Looking for a decent telephoto zoom lens.

D

daveminnich

Senior Member
I'm in the market for a decent telephoto zoom to replace my 55-200mm f/4-5.6G. I really don't like that lens and as a result I shy away from shooting anything that needs that kind of reach.

I shoot a D90, soon to be a D7100.

I'd love a 70-200 2.8 but that kind of glass just isn't in the budget.

Suggestions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

daveminnich

Senior Member
I do a lot of portraits and event photos and I'm fairly happy with my current lenses for those applications.

With a telephoto, I'd like to shoot primarily sports and some events where I can't get up close and personal, such as weddings from the back of the seats, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
P

pforsell

Senior Member
Does it have to be a zoom? How about Nikon AF 180 f/2.8 D. Benjamin Kanarek shoots fashion magazines with one: Benjamin Kanarek Blog It is a pro workhorse, not a plastic fantastic toy. If it is good enough for Vogue, it should suffice to discerning amateurs too. You'll find one in the $250-500 range easily.

If you really need a zoom instead, then I'd look for Nikon AF 80-200 f/2.8 D two ring version (not the older one ring push-pull). Price will be a bit higher, perhaps beginning at the $500 level. Once again a true pro quality tool built to overlast you.

Both of the above lenses use Nikon's ED glass and full metal construction. And at this price level you'll get your money back in 10 years, guaranteed. Try that with a variable aperture plastic zoom LOL.

The good thing with these AF lenses is that there is no AF-S motor to go bust, so you can buy a used lens without worries. As a sidenote I just had my AF-S VR 300mm f/2.8 G autofocus motor replaced, and it was 650 euros ($700 USD). AF-S motors will fail in the long run, all of them!
 
D

daveminnich

Senior Member
The 180mm f/2.8 is certainly intriguing. May lack some reach for baseball games and the like, but I can always crop to get the framing I want since I rarely print my photos and if I do, I don't print them large. I'll look into that one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

daveminnich

Senior Member
Here's what adorama has in stock for used 180mm. I'm assuming the less expensive ones are not the same lens?

c1258c0a753fe92e56d3468600acafe9.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

daveminnich

Senior Member
P

pforsell

Senior Member
Well, Bjorn Rorslett didn't praise that lens very highly when he tested it. Here's a short quote from him:

70-210 f4 AF
One of the earliest AF designs, this modestly specified zoom lens aims clearly at satisfying the amateur ranks. Zooming is a breeze with the huge collar occupying the better part of the lens barrel, but manual focusing is pitifully served by a tiny ring at the very front of the lens itself.


Compared to the contemporary offerings of this kind, this oldtimer is much better built, but unfortunately its optical performance is nothing to write home about. Images are markedly soft at wide apertures and only get acceptable at f/8-f/11 or so. Colours are rendered in muted hues and lack the sparkle of the better lenses. Some colour fringing occurs all over the zooming range to become more troublesome for close-ups.

So, better to test yourself before you get a worse lens than you already had.

Source:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html
 
Last edited:
Z

Zeke_M

Senior Member
The only reason I can think of is these lenses are rare.
I think they were manufactured from 1986 - 1988.
I had to bide my time until one showed up at KEH.

I put a sample image from this lens in my first post.
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
If you don't need an f/2.8 lens, I can not recommend the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR lens enough. I shot with this lens on my D7100 and later with the D750 before I purchased the 200-500mm lens
https://www.adorama.com/us 853367.html

Some say it's soft at 300mm but I couldn't tell. Maybe mine was a pristine copy, I don't know. Not trying to to stear you one way or another, just giving you more options to look at.
 
R

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Even after getting the 200-500, I've still held on to the 70-300 as a perfect travel lens when I want the reach of 300mm, but don't want the bulk of the 200-500. I usually take the 24-120 and 70-300 as my two travel lenses, unless I know I'll need something else from the bag before I leave. It's a fantastic lens when a fixed aperture 2.8 or 4 lens is not required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B

Blacktop

Senior Member
RocketCowboy said:
Even after getting the 200-500, I've still held on to the 70-300 as a perfect travel lens when I want the reach of 300mm, but don't want the bulk of the 200-500. I usually take the 24-120 and 70-300 as my two travel lenses, unless I know I'll need something else from the bag before I leave. It's a fantastic lens when a fixed aperture 2.8 or 4 lens is not required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't even remember why I sold mine. Probably to save for the D500 but I ended up paying bills with the money. I really miss that lens, and may have to pick one up again. I did some researching on the new AF-P 70-300mm lens but I'm just not sold.
 
P

pforsell

Senior Member
That lens is the AF-S version, which was the predecessor to the AF-S 70-200/2.8 VR. It is a good lens and focuses fast and accurately. The down side is that the AF-S motor is bound to die some day (that lens is 20 years old). It can last 20 more years, it can be dead before thanksgiving.


Try KEH. They are very reputable, offer good return policy and have very conservative lens evaluations. You'd be hard pressed to tell a new lens from KEH's "excellent" or "very good." Sometimes even teir "bargain" rated lenses are in superb condition, imho.


I have bought from them twice in the past and had the goods sent to Europe. Highly recommended.


https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-180mm-f-2-8-ed-if-late-autofocus-lens-72.html




https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-80-200mm-f-2-8d-ed-af-zoom-nikkor-lens.html
 
Top