 Scott H. |
Need help selecting a Nikon telephoto I have Nikon D50 and am wanting to buy a used Nikon telephoto, something in the range of 70-300. I have looked at the various reviews of the 70-210 f4, 70-210 f4-5.6, 70-300D, 55-200, etc. I have two questions: 1) Does anyone have any recommendations and 2) how does one make sense of the all of the different (sometimes opposing) reviews? For example, the 70-21 f4 is thought to be a dog on one site and an excellent lens on another. Because I can only afford to buy one, I really would like to get the best for the money (less than $250). Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stan Lubach |
The thing about some of these reviews, Scott, is that they tend to base their opinions on what they shoot. All lenses have pluses and minuses. The trick is to look at the list of each and compare it with how you plan to use the lens. When I wanted a long telephoto recently, I decided to spend a bit and got the 80-400mm VR Nikkor. The is slow, it's heavy and it's autofocus depends on the camera's motor. If I photographed fast action sports, this would make it a really bad choice. On the plus side, the lens is sharp all the way to 400mm, it has high contrast and the VR is wonderful. I primarily use it for nature and wildlife shots, for which it's great. So, decide what you want to shoot and pick the lens that has the right pluses for your style.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Scott H. |
Thanks Stan. The reviewers usually talk about the sharpness of the lens, maybe the vignetting, flare, etc. and finally give an overall rating to the lens. It's hard for me to see how a lens can be so bad on one site (ratings-wise) and so good on another, even for the same thing (like sharpness). I know lenses have sample variations, but can they vary that much? I guess I am going to have to try one and see how it does. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Will Turner |
Lenses vary sample-to sample, some more than others. Subjective lens reviews tend to have the most variance. Objective reviews attempt to standardize lenses by testing them under the same criteria. They may still vary because of sample variation and tests conducted at different apertures, test subjects, and focal lengths. Nevertheless, objective criteria is usually more reliable. Sharpness (acutance) is a broad concept. A lens can have high acutance at center but less at the edges, while another may do less well in the center resolution but overall appears better because of a better balance between center and edges. Some people also confuse contrast with acutance. As you said there are also other criteria you may deem important - light falloff, vignetting, flare, distortion After a time you may well find a lens test site where the results tend to conform with your ideas of how a lens should perform. Although subjective, many old Nikon hands tend to like Bjorn Rorslett's lens reviews: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top .
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hello Scott; Please allow me to cut to the chase. Don't put cheap glass on a decent camera! Save your money for a while, it will be worth your wait. Everyone wants a "do it all" lens. Lemme' let you in a a little secret..ain't no such thing! Also, you have a crop factor with the Nikon sensor chip of 1.5..so in essence you really have a 120-300mm in full frame parlance. If the $250 is burning a hole in your pocket, get the SB-600 flash, you'll want one sooner or later anyway. :)
Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sean Ronters |
Agree with Pete not to use cheap glass, and in my case that includes the 80/200 Tokina. I originally purchased the Tokina 80-200/2.8 for my Nikon F100, and was initially impressed at the heft of it. I quickly became disappointed for a couple of reasons: one, there was a noticeable difference in sharpness and contrast to my other Nikkor lenses, for the money I thought it should have been better, especially wide open. Second, the focus cam died on the Tokina, and the process of having Tokina replace or repair the thing was an absolute nightmare. The lens was sent back to them, and it took months for them to even look at it. I eventually got the dealer to take it back. Eventually I upgraded to a Nikkor AF-D 80-200 2.8 w/collar. It is one great lens, and I only regret that I wasted time in not getting this lens first. It's a very solid lens as well, no problems with the mechanics, and the optics are unbelievable for a zoom. Very sharp, great contrast, color, just beautiful. The AF-S version is also a winner, my friend has one. Speaking of lens tests, I've never seen the Tokina 80-200/2.8 come anywhere near the Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8 zooms, btw. They happen to be one of Nikon's best lens designs.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Wow Sean, I'm surprised to hear that. I don't doubt what you say, but maybe you had a lemon?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Glen Taylor |
I guess this is why Will recommends looking at objective lens tests, everybody has a different opinion on what's good and not so good. There are a lot of posts on photo.net about focus clutch problems with Tokina telephoto zooms. Maybe it's an older model that had the problems.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||