[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.