DSLRUsers.com

hey, great site...

I'm just looking to replace my Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 that came with my D70.

I need a faster lens for shooting motor-sport at night, etc...

Any ideas of a good Nikon that might do the job?

cheers..

Plenty of good fast longer options...
70-200, f2.8
300, f2.8
depends on how much you have to spend!
(this forum may be able to help you there too!)

Hi and welcome to the forum Pehsi.

Before we can help you out on a decision, we need to know what is your budget to spend on the new lens. And will you expect or be willing to carry big and heavy stuffs around? Or want a cheaper/lighter alternative?

g'day.

300, f2.8 sound perfect..never used one before, im drooling just thinking about a new zoom...

like this site, think i'll stay for a geeze..

hey there, Yi-p.

probably want to spend about $1500 or a bit more..

mainly after a good lens thats faster than my Tamron 70-300, which is a snail i reckon..

Pehpsi wrote:hey there, Yi-p.

probably want to spend about $1500 or a bit more..

This will get you nowhere a scratch for a Nikon 300mm f/2.8, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 can cost you way over $7000~8000


With a budget of $1500, you can best get an AF-S 300mm f/4 lens, which is reasonably 'fast' and has superb optics near the 300/2.8 but at one stop slower.

Adding a "bit" (I dont know how much is a bit for you), at about $2300-2400, you can get a AF-S 70-200VR f/2.8, no more need to say how good and superb this lens is until you get your hands on one. You'll simply not drop it down anymore.

Will you also give us some details and background about your experience and type of photography you expect to take with the long lens? So we can narrow you down on a better choice based on budget vs application wise. So you dont spend big bucks for something you dont even get to use it much.

1500$ can get you a second hand 300 2.8 ais. or a beaten early af version

Or the Sigma 70-200 for around $1200 and a teleconverter for around $250

holy crud, $7000! must be some lens..

i think about $2000 is as much as i should spend seeing as i'm pretty new to photography and still learning the ropes.

i'd like the zoom for drag racing which i go to on a regular basis, and use the 300mm focal a fair bit, not sure if 200mm would be enough? (havent used anything else besides my tamron).

problem is at night with the tamron. shutter drops low and need 1000+ iso which i hate.. PS: under 'profile' i cant see anywhere to add a signature like others have, any ideas?

Pehpsi wrote:holy crud, $7000! must be some lens..
i think about $2000 is as much as i should spend seeing as i'm pretty new to photography and still learning the ropes.

As said above, you can go for a Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM DG for around $1100, add a Sigma 1.4x TC will get you a ~100-280mm f/4 lens. Total cost is still under your budget to save you some dollars change as well.

A 300 prime is very good and sharp, but its weight and tight FoV is hard to handle without support from either a monopod or tripod if you are using it for quite a while.

 PS: under 'profile' i cant see anywhere to add a signature like others have, any ideas?

Have you looked hard enough?

Signature:
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 4 line, and 255 character limit. Graphics are not permitted in signature blocks.

Pehpsi wrote: i'd like the zoom for drag racing which i go to on a regular basis, and use the 300mm focal a fair bit, not sure if 200mm would be enough? (havent used anything else besides my tamron)

Mate, I wouldn't consider a 300 prime for Drag racing. The very speed at which the accelerate off the mark makes it difficult if you are to 'near' the action. Panning would be interesting to say the least, so you would want a F/2.8 lens to allow fast shutter speeds, which will capture exhaust flame and tyre distortion.

The Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 is a good option to start with. Depending on the body you have, you will be able to crop your image closer to your subject. The lens will produce nice contrasty sharp images that will make you happy. They can be picked up for less that $1000 on Ebay.

Good luck and we want to see some pics soon!

Oh, and welcome aboard!

Yi-P wrote:

 PS: under 'profile' i cant see anywhere to add a signature like others have, any ideas?

Have you looked hard enough?

Signature:
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 4 line, and 255 character limit. Graphics are not permitted in signature blocks.

You have to be a member (at least 30 posts) to see the signature area in profile.


Russell

Pehpsi
What camera do you have?

yeah, i'll look into a 70-200 for sure, think i need to get my hands on one and see how it goes..then look at a TC if needed..

probably stick with nikon if i can to use with my D70, which is my first camera and love so far..

i only have 1 drag shot at the moment in my random gallery, a good mate made me a site recently to get me started in the awesome world of photography


http://www.jamesrobertphotography.com

cheers for the help guys

thanks, rflower, i was goin crazy looking for it..

hey, matt, had a D70 for about 6 months which is my first cam and it was a top first choice. got my eye on a D2X though, which requires quite a few clams...

had a look and like the 70-200 VR f2.8 (looks pretty big too)

or the 80-200 f2.8.

'VR' adds a bit of price too. is there much difference without this addition?

anyone used a nikon with VR?

Pehpsi wrote:had a look and like the 70-200 VR f2.8 (looks pretty big too)

or the 80-200 f2.8.

'VR' adds a bit of price too. is there much difference without this addition?

anyone used a nikon with VR?

The 70-200VR is indeed big lens, but the 80-200 is not small either.

Both lenses are very good optically.

The 70-200VR has its premium in the AFS and VR functions. Which can serve you very well specially in motor sport and drag racing for its speed and VR to help you do the panning shots.

Yup, a lot of people on here use the VR lens.

I am a Canon shooter myself, but I have lurked enough around here to have a vague idea about the Nikon Range.

VR stands for Vibration Reduction (correct me if i am wrong!). It allows to handhold the lens at longer shutter speeds then the "norm" of 1/f. This is done through corrective optics in the lens itself.

It does add a bit to the cost, but a lot of people seem to like it. I don't have any IS lenses (the Canon equivalent), but certainly wish i did.

The VR doesn't affect the quality of the optics in the lens much, but allows you to shoot with slower shutter speeds.

Good luck with the search, I am presently searching for the same thing in the Canon system!

Tristan

I see...

Some on ebay for $2100 which is close to my budget and from the same people i got my 12-24 from, only took 4 days from hong kong too.

haven't had the chance to use a Canon yet, but wouldn't mind! All the pro's use Canon gear at the drags.


I'll let ya know what i decide anyway, gota pay the car rego first i think

cheers for all the replies people...got some good info from this site...

Welcome to the forum...nice gallery and website btw...

I have the 70-200 VR, great lens and I am glad I shelled out a "little" extra to get the "VR"

hey, thanks.

yeah i've heard nothing but good about the Nikon lens, pretty sure i'm gona buy it, can't wait too...

pehpsi, probably worth thinking if the VR functionallity will be of much use to you at the drag races. I would expect that you would probably be using quite fast shutter speeds to get clear shots of the moving cars and so VR would be less of an issue (this is my understanding of how they work, without actually ever using one). You may be able to save yourself some dollars.

Pehpsi,
I've been to the drags a few times now, and trust me VR is not required for the speeds you will be shooting at.
I would seriously look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 for the drag racing, you can always add the 2x converter and still have change from $2K
Saying that though I was in your postition last year and I still bought the Nikon

hey guys, i probably wouldn't need the VR all that much for racing, but don't mind spending a bit extra to get it.

photography is my only hobby really, and i route all my cash flow in it's direction, and couldn't be happier to do so

I'd like to stick with nikon, too, as i'm pretty happy with their gear, like my 12-24 which i'd lose an arm for..

I've never used a Teleconverter before, but would probably need one.

-do they cost much?
-do they work OK?
-much weight to them?

keen to know...

cheers..

Pehpsi wrote:-do they cost much?
-do they work OK?
-much weight to them?

1)
In the world of camera gear, no. About a couple of hundred dollars to import from HK for a Kenko one.
2)
I have never used one, but you do lose some image quality using them. You also lose the same amount of apperture that you gain in focal length. Eg. a 70-200/2.8 will become a 140-400/5.6 with a 2x teleconverter.
3)
Again, not much. Few hundred grams.

ahh i see, all seems to make sense...

thanks for the speedy reply

No problems, in the middle of uni exams at the moment, willing to do anything not to be studying for them.

Tristan

that's the spirit mate

almost the weekend too, weather's meant to be pretty sweet...

Yi-P wrote:
This will get you nowhere a scratch for a Nikon 300mm f/2.8, the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 can cost you way over $7000~8000

Hi Yi-P

300 VR ........AUS$5780.00 to be exact
I have one on back order!

Cheers
Marc

marc wrote:
Hi Yi-P

300 VR ........AUS$5780.00 to be exact
I have one on back order!

Cheers
Marc

You lucky bastard... my envy is burning...

The 70-200 VR is a great lens. I usually use it with the VR turned off (showjumping and snowsports). If you consider a Nikon TC, the general advice is to get the 1.7 rather than the 2.0. I got the 1.7 and am happy with the combo.

Pehpsi wrote:hey, great site...

I'm just looking to replace my Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 that came with my D70.

I need a faster lens for shooting motor-sport at night, etc...

Any ideas of a good Nikon that might do the job?

cheers..

I don't think for $1500 you will find a fast zoom lens from Nikkor lineup.

You can buy Nikkor AF 180mm f/2.8 IF-ED for under $1500. Highly rated lens:
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nik ... /index.htm

For $1500, the best buy, for me at least, would be
Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM APO
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sig ... /index.htm

Or, buy Olympus DSLR (Olympus's DSLRs are cheap at the moment) and Olympus Digital Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 ED covering 100mm-400mm in 35mm equiv. Olympus makes good lenses. This particular one is good and not very expensive.

E-1 and Zuiko 50-200mm can be bought for less than $1500

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/oly ... /index.htm

Edit: Acutally, for low light photography, Olympus DSLR with its small 4/3 sensor, will not be a good choice.

If you can live with 200mm, there's nothing wrong at all with the AF-D 80-200/2.8 - probably set you back $1200 or so. Image quality very very close to the 70-200, just doesn't have VR.

and slightly slower focussing id imagine due to lack of AFS..

-julz

Don't forget the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8

Perfect range for motor sport and very fast. Just a bit on the heavy side...