Advise on buying a zoom lens.

StefanosStefanos Posts: 5Member
edited October 2015 in Nikon Lenses
Stefanos
Hi there, I have a Nikon D610 and replaced the kit lens (24-85mm) with the 24-120mm f/4 VR which was a great thing to do.!! Now, I need to replace an ancient Nikon 70-210mm (f/4.0-5.6) and thinking to get the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR. The question is should I do it, great lens but overlaps from 70mm to 120mm, or wait for the Nikon 100-300mm f/4 which I read somewhere that is coming soon.? Any advise would be helpful.
Post edited by Stefanos on
«1

Comments

  • starralaznstarralazn Posts: 204Member
    i dont know anything about a 100-300mm f/4 lens but... all i know is that it would be a lot more expensive than the 70-200mm f/4
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,742Member
    Buy the 200-500. Is it a big deal that you are missing 80mm in the middle? I suspect not.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    edited October 2015
    Sigma makes a 100-300 f4 and Nikon had a patented in 2012 for one, but hasn't been a peep since from what I can tell. There are some pretty good options available now though...70-200, 80-400, 200-500. Really depends on what you need. Each one is different and will have it's advantage. Also if Nikon did make a 100-300 F4 it would probably be expensive.
    Post edited by tcole1983 on
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    The Sigma 100-300mm F4 was discontinued a year or so ago, but used copies aren't bad price wise.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • esquiloesquilo Posts: 71Member
    edited October 2015
    Get the Sigma 120-300 mm f/2.8 if you can afford it. If not, the Sigma 120-400 f/4.5-5,6 is more affordable.
    Post edited by esquilo on
    Nikon D7100 with Sigma 10-20 mm, Nikon 16-85 mm, Nikon 70-300 mm, Sigma 150-500 mm, Nikon 28 mm f/1.8G and Nikon 50 mm f/1.8G.
    Nikon1 J3 with 10-30 mm and 10 mm f/2.8
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    The 70-200 f4 is way BETTER both VR and IQ-wise than the 24-120 f4 so if you are happy with your 24-120 f4, you would not regret buying the 70-200 at all. @WestEndFoto is right that the 200-500 would give you great range for your $ (providing you need and would use a long lens).

    By contrast, I would get rid of my 24-120 f4 in a heartbeat if there was a better alternative for a wedding shooter, but by better I mean IQ, VR and essentially, low light focusing. I would not part with my 70-200 f4 though.

    Always learning.
  • StefanosStefanos Posts: 5Member
    First I'd like to thank all of you for your help.

    Second, I'd like to clarify a bit my thinking, in case you guys have something to add.

    I would go for the Nikon 70-200 f/4, right now, cause it's light not expensive and it got great reviews!

    On occasion though I do shoot sports, and birds and things, so I would like to have the extra reach (300mm).
    Now, if, as you say, it would be a lot more expensive (Nikon 100-300mm) and if it comes out any time soon, then that would be an $$$'s issue.
    If I were to put in order the three things I want from a lens I would say it's Quality, Weight, Price.

    In the meantime I'll check the specs and reviews of the Sigma lens, however I would rather stick with Nikon as far as quality and consistency. (I might be wrong.!)

    Thanks again.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    You can always grab the 70-200/4 and add a 1.7TC to make it a 120-340/5.6
    See this discussion for details:
    http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/4586/80-400-afs-vs-70-200f2-8-tc20-vs-70-200f4-tc17
  • StefanosStefanos Posts: 5Member
    Thanks Ironheart.
    I'll check it out.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    When I travel, my basic kit is a D810, 24-120 f4 VR, and 80-400 G. If I expect wildlife, I bring a tc14-eIII for the 80-400.

    The combo covers the bases quite well.

    I must have very good copies of these lenses and am satisfied with the IQ and I am very fussy. At 120mm I close the 24-120 to f5.6, up to about 80mm it is good at f4.

    I am doing a wedding (for a friend, I am no longer pro) with this lens this weekend, and with the D810's ability give me a DX crop at 16mp, I no longer use a second body with 70-200.

    I will have backups of course, but if nothing breaks, will shoot the entire wedding with 1 body, 1 lens. Much easier and will miss fewer shots.

    .... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    If you like the range and your old lens I say go for the 70-200. Overlap shouldn't bother you really...it might save you from having to change lenses so much.

    I am actually kind of glad I already have all my lenses as Nikon has released some new stuff that makes choosing what to get a bit more tricky. For my choices and as probably should be for you, you want to think about what you really are shooting and going to use the lens for. The new 200-500 would be better for wildlife, but a little slow for sports in bad lighting. The 70-200 would be better for portraits and general purpose...maybe sports if you can get close enough. 80-400 even for lots of stuff, but still a little slow for sports and might not provide the needed bokeh and look for portraits, but just guessing this and don't know.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • StefanosStefanos Posts: 5Member
    The 80-400's are heavy (about 1.5kg) and the new one is a bit on the expensive side.

    The 70-200 f/4 is light, not expensive and it got great reviews by almost everybody. I'll see how it performs with a teleconverter. (read some reviews and comments).

    I wish there was a good Nikon 100-300 VR and less than 1Kg.

    Am I asking for too much?
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    The 70-300VR is solid out to 200mm, and good at 300 if you close to f8.
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    Problem is cost for what you are wanting. I can see a 100-300 f4 going around $2000+. Depends on how it is built, but compared to other new zooms out at least $2000 is a good bet.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • esquiloesquilo Posts: 71Member
    Why these speculations about a 100-300 mm f/4? I have not seen any patent filed for such lens, at least not from Nikon. Wishfull thinking?
    Nikon D7100 with Sigma 10-20 mm, Nikon 16-85 mm, Nikon 70-300 mm, Sigma 150-500 mm, Nikon 28 mm f/1.8G and Nikon 50 mm f/1.8G.
    Nikon1 J3 with 10-30 mm and 10 mm f/2.8
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    Why these speculations about a 100-300 mm f/4? I have not seen any patent filed for such lens, at least not from Nikon. Wishfull thinking?
    Yes it is.

    @Stefanos, Get the 70-200 f4 and if you need longer, go for 200-500. Best bang for your buck. I expect to end up getting the 200-500 to compliment my 70-200 f4 once I have seen enough reviews on it, and heard enough feedback here about it.
    Always learning.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    edited October 2015
    Lenses that cover the 300mm range has been a covered well but there has not been an outstanding one that does not cost ... the top ones I belief would be the 300mm F4 old and the new PF versions. The 80-400 AFS VR.

    The next level down would probably be the Older 80-400 VR. the old Tokina 80-400 (no VR), the 70-300 VR and some say the Tamron 70-300 VC is better..

    For me I looked at this range and went for the 70-200 F4, used it with my Kenko 1.4 TC and recently I got a TC17ii.

    The70-200 F4 & TC17ii seems to works at least a good as with the Kenko 1.4 TC but gives slightly better magnification. Comparing the 2 TCs, AF seems better on the Nikon vs the Kenko but I am not sure .. The Kenko is of course slightly brighter and at least just as sharp. I have had it for many years now and its done good. The advantage of the Kenko is that it can be used on all but the exotic nikon wide lenses which you wouldn't want to use with TC anyway. I use it at times with Dx lenses for full full FX sensor coverage to mount them on Full Frame cameras.

    But back to the 70-200 F4 plus TC to get to 300. On my D610 the Kenko IQ degradation with TC is not really noticeable but AF get a bit slower in low light. Still not bad but locking onto birds in flight is not good.

    On my D7200 af with the 70-200F4+TC17ii is pretty good. A bit better than with the Kenko. IQ is weaker because the DX sensor is more demanding of the lense( still darn good though! ). But, I have not shot much in low light as the Lack of light( higher aperture due to TC) at such Long Focal lengths requiring much higher shutter speeds limits it more than reaching its AF limit. So very happy with the 70-200 F4 + TC ..

    D610 70-200 + Kenko 14 = https://www.flickr.com/photos/104392783@N07/15291037728/in/dateposted-public/

    D7200 70-200 + TC 17iie = https://www.flickr.com/photos/104392783@N07/22017693012/in/dateposted-public/
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • StefanosStefanos Posts: 5Member
    Thank you all for your thoughts and advise.
    I think, almost certain, I'll go the 70-200 f/4 way.
    Thanks again.
  • tommaytommay Posts: 9Member
    I would buy the 200-500 F 5.6 in addition to the 24-120. Simpley because the focal length overlapping would be too much for me and 500 F5.6 is a really great option. A 100-300 F4 would also be nice if the release were in the near future...
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    28-300 Nikon anybody ?
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    edited November 2015
    I have a friend that has the 28-300.. I have played with it... its ok .. Its equivalent to the 18-200 dx.. The DXO tests says its about the same too. I think the final Images from the 28-300 are a tiny little bit better mainly because you will be using it on FX vs using the 18-200 on DX.

    I have the 70-200 F4... its really is in another league... there is no comparison... I do miss the 28-70mm sometimes ... when I dont have a 24-70 mounted on my second camera :-)
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Great food for thought on the purchase of a another lens. My thinking is to establish what the subject matter is, how you want to shoot this, what your budget is.

    Then, look at a lot of reviews on several websites, and try to figure out if a particular lens is for you. Finally, purchase from a retailer who has a good return policy if you find you do not like it after trying for a few hundred exposures.
    Msmoto, mod
  • HipShotHipShot Posts: 528Member
    28-300 Nikon anybody ?
    The majority of the photos I've taken, and posted at PAD, have been with the Nikon 28-300mm on a Nikon D600. (An equipment double-whammy in some eyes.) :). I bought both in December, 2012 , in what I guess is the narrow window beween the glowing reviews of an affordable Nikon FX DSLR and the materialization of the sensor issue.

    I have other zoom lenses, but the 28-300 is so handy when I want to keep a camera in the truck during my day job(s), not knowing what I might be shooting that day.

    Would I buy it now? Based on what I read on this forum about it, maybe a used one.

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Nikon doesn't make any bad lenses. There are just lenses that are better for certain tasks than others. @msmoto is correct, "...establish what the subject matter is, how you want to shoot this, what your budget is." After that it's easy :-) The 28-300 is a great super zoom all-rounder. Is it equal to a bag full of fast primes? No, but it's a heck of a lot more convenient, and a whole lot lighter.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    edited November 2015
    Everyones' circumstances are different :-) I am glad that Nikon has so many options available...
    We all need to evaluate our own requirements and get our own solutions :-)

    This forum will / has helped me get to the optimum solution for me.
    For my friend the 28-300 is his optimal solution and he has had it for years and travelled to many places with it (travelled instead of getting more gear !). I think he recently added an 18-35 F3.5-4.5 which he loves !! Good/Glad for him !!

    For me, for the functionality of a go anywhere light super zoom, I decided to go with a D7200DX and 18-140.. IQ wise would be almost the same as a FX and 28-300. IQ is better or the same in most ways worst in others, Buts its costs and weighs about half and provides much more functionality. It complements my FX and a few nice primes and zooms which I use for more specific functionality.
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

Sign In or Register to comment.