Faster zoom

Hi everybody,

Last time i posted on here i was looking for 'more reach' from my Nikon 70-300mm, F4.5-5.6 AF-S VR, but after some great information, it became clear that what i was actually looking for was more speed!

I have not done anything about this yet, but in April i am off to Sri Lanka for a few weeks and i'll be doing all the expected wildlife tours etc. I know if i am trying to get a snap of some wildlife in the distance, with poor lighting, my lens above will not be quick enough.

Without spending several thousand, can anybody suggest a faster lens for me? I am using a D90. I have looked through KR website but its mainly the Nikon lenses he talks about, but perhaps there are some other makes which are suitable (and cheaper!!)?

I did look into the hire options, but as i am away for a few weeks it starts to get really expensive!

Thanks!!

If you want a faster lens with 300mm reach it's going to get expensive very fast. Wouldn't it be better if you got a longer reach instead?

I don't know what wildlife you're going to shoot but 300mm really isn't going to get you very close. Regardless how fast it is. The only difference is that the wider you can open, the worse the light can be.

Well having a DX camera, my 'reach' is effectively 450mm with my 70-300. I discussed this at length previously and basically the consensus was that 450mm should really be long enough….unless i want to start dragging massive lenses with me.

So i figured 300mm (and many people say 200mm) should be fine, so i should get something that is faster so i can get quicker shutter speeds.

I am going as a tourist, rather that a holiday just to take photos. There will be everything from parrots to tigers!

Any suggested lenses?

For what may be a once in a lifetime trip, you may perhaps look at something like Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8. The original VR version sells used, around here, for about $1,000 which is quite a value, given its capabilities. If you need speed and reach, Nikon's 300 f/4 is also quite a sweet lens. A 1.4x teleconverter on the 300 gives you even more reach at the slight expense of one stop of aperture.

Have a great trip.

Rorie said:

Well having a DX camera, my 'reach' is effectively 450mm with my 70-300. I discussed this at length previously and basically the consensus was that 450mm should really be long enough….unless i want to start dragging massive lenses with me.

So i figured 300mm (and many people say 200mm) should be fine, so i should get something that is faster so i can get quicker shutter speeds.

I am going as a tourist, rather that a holiday just to take photos. There will be everything from parrots to tigers!

Any suggested lenses?

Click to expand...

Your reach is still 300mm. The crop doesn't bring you closer to the subject. It only looks that way in comparison with an FX. I wouldn't know if there are 300mm lenses that are considerably faster but don't cost thousands. Maybe if you buy used.

Even an f/4 zoom that is capable of 300mm is gonna drain your bank account very very fast.

Nikkor 200-400 f/4 is the only one I can think of that fits this category....... $7 grand.

Rob Bye said:

For what may be a once in a lifetime trip, you may perhaps look at something like Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8. The original VR version sells used, around here, for about $1,000 which is quite a value, given its capabilities. If you need speed and reach, Nikon's 300 f/4 is also quite a sweet lens. A 1.4x teleconverter on the 300 gives you even more reach at the slight expense of one stop of aperture.

Have a great trip.

Click to expand...

Using a TC would defeat the purpose of buying a faster lens since what you gain with the f/4, you trade in when using the TC.

I believe I mentioned that.

Indeed you did.

I have the 70-300mm and wouldn't consider it a slow lens. It has to be reasonable dark before it no longer focuses. My 200mm f/4 is slower to focus but it's an older lens too.

I'd suggest buying a 150-600mm either Sigma or Tamron. They're about the same as the 70-300mm but you'll miss less shots because you got more to focus upon. If you'd set them on limited focus, they're even faster.

Thanks for all the comments.

I guess when i am talking about speed, it is more the aperture rather than the focus speed. I agree that the 70-300 is good, but, i find if i am zoomed in at 300mm, with the aperture being 5.6, my shutter needs to be open way too long to get a sharp photo of an animal which rarely stand still! Hence i was hoping to get something faster, but perhaps have to drop down to a 200mm focal length?

I keep forgetting about the DX/FX crop factor, so good point there!

And RE teleconverters, i did think about that, but as discussed, i may get more reach, but its the one stop down that brings the problem.

This IS going to be a holiday of a lifetime, so i am wondering if it is worth forking out a bit to get some great photos (i hope!). The sigma 150-600 still has a high aperture at 6.3 which may not help me much, but perhaps the 70-200 2.8 could be a contender?

Any other thoughts?

Maybe it'd be a better idea to upgrade the cam instead of the lens. You'd still have the same aperture but you could up the ISO quite some more which allows a faster shutter. The newer cams have much better noise control too.

A new cam + old lens is most likely going to outperform the old cam + new lens.

To gain a stop of light, it is cheaper if you can do it with ISO compared to aperture.

You're correct in your thinking, you want faster. A longer lens will only drop more light. The problem you're facing is faster means a larger aperture like 2.8, but at the reach your liking for they are pricey. So what is your budget ceiling?

Yeh i guess that is also an idea (though an expensive idea!).

I am looking at the Tamron 150-600 and thinking….thats twice the focal distance for just 0.7 stops less light (if i am correct in my thinking…). And at just over 700GBP new, thats not too bad!

I am struggling to find reviews from places i know, so any links would be appreciated!

The 70-200mm at f2.8 doesn't say what the aperture is when at 200mm…. i assume there is an increase?!

Rorie said:

.......The 70-200mm at f2.8 doesn't say what the aperture is when at 200mm…. i assume there is an increase?!

Click to expand...

If there's only one aperture listed, then it's a constant aperture. In this case, it's f/2.8 across the range.

Rorie said:

Yeh i guess that is also an idea (though an expensive idea!).

I am looking at the Tamron 150-600 and thinking….thats twice the focal distance for just 0.7 stops less light (if i am correct in my thinking…). And at just over 700GBP new, thats not too bad!

I am struggling to find reviews from places i know, so any links would be appreciated!

The 70-200mm at f2.8 doesn't say what the aperture is when at 200mm…. i assume there is an increase?!

Click to expand...

If you want to shoot wildlife, including birds, 200mm really is next to nothing. Take the 70-300mm out into the fields or forest and shoot nothing but birds and you'll notice that for 200mm to give a decent sized shot, you have to either hide in the bushes and stalk them or have birds the size of a cow. I gave up shooting birds with my 200mm on the DX because most of the birds in my shots were the size of dots.

The lens is going to be faster but 200mm is a serious step back in range.

This is a shot I took with the D3300 at 200mm. I considered this a lucky shot since the bird was exceptionally close for a normal approach.



All other animals I can shoot from a closer range are classified as pets.

You're bouncing between faster and reach. The 70-200 f/2.8 will not change. The Tamron you mentioned will give you great reach but les light. I don't know the noise levels of the D90, but i personally would want the reach for this trip and live with not having faster.

All the reviews you need on the Tamron 150-600 are here.

http://nikonites.com/search.php?searchid=3107273#axzz3KZkD0h6b

The very cheapest long lens option is probably a second hand Sigma 50-500mm. Which are very cheap now. You'll have to stop down to about f/8 to find the sweet spot, but you'll find most lenses are like that anyway, probably the 150-600mm is the same. Even the 70-200 f/2.8 needs stepping down really. If you're shooting wildlife with this lens, make sure you stick to big game, when i say big, i mean big, Elephants, Blue Whales, Woolly Mammoths, T-Rexs' etc. Its not a wildlife lens really. If you do want one, go for a vr1 on a crop frame they perform slightly better than the vr2, and don't suffer as bad a focus breathing issue. Shooting outside at f/8 shouldn't be a problem. You might also consider a camera that handles higher ISO's better, there's plenty on the second hand market there also, D7000, D7100 to throw a couple of suggestions in the air. Theres no really cheap long wildlife lens solution which will work at f/2.8 or f/4 and produce the sharpest of images without spending £8000 or whatever, if there was, we'd all have one

jaydean said:

Theres no really cheap long wildlife lens solution which will work at f/2.8 or f/4 and produce the sharpest of images without spending £8000 or whatever, if there was, we'd all have one

Click to expand...

Amen to that!

I'm afraid that £8000 is a bit optimistic. Have a look at Sigma 200-500 f/2.8. :apologetic: