gustaf Lindber wrote:
What a coincidence. I was just planing on doing a thread just like this.
I own the 70-300VR and it's a very nice lens but it has its limitations.
As mentioned it's not the sharpest lens and it's way too short for birds and wild life.
We have a lot of animals at work (I work at a refinery and it's a freaking zoo) including but not limited to roe deer, hares, hawks, foxes, ravens and Europe's largest owl, the Eurasian Eagle Owl which is a 70 cm high beast of a bird.
The owls and their kids are not at all afraid of people even thought they have sent some to the hospital so I've been less than 10 meters from them which is uncomfortably close.
Even then 300mm was a bit too short.

It seems I will need to hunt down a used 300/4 and a 1.7TC. So are there a whole bunch of different versions out there to loo out for?
I know there's a bunch of different TC's, how's the compatibility?

This was at the 300mm end of the 70-300VR? No offense but I think your copy is soft. My copy at 300mm is much sharper. I know a lot of people say beyond 200mm it starts to show its softness but not my copy. Maybe I'm lucky.

You'd be surprised how many pros have an 80-400 Nikon in their bag or mounted. I think of the lens like a Steadicam (I have one at work). It requires practice to get to use it well. And if you haven't used it in awhile, then one needs to get it out before shooting to warm up. But it's way versatile, sharp stopped down a bit and will deliver if you remember you are handholding a 600mm equivilent on a crop sensor which is asking a LOT. Very reasonably priced too for what it is on FF.

At 1/180 I might have gotten some motion blur and it's heavily cropped.
I'm about 10 meters away and I still had to crop it to 50%.

Check out the wildlife forum. Those guys are regularly shooting at 700 MM or even longer. Wildlife shooting is not only a long lens. It also requires a very stable tripod and head, plus a remote shutter release.

The Chinese are coming up with some very good knockoffs. Feisol, Benro, Amvona/Dynatran in the world of tripods and heads. There are probably more as they gain experience. Chinese made remote releases are flooding ebay, and some of them are very good, at least the ones I've tried.

My Bigma is supported by a Dynatran 858 and a brand new Cullman Magnesit 35 ballhead. I also use a remote shutter release made by Aputure, and if needed, I also use a Kenko Teleplus Pro TC. I've had this gear for several years, aside from the Cullman, and it has never let me down.

For $600 budget, you are very limited. I would go with the 300 F4 D version, which can be had for $500-$600 bucks and a Kenko TC

Okay, we're talking a $600 budget here. The OP is not going to be buying a $500 tripod or a $1500 lens setup, although those are great suggestions under different circumstances. I certainly find the 300 f4 plus the 1.7X TC a great combo, but that will require quite a bit more saving.

The 70-300 is probably one of the best options in the Nikon lineup at that price, at least if we are talking new. There are also some lenses from Tamron, Tokina and Sigma that might do the trick for around that amount, but I'm not intimately familiar with their offerings. For example, check out Tokina's 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 for about $550. ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/429084-REG/Tokina_ATX840AFDN_AF_D_80_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_Lens.html#features ) It is slow to AF and lacks any image stabilization according to reviews, but if you have a decent tripod and good long lens technique it might fill the bill for you budget. I haven't worked with this particular lens but I have been impressed with Tokina's other offerings.

If you are looking used, there might be a lot more options as some have stated above. I was impressed with what I've seen from the Tamron 200-500 that was mentioned above. It runs about $1000 new, so you should be able to find a used one within your budget.

As for what is long enough, I've used the 600 f/4 with a 1.7X TC and at times thought it was too short. It simply depends on the situation and what you are shooting. Plus, make sure you either have a decent tripod or plan on getting one in the near future. I'm sure a Gitzo tripod and an RRS or Kirk ball head is a bit out of the price range (though those are excellent products - possibly among the best) most have found less expensive alternatives that work just fine for them as mentioned above.

One of the advantages of a lens like the 70-300 is the addition of VR. While it isn't a magic pill that solves all your photography problems, it does help steady your shot due to camera shake. On a long lens that can be a lifesaver. Remember that it does absolutely nothing for subject movement though. Keeping that shutter speed up reduces the effects of camera shake as well, and using a minimum shutter speed of one over the focal length is a good rule of thumb (i.e., 1/600th of a second for a 300mm lens.) VR helps bring some of the shots back into focus when you can't achieve that.

Good luck in your quest for longer glass. When it comes to focal length, you can never have too many mm's!

David

Ok, if you have to stick to $600 budget, then definately get the 70-300VR.

Sample1: (wide open, 300mm, VR on, blurred to the right of his face b/c shot through a fence.)



Sample 2: same as above



___

Or, if you can stretch to $1000, get the 150-500OS. Early copies had issues, but now they are as sharp or sharper than the 80-400Vr

Sample 1: F7.1 500mm

Hey guys,

I was in the exact same position about 2 months ago. With summer coming up, and lots of trips planned up to the forest in Haliburton, I wanted something that I could throw on the camera to give me some reach without breaking the budget, or settling for lower quality.

I ended up getting the 70-300VRII f/3.5-5.6 and I would have to say that I am not dissapointed at all in the quality of that lens. I will have to post some samples. For a lightweight 300mm range lens, it performs really well. And sharpness is definately there! It's no 300mm f/2.8 VR, but then again, its also not $5K.

I think you should definately consider it over the 80-400 which I was also looking into. The 80-400 is a nice range, but without AFS ... I just couldn't see myself going down that road.