[Somebody's Fool]

In order to get a bit closer to turkeys without scaring them away, I'm after a telephoto.

Specifically, does anyone have experience of the Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6?

Any other suggestions in similar zoom and price ranges welcome.

Thanks in anticipation.

[Jim]

i find mine suprisingly sharp

[dave]

I've got an old 70-210mm for the one time every couple of years i need to use one. I'm always surprised how sharp it is for a sub-ton lens. Might be too short though, until the turkeys learn to accept you.

[clgladiator]

It could be worth getting a more expensive 70-200 with a larger aperture to get  the faster shutter speeds required for wildlife photography and a 1.4X or 2X converter to up the beef. Maybe the Sigma 70-200 f2.8? Personally I'm a canon man, but use a 100-400 and find this to be very good though can still find it hard to get close enough on some small birds.

[slackline]

This has reminded me I have a 70-300mm that was bequeathed to me.  Timely as I'm of to Madeira and will be doing a fair bit of walking and snapping and had forgotten about it completely, will be taking it now, cheers Fool.

[SA Chris]

It could be worth getting a more expensive 70-200 with a larger aperture to get  the faster shutter speeds required for wildlife photography and a 1.4X or 2X converter to up the beef.

Surely the teleconverter will offset the benefit of the big aperture?

I have an 80-300 Sigma (dunno which one, it's about 10 years old now), which can produce acceptable pics when it is sunny enough.




At full zoom. (Sorry for FB link if anyone can't see it.)

[cofe]

just get one of these you twat:



they don't even need fucking lenses they're that good. and they cost fuck all.

[SA Chris]

That joke has got legs.

[Johnny Brown]

A 70-300 would be a good choice for starters. Anything more capable will be a lot more expensive, and you'll soon discover its as much getting close to the subject as a big lens. Be worth getting the VR version. Though judging by the Weston 'Goose' thread you're doing just fine with the kit you have, perhaps an ID guide might be a timely purchase? This looks good for starters.

[Somebody's Fool]

If my mum hasn't taken it to Oxfam with the Ladybird books, I might still have a copy of that.

Maybe the Sigma 70-200 f2.8?

I'll investigate further. Ta.

[clgladiator]

It could be worth getting a more expensive 70-200 with a larger aperture to get  the faster shutter speeds required for wildlife photography and a 1.4X or 2X converter to up the beef.

Surely the teleconverter will offset the benefit of the big aperture?

You will only lose 2 stops with a 2X converter I think, so that gives you a f4.5 400mm lens, alot of flexibility with the set up. Or with a 1.4X would be just over 300mm and f 3.5, still both apertures allowing fast shutter speeds.

[dave]

Thing is, he's not looking at spending that kinda dollar though (see initial post). If he was, then for wildlife the 80-400mm VR would probably be a better choice anyway. I've used one of these a few times, its a true banger.

[Johnny Brown]

You will only lose 2 stops with a 2X converter I think, so that gives you a f4.5 400mm lens, alot of flexibility with the set up. Or with a 1.4X would be just over 300mm and f 3.5,

With a 2x on a 70-200/2.8, you'd get a 140-400/ f5.6. With a 1.4x, it'd be a 100-280/ f4. A tripod mount would be a must.

Otherwise what Dave said - either of these combos or an 80-400 is a very different set-up in terms of size, weight and price to a 70-300.

A third way might be the old Sigma 135-400, or the newer 120-400. Both are neater and cheaper. You don't get a 70-200/2.8 thrown in though.

[clgladiator]

admit-ably my maths was shit in that last post  but as for needing a tirpod to use a 400mm lens at f5.6 I would beg to differ, ive taken many images with canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 at f5.6 and if the light is good or you crank up the ISO a tripod really isnt necessary.

[Jim]

Thinking about getting one of these as they are dirt cheap at Jacobs at the moment
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-42387-jacobs-digital-nikon-55-300mm-f45-56g-af-s-vr-ed-dx-nikkor.aspx?affiliateid=10052&awc=3099_1309551580_d3159846cfd2ba6e13aeeccdd1e392ce

[Johnny Brown]

Reviews are good word - http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm

[Paul B]

ain't jim looking at the longer version?

[Jim]

it pretty much the same lens, just a bit longer and with vr which is very good by all accounts. Autofocus is a bit slow but its nearly half the price of the 70-300

[Jim]

shit, just gone back up to full price this morning before I could get one. knew I should of ordered it online last night

[Johnny Brown]

The 55-200 VR is well cheap word. Sure you need the extra length?

[Jim]

when your hung like me you always need the extra length.
They are £235 at amazon with free delivery. can't justify the extra £150 for the 70-300.
will probably wait for a few weeks to see if they come back down again

[Johnny Brown]

£156 or £277 word - http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat11.html

[Jim]

£235 - AMAZON

[everythingConnected]

Anyone got any experience of telephoto lenses that you might move onto from the 70-300?

Such as the 300mm f4 AFS? Would the fixed 300mm be a much better lens, and would the f4 make a big difference in poor light?

Not thinking so much for wildlife and stationary subjects but more for moving stuff such as a sports lens, surfing etc. where VR isn't quite so useful?

300mm often f4's come up in ebay as either the AF or AFS versions and wondering whether they would be a worthy investment.

[Johnny Brown]

I've got the AFS 300mm f4. Its a very sharp lens though a tad bulky and the tripod mount could be better. f/4 isn't a huge speed increase but it is significant and being a prime it is plenty sharp enough wide open which the zoom is unlikely to be. Another benefit of this is you can add a 1.4x converter to give a 420mm f/5.6 and still retain autofocus and reasonable wide open peformance. A nice bonus with the AFS is that the close focus is very good which makes it a great lens for dragonflies etc. I got mine from Honkers on an ebay 'we pay tax' deal for £500 new.

For serious wildlife photography you need deep pockets and a big bag though. Brolly's shots on the wildlife thread were mostly taken on a 500mm f/4. A lens like that is too big to realistically handhold, and I'll let you discover the price yourself. Other option is a 300mm f/2.8 which is a little smaller and cheaper, but you can bang on a 2x and get a workable 600mm f/5.6. They get hammered by sports photographers so you might be able to pick up a beaten up older model for not much over a grand.

[dave]

The nonAFS 300/4 is well regarded too. Slower AF but better tripod mount.  Probably same or very similar optically.

[Johnny Brown]

True, I went for the AFS as the older ones are like rocking horse shit and therefore not much cheaper, and you lose the close focus.

[dave]

Saw some on mxv few years back at about £250, should have bought one for investment value but realistically would have used it as often as a bag of tungsten tipped screws.

[Control freak]

Other option is a 300mm f/2.8 which is a little smaller and cheaper

That's kinda like saying the Maserati is a little cheaper than the Ferrari... After much research I've decided to go the 300 F4 for all the reasons JB stated. Unless your shooting low light you don't really need the 2.8 and the F4 is pin sharp once you close it down a little. That plus the price (for Canon at least) is only 20% of its big brother seals the deal for me

[everythingConnected]

Yep, think the 300mm f4 is on the cards for me too. Anyone any suggestion for good deals?

[SA Chris]

See if you can get one from Sates or Far East if you or anyone you know is travelling.

[slackline]

But be mindful that the warranty probably won't be valid.

[SA Chris]

Lots have worldwide warranties?

[slackline]

Its the grey market issue I'm thinking of.  I got a lens from Hong Kong and the seven year warranty was provided by the seller through a third-party in the US (thankfully I've not had to rely on it yet, as it sounds like a ball-ache and expensive to send the lens to the US).  I won't be doing this again.

A worldwide warranty would potentially cover you if you buy an item in the country you live in and are then travelling (you can even wait till you get home and sort it out then).  I'm not sure the reverse is true, but am more than happy to be educated.

[Jim]

I bought my D50 in singapore with a worldwide warranty and had the lens repaired in the Uk under it without any problems

[slackline]

 

[dave]

Lots have worldwide warranties?

I'd been told by nikon uk they dont honour warranties on non-EU stock.

[Paul B]

See if you can get one from Sates or Far East if you or anyone you know is travelling.

secondhand?

[everythingConnected]

Can anyone give any ideas as to how much cheaper stuff is in the far east or the sates? ie. Is it worth waiting until you do a trip over there, or just accept that things are a bit more expensive here?

Also how about buying things from over there mail order? Anyone know any good photo websites from over there? Do you get stung for import tax if things then get posted over and how about buying from foreign ebay sites eg. ebay USA???

[Johnny Brown]

It was a few years ago, but I got my 300 f4 from Honkers via ebay, from digitalrev who don't appear to exist any more. The new lens was cheaper than I could get one second hand in the UK. Never had any problems with postage, and they refunded the tax though I got stung on later purchases that didn't.

[Paul B]

digitalrev who don't appear to exist any more

You must have one hell of a filter bubble surrounding you! They have their own site, ebay sales and a darn youtube channel that regularly updates. They have UK warehouses so you don't get charged import duty.

[everythingConnected]

wow, digitalrev does seem cheap, few things on sale at minute that are very good deals.

Are they selling imports via a UK site to cut costs or is it just a discount online warehouse like so many others? And what does Johnny mean when he says he got the tax back?

[Johnny Brown]

If you buy stuff from abroad, one of the main reasons it is cheaper is due to it not being taxed when sold as it would be in the UK (ie VAT - currently 20%). This should be redressed by you being charged import tax by customs when it arrives in the UK. There are ways around this, though illegal, such as marking the box as 'a gift', or stating a lower value on the forms. Or you might get lucky, they might not bother and a parcel just arrives. Digitalrev used to gamble on that by offering to refund any tax you got charged. I daresay customs have got their act together now and everyone gets charged, so no one offers refunds any more.

Are they selling imports via a UK site to cut costs

I think so, yes.

[Control freak]

Other option is a 300mm f/2.8 which is a little smaller and cheaper

That's kinda like saying the Maserati is a little cheaper than the Ferrari... After much research I've decided to go the 300 F4 for all the reasons JB stated. Unless your shooting low light you don't really need the 2.8 and the F4 is pin sharp once you close it down a little. That plus the price (for Canon at least) is only 20% of its big brother seals the deal for me

Change of plan - got one of these bad boys instead (found a good one on ebay)



I'll hopefully get some results to post soon

[Brolly]

Good choice on the 100-400. Great lens which can deliver some great results. Even though it's old the is still works enough for it to be very hand holdable.

So how have you got on with it?

Ol

[Control freak]

Its not bad at all. Definitely hand holdable at 400 tho more often than not its on a monopod. As its mainly used for surf / ocean shots the 5.6 isnt an issue as its generally very bright. I wouldnt use it below 200mm tho as I have a 70-200 2.8 which is infinitely sharper. The bokeh also  isnt quite as pleasing but at $lots less than a faster 400mm lens its great value for money

These were all shot with it





Handheld but sharpened a fair bit in post



Does a great job of compressing the background (about 1km away) but the background quality isnt quite what it could be


F9 at 1/5 of a second. Pretty sure this was hand held so the IS has done well. Again about 1km away