Nikon Lenses

[barnzy]

Hello everyone,

I'm chasing some information and hopefully some helpful links to places that I can purchase them.

First lens I'm looking at is 24-70mmf/2.8 - For general and all purpose shooting. I'm trying to find a decent price for this lens new and would like members feedback and also where you shop at.

Second lens is 70-200mmf/4 (Was looking at the 70-200mmf/2.8 but it is a lil out of my price range for now) This lens is for shooting motorsport and general sport photo's.

I look forward to hearing your feedback and thoughts and also where you shop at.

Thanks,

Barnzy

[I @ M]

Barnzy, the 24-70 can be found for sale at a multitude of on line and bricks and mortar stores at an enormous range of prices.
Do you care if it is a grey market unit or are you wanting a local Nikon Australia sourced item?

I have absolutely no idea where you are going to obtain a 70-200 F/4 lens from though unless you have inside knowledge that Nikon have such a lens in the production pipeline. Even if they do have and they announce it tomorrow it will be a minimum of 3 months before it hits the shelves of any store.

[Bennymiata]

The Sigma 24-70 F2.8 is also an excellent lens, and reasonably priced too.
I used one extensively on a Pentax, and it was truely excellent.

Have you looked at the new Sigma 70-200F2.8 with OS?
The price is pretty good, and from how good the latest Sigma lenses are, it should be pretty good too.

[barnzy]

Hi Andrew, Thanks for the reply!

I didn't know if Nikon offered a 70-200mf/4 lens and fro your reply I'm guessing that they don't! That case I might be looking into a different lens for sporting action.

I would prefer a Nikon Lens but if the quality of the lens is good I'll consider it!

[junqbox]

You might be able to find a VRI version of the 70-200 used for a good price.

[N*A*M]

DWI have been good to me over the years

[darrenmars]

I'm sure there was a 70-210 f/4 AF lens available some time ago... Would you settle for used kit or do you require new? If used is ok have you considered the sigma or tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses? or something like this (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Tamron-SP-AF-LD-70-210mm-1-2-8-Nikon-DSLR-/130569561806?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1e668d66ce)

[I @ M]

There was a 70-210 F/4 lens made --- http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#70-xx --- that looked like this -- http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/af70210.jpg -- however it is an "AF D" lens and where sport is concerned the faster the focus the better which is where even one of the older Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 lenses would be a better proposition on a budget.

Barnzy, which body are you wanting to use such a lens on, that will have a bit of a bearing on reccomendations as well.

[danny]

After recommendation through AP I have started to use DWI and think that it is great! Highly recommend. How they can deliver from Hong Kong to Goulburn in 3 days (including weekend) is truly unbelievable.

Cheers
Danny

[barnzy]

Thanks for the replies guys and feel free to keep them coming along! :)

I @ M - I'm currently using a Nikon D60 but from research it looks like I might have to upgrade my body shortly as well. But if I can get away with using it for a while with these two lenses that would be great!

[I @ M]

That helps a bit Barnzy.
Whilst the D60 is quite a capable camera it will fall short in a few areas when it comes to getting the sport shots you want.
It is limited to only having autofocus capabilities with AF-S lenses and it will ultimately prove frustrating to get the shots that you want with the number of focus points and fast frame rate capability that you will require for sport shots.

Your ideals of owning the 24-70 F/2.8 are very sound :th3: and while it it will work excellently on the D60 body you will only be getting around 70% of the capabilities of that lens because of the lower resolving abilities of the "old style" sensor and processor in the body.

My recommendation at the moment if you are going to start spending serious dollars on good lenses would be to try to pick up a good low mileage D300s body, buy the 24-70 as a future proof investment and then to save for a better quality 70-200 lens. Even then, you may start to feel that the 200mm is a bit on the short side and then it becomes really hard as a Nikon owner to find ( at an affordable price ) longer lenses ( 300 - 400 mm ) to do the job.

On further reflection, I hate to be the one to bring it up though, maybe jumping ship to the Canon system where bodies and lenses at suitable lengths for sport are available at slightly more realistic prices could be the way to go before you out lay any further dollars.

[kiwi]

I'd prob go 24-120 now, and sigma 70-200 with a sigma 1.4tc

[barnzy]

Thanks again for the reply. Well after doing research today and finding out that they D60 is a awesome body but just isn't suitable for what I want I think that I might be switching over to the Canon Camera. Their prices on lenses look a bit better and have a good range. Also I find a lot more people these days are using Canon camera's.

Now comes another question though, what body from Canon would I be looking at? I know that the D300 from Nikon is the selection that I need but what about Canon, what are the ups and down and what is recommended for the shots I'm looking for!

[kiwi]

Rubbish

[Chris Michel]

What parts rubbish ??

[knumbnutz]

If you are looking at a D300 for motorsport, try a Sigma 120-300 F2.8, its a great lens.
If you want to ask about Canon gear then post on the canon part of the forum.
Any longer length lens is going to be expensive and 200 is not really long enough. a kit lens is also not really going to cut it because their Fstop at the long part is too high.
Also for motosport or any sport, you will need a camera that can run at a high iso and have some intuitive constant focus like the D300s.
You may well get a cheaper or lesser camera but in the end you will need something decent and if you spend the money to start with it will work out cheaper than buying a cheap camera and upgrading in the future when the cheapy doesnt cut it, same goes for the lenses and then there is the technique required..... that is some else altogether and will be far more beneficial to good images than camera/lenses.
Cheers Neil

[kiwi]

Pretty much all of it :)

[Chris Michel]

I cant give any light other then all the NRL and AFL games we goto there seems to be a 20 to 1 ratio of Canons over Nikons. That includes the test cricket we watched in Sydney earlier this year

[kiwi]

You know why ?

By the way I shot the super15 and state of origin with nikon, and it was more even

[Chris Michel]

we went to origin game 2 in Sydney and there was an even bigger ratio of canon over nikon.

[kiwi]

Perhaps, but, do you know why ?

[Chris Michel]

not really ... i assume its better for sport. well thats what a friend of my wife says who works for the Bulletin on the Gold Coast.

[kiwi]

No, but it used to be for a long time. It's exe for newspapers and agencies to replace all the c stuff

The d3 and d3s still blitz the canons, the glass is cheaper if you use canon, but it's not better

Id say most serious sport togs given the choice would use nikon bodies at the moment.

[Sar NOP]

The d3 and d3s still blitz the canons, the glass is cheaper if you use canon, but it's not better

Id say most serious sport togs given the choice would use nikon bodies at the moment.


There used to be a lot of white tubes around the stadium...now, they are mostly black ! :D:D:D

[arthurking83]

LOL! and to answer the OP's question somewhere in the middle of all this black tube fanboism .... D300(ish) = approximately a Canon 7D.

Note that a holding off of the releasing of camera related funds may be prudent at the moment.

Due to the recent release of the Sony A77, Nikon's imminent update of the D300s is .. well .. (for lack of a better word!!) imminent! :D

You know what this means? Canon is surely going to be hot on the heels of the D300s replacement. D300s replacement is going to be good.. very good, if the A77's specs are anything to go on.

if I were in the market for a new camera NOW.. I'd definitely be waiting at least the next two-three months.

Canon 7D vs Nikon D400(lets say, instead of the D300s): ups = Nikon will be overall better in most ways.. simple as that. newer tech (almost) always is
Canon 8D vs Nikon D400: ups vs downs = 1 divided by 0 ... ie. err.... does not compute. For all intents and purposes they wil be close to the same in most ways, and for what C has an advantage on in one area, almost certain that N will have an advantage in another area.

Nikon's lack of a 70-200 f/4 does seem like a massive omission, but if why would you go down this path, when 99% of the time the slower lens will end up more of a hindrance than anything else.

Price is obviously a concern.. there are two perfectly better possibilities at a cheaper price than a Canon/Nikon 70-200/4 will be and that's a Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS, if you have to have optical stabilisation, and then the Tamron 70-200/2.8 which has no OS.
Both of these thirdparty lenses function better as an f/4 lens of this type, than any f/4 lens of this type ever could!.... but also have the added bonus of opening up to a full blown f/2.8 lens when the situation demands it!

The only reason any one should use to go for an f/4 version of one of these lens types is size and weight.
The third party f/2.8 options make a lot better sense for the money!If size and weight were really a concern, then a modern 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6 would be a much better option anyhow! Smaller and lighter again and cheaper too. A 70-200/4 whilst it seems is a great alternative to have, for those times when you can't afford the proper job, or want cheaper and lighter, I feel is really only a stop gap for those times whilst the owner drools of a larger aperture lens! :D
I think there is a very good (marketing) reason that Nikon have resisted the urge to produce an f/4 version of the 70-200 lens. On the whole, it makes less sense because what people usually really want is the faster lens, but at the cheaper price. Instead of offering the f/4 lens, Nikon have the cheaper 80-200/2.8 from yonks ago .. still sold as their f/4 'equivalent'.
So with all of that, and if price was a determining factor, I'd go with the Sigma OS lens.

[knumbnutz]

The other thing is that the D300S is pretty much the crop sports camera of choice where as the Canon does not have the same equiv in a crop.

If you go a canon then their sports cam is the 1dmk3 or 4 which is equiv to a D3 which is a lot of $$$$$$$$$

Anyhow, whats the budget ?



No, but it used to be for a long time. It's exe for newspapers and agencies to replace all the c stuff

The d3 and d3s still blitz the canons, the glass is cheaper if you use canon, but it's not better

Id say most serious sport togs given the choice would use nikon bodies at the moment.

[N*A*M]

you're not overly invested in nikon so a switch wouldn't be too traumatic. but there are happy shooters in every camp.
i can tell you that i have been more than satisfied shooting motorsport with d300, 17-55, 70-200 vr.
for watersports, i was lacking beyond 200mm. i did use a 40D and 100-400 IS to shoot watersports for a few days and that was pretty good.

hook up with some local shooters with some good gear and try to see what works better for you.

[ytf]

It's in New York, but . . . http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=Nikon+70-&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&usedSearch=1
They are a very reputable company.

[knumbnutz]

another lens to consider is the 100-300 F4 sigma, very well regarded for any brand camera

[kiwi]

never heard of it, so, doubt its much chop for sport

70-300 afs might be better nikon choice, motorsport doesnt require a fast lens really

[I @ M]

never heard of it, so, doubt its much chop for sport



You are kidding aren't you Darren?

[kiwi]

nope, not kidding

[I @ M]

nope, not kidding

Been around for quite a while and now discontinued it seems.
I won't get rid of the one we have in a hurry. :D
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/100-300mm-f4-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma

[kiwi]

hmm, shame looks a pretty good spec

[arthurking83]

The 100-300 Sigma is reputedly one of the best lenses in it's class, super high quality images even wide open.

It is a lot bigger than the 70-200/2.8 tho!

[knumbnutz]

I think discontinued but that is because they will release an OS version.
A friend uses one for motorcycle racing, he works for AMCN.
I was quietly surprised to see the new OS version of the 120-300 F2.8 selling new for $2500, thats a great price !


Been around for quite a while and now discontinued it seems.
I won't get rid of the one we have in a hurry. :D
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/100-300mm-f4-ex-dg-apo-hsm-sigma

[Chris Michel]

Interesting thought - we just got home after going to Socceroos's v Thailand match tonight in Brisbane. Long trip from Lennox but worth it.... counted 17 professional photographers on the side line / baseline, only 2 were using Nikon the rest the big whitish canon lens. food for thought

[darrenmars]

I didn't think of this till just now but if you were even considering a 70-200 f/4 lens, why don't you go the 80-200 f/2.8? $1600 from many Oz retailers that still sell them, $1200 imported or between $8-900 used. Sure it doesn't have VR but it's a fantastic lens.

[zollo]

the 80 - 200 afs is also worth finding

[kiwi]

The non afs 80-200 is ok, but a bit slow, afs 80-200 a great lens, but getting hard to find

[arthurking83]

I'd say that the 80-200/2.8 is more of a good lens, rather than great lens.
For sheer IQ the Tammy beats it hands down(except that the Nikon has better colour and bokeh)
Nikon is 'sturdier build quality, with it's all metal body, but unless you want to use it as a hammer this isn't really all that important.
Of the two focusing types, the Tammy is the least inconvenient of the two, and for all intents and purposes, both are not ideal by modern standards.
80-200 doesn't come with a lens hood, and having seen the optional hood that Nikon has for it, it's also sub par when compared to a more modern lens hood.
Don't' get me wrong tho, the 80-200 is still a good lens, it's just that it's now not really that good when compared to the opposition.
Biggest deal breaker for me, is the non sealed design of the lens. It needs a filter of some kind on the front to stop the ingress of dust into the lens over the long term.

(actually, Bjorn and others reckon that for Fx and super sharp corner IQ, the 80-200AF-S is better than a 70-200VR(I)! .. maybe that's why? :D)

Of the cheaper three lenses in this segment(Sigma, Tammy and Nikon 80-200mm) .. I reckon the best order in terms of ability are: Sigma for the HSM(and probably the OS), the Tammy for the more contrasty and sharper IQ wide open .. but you could easily switch those two based on usage and requirements .. and then the Nikon 80-200.

[darrenmars]

I personally wasn't happy with the tammy 70-200 I had (this was a while back now tho). Wasn't sharp until stopped down to between f/5.6 and f/11, which defeated the point of getting something with the ability to open up to f/2.8. I probably had a bad copy as I have seen what the tamron tele-zooms in that range are capable of. The other thing that got under my skin was the zoom ring (or was it the focus ring?) worked the opposite way that the Nikon ones do. Drove me nuts.

I like my 80-200 AF :)

[kiwi]

Sigma just won european lens of the year....best bang for bucks out there I think

[arthurking83]

I personally wasn't happy with the tammy 70-200 I had (this was a while back now tho). Wasn't sharp until stopped down to between f/5.6 and f/11, which defeated the point of getting something with the ability to open up to f/2.8. I probably had a bad copy as I have seen what the tamron tele-zooms in that range are capable of. The other thing that got under my skin was the zoom ring (or was it the focus ring?) worked the opposite way that the Nikon ones do. Drove me nuts.

I like my 80-200 AF :)

Yeah! weird.. my experience is exactly the other way round.
That's why I sold my 80-200 and got the Tammy 70-200 instead!

[knumbnutz]

Sigma just won european lens of the year....best bang for bucks out there I think

If you are selective about the choice of which sigma lens, then they have some stunning lenses.
Conversely, some not so good stuff.

[fillum]

Just a reminder that the Nikkor 80-200 AF will not auto focus on the OP's D60.


Cheers.

[darrenmars]

Just a reminder that the Nikkor 80-200 AF will not auto focus on the OP's D60.


Cheers.
Yep. I realised this when I got to work this morning and came to say exactly that!

[RRRoger]

Here is what I recommend:
1. D7000 beats anything Canon now has (especially for the price).
Of course all manufactures will come out with something better eventually.
2. Used 17-35, 28-70, and AF-S 80-200 or first generation 70-200.
3. New Nikkor 28-300