Long Lens ... which one to dream about

I wish I could say which one to buy but right now it is just on my wish list but thought I'd see what people think about the various long lens options.
First off I know I can spend thousands upon thousands for the super long lens - I don't see me dropping more than a grand or so. Max $1200 I'm hoping.

I see that there is a Tamron and Sigma XXX-500mm in that range. These are getting replaced with the new XXX-600mm units. I have seen the Tamron offering on line for their 150-600, the price here in Canada stretches my budget just a bit, todays best price according to photoprice.ca is at Don's at $1249. No price yet on the 'cheaper' of the two Siggy 600mm ones annouced - the Sports one is out of my reach.

A long 150-500 Siggy comes in at $899 (and I think it is dropping - while supplies last I guess because I don't think they are making it anymore??). The Tamron 200-500 best prices out at $1050.

For a grand I can get a Siggy 120-400. A little less reach for about the same money? Hmmm?

I do have a couple of 300mm lens, one is old and not VR and one is DX. I thought of just getting a good 300mm lens, and still might. Even looked at the Nikon prime 300mm, it is a wee bit of a stretch on the budget limit but comes in at $1329. The Nikon 70-300mm prices at about $500, Tamron is about $100 less,

I see the Tamron has that give a real wide zoom range 28-300mm and it is in the one grand range.

And I've considered the use of a teleconverter. That is a whole other discussion. If I decide to just go 300mm I'd want one that i could extend with a teleconverter.

And I'm not afraid of the used market and given these prices, if I 'settle' on a 500 I'd probably look for a good used one. Same with a 300mm.

I have a D610 as my new camera and still have my D5100 which gives me a little more reach when you factor in the crop factor.

As for why - I suppose "just because I want it" ain't going to help.

I do shoot birds - or try to. Better put, I'd like to shoot birds. Some of my bird 'hunting' is done in our rubber dingy which makes tripods awkward. (I'd buy a real boat but I've got this photography hobby eating up my available fun funds - and we can take the dingy with us when pulling the RV).

I also just like to be able to zoom in on detail in buildings, mountains, etc. Not into sports so not need for super fast to catch that baseball in flight.

Help me dream a little here.

i'd not use any teleconvertor on anything higher than f/2.8, anything beyond that is just too slow to af for me

Dont settle for 400mm it wont be long enough,500 or 600 is the way to go IMO

To dream about? A Nikkor 400 f2.8 without question for me. Dream about those you can't get, while going out and getting what you need and can get.

You say you don't need an f2.8 lens because you don't shoot sports, but I've found that shooting birds in flight has a needs for a fast lens to freeze wings and has the additional benefit of smaller depth of field to separate your subject from its surroundings. But that carries the need for spot-on focusing technique and procedure. I just purchased the Nikkor 300mm f2.8 and had to take a big "gulp" before doing so, but its operational performance and IQ are above any other telephoto lens that I own. (The Nikkor prime lenses seem to have that reputation.) It is definitely worth it to me.

Many on this forum, and elsewhere, have recommended renting lenses that you think you might purchase to explore them. You might want to give that a try, or if you can locate someone close to you to go on a photo shoot with and try their lens, do so.

Good luck with your purchase, but let your dreams be big!

WM

I have the Tamron 150-600. I also have the Nikon 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x Nikon teleconverter. The Nikon set up is a little sharper, but the Tamron is very sharp at 400mm, and is still pretty darn good at 600mm. The Nikon focuses closer, which is handy. The Tamron zooms, which is also very handy. The VC on the Tamron (Tamrons' version of RVR) is a nice bonus that the venerable Nikon 300mm f/4 doesn't have. Te Nikon is lighter, though, and that can make a difference in how steady I can hold the lens. If I had neither, and had to pick one... I would be paralyzed with indecision.

Thanks for the input guys, I do dream big.

Photography shares my "fun money" budget with a few other money-pits, err I mean hobbies. camping/traveling, quadding, model railway all
vie for my too few "fun money' pennies. I'm getting close to retirement and not looking forward to even less in the 'fun money' pot.

Love your sense of humour Woody, would not want to see you paralyzed so you best keep both.

Portability is a concern, I will need to stop into a friendly photo-shop and just handle a few of these big lenses to get a feel for the heft of them. I'm afraid I'm a wee bit away from the nearest city with a well stocked lens counter (as in about 3 hour drive, each way) but I am going on a winter vacation down to the southern US of A so will have to see what I can find down there. Wish I could say that after buying the tickets, renting the car, and so on that I left myself a few grand in spending money - ... I wish.

But on the other hand a vacation is always a time to take lots of pictures of far away places. Taking my new 2T portable hard drive so I should be good for storage.

Question on the Nikon teleconverter - doesn't the Nikon one's all operate as manual focus only?

a little googling got me my answer - seems the third party ones AF but not Nikon. What's up with that?

KEH has the 300 F/4 at $528 - that's well within budget.

Can't speak to all lenses, but my nikon 2x and 70-200 2.8 auto focus. I am thinking about getting the 1.7 as well, the 2x does seem soft on the long side and the 1.7 seems to get better ratings. Plus if I get the 300 f4, the 2x makes it a f8 lens but the 1.7 keeps it at 5.6. Just another thing to think about with TC's is they factor on your aperture.

it would be better to just the 300 f2.8, but I just can't throw down that kind of cash right now.

also go to nikons site, look at the TC's, they have a compatibility chart.

I "improved" my TC20 and it does take a reasonable decent shot with my 70-300mm even at 300 (600) but loses AF at the long end. To get sharp shots, you need to close down to about f/11.

That set-up limits the combo to tripod only. I needed too high shutter for it to do well birding and manual focus is pretty hard when it's double each time.

I even tried it on my Tam and it takes a good shot there but because I need to add an extension ring between to make it work, I lose my infinity range.

The Nikon 300mm F4 is least cost option with a sharp image wide open, and the image deteriorates very little with TC14. The zooms have an advantage if your subjects are at varying distance, but if you are shooting at long distance then primes are the way to go.

I'm using the Tam at 600mm at least 90% of the time. For birds and other critters it is rare they're close enough for me to go shorter. When I shot 300 that was too short. Now I shoot 600 and that's too short too. I'm sure if I had a 2400mm even then I'd have moments I'd curse the lens for not having enough reach. The longer the lens, the lazier we get.

The times I use the shorter range, it's mostly to snap some landscape shots.

I think the best deal on the market right now is the Tamron 150-600. I've had it only a month, so I'm still in the honeymoon phase, but it is impressive to handhold at 600mm.
No matter what you decide, I believe your best results will come from zooms with zoom ratios under 4:1. The higher the ratio, the more compromises are made to achieve the zoom.

Bunsen Honeydew said:

I think the best deal on the market right now is the Tamron 150-600. I've had it only a month, so I'm still in the honeymoon phase, but it is impressive to handhold at 600mm.
No matter what you decide, I believe your best results will come from zooms with zoom ratios under 4:1. The higher the ratio, the more compromises are made to achieve the zoom.

Click to expand...

​Good answer!

I don't do a lot of wildlife but if I do, the exotic 400mm f2.8 would be it. 200 mm f2 VR for portrait shots. But then again. after you spent your savings on these lenses and don't get to use them much, they quickly become a burden to store and might end up for sale at a much reduced price.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL. Glenn, the OP was hoping to stay $1200 or less.

I have achievable dream.....Nikon AF-S 300 f/4 with Nikon 1.4 TC

Soon!

Woodyg3 said:

LOL. Glenn, the OP was hoping to stay $1200 or less.

Click to expand...

In these days, $1,200 lens is not something to dream about. That is more of a nap time dream that I'll be happy that it didn't happen. LOL!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a thought, 300f4 d lens that would give you 450mm on a DX camera, add a TC14b, and you end up with about 600mm, without breaking the bank. I have the converter on the way and will post results.
Harle