Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Lens for action
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Skribbles" data-source="post: 55268" data-attributes="member: 9214"><p>I reckon that's the one I'll end up getting, should be a bit of an improvement over the 55-300 and is cheaper than most other options.</p><p>Unless I can find a different branded tele-zoom.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, I usually do have it set on AF-C, only on slower/easier stuff and when I don't really need/want the high speed continuous that I have it on AF-A </p><p></p><p>I would love either of those lenses you mentioned but it's not in my budget at the moment. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Yeah, I reckon 200mm should be enough, I could always get a bit closer, if I need a bit more length, I could just use a teleconverter.</p><p>Nikon isn't a must, would be nice but if there are other decent options available, I'm willing to try them.</p><p></p><p>I use AF-C to take advantage of the D7000's 6fps, not all shots are in perfect focus but I still get a few decent shots without missing too much.</p><p>Since I would be using this lens outside mostly, the low light shouldnt be too much of an issue.</p><p>Although I use it while on off-road trips and stuff, in pretty sheltered areas where a lens that performs better in lower light would be a good advantage but I spose I'll have to settle for a compromise for the time being.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Skribbles, post: 55268, member: 9214"] I reckon that's the one I'll end up getting, should be a bit of an improvement over the 55-300 and is cheaper than most other options. Unless I can find a different branded tele-zoom. Yeah, I usually do have it set on AF-C, only on slower/easier stuff and when I don't really need/want the high speed continuous that I have it on AF-A I would love either of those lenses you mentioned but it's not in my budget at the moment. Yeah, I reckon 200mm should be enough, I could always get a bit closer, if I need a bit more length, I could just use a teleconverter. Nikon isn't a must, would be nice but if there are other decent options available, I'm willing to try them. I use AF-C to take advantage of the D7000's 6fps, not all shots are in perfect focus but I still get a few decent shots without missing too much. Since I would be using this lens outside mostly, the low light shouldnt be too much of an issue. Although I use it while on off-road trips and stuff, in pretty sheltered areas where a lens that performs better in lower light would be a good advantage but I spose I'll have to settle for a compromise for the time being. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Lens for action
Top