I am Getting a new D300 what lenses to get?

[Ben Harris]

Hey all,
I have decided to upgrade the Minolta 7D. So i have my bag of coins (Lots).
I have decided to get a Nikon D300. Now i need to get a lens or 2.
I want a 18 - 50 2.8 and a telephoto zoom. I noticed there is a Sigma 50 -500mm 3.5
I do wild life and sports so it looks quite good.

Any suggestion would be appreciated..

[peterst6906]

For a good general purpose lens, the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom is fantastic.

Since you are in to wildlife and sports, then the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) has proved very popular and you wouldn't go too far wrong in getting that for the longer focal length. It's slower than the Nikkor 18-200, but the range is awesome.

There are a couple of members on here who have the Bigma, so hopefully they'll see this thread and comment.

Regards,

Peter

[sean_buerger]

Hi there,

it's perhaps a good idea to take a look at Welcome to Photozone!. This website does good lens testing and avoids the all too common euphoria, whenever a new lens comes out.

I will not comment too much on the 18..200 lens. It offers a great range of course, but I srtrongly believe that it means compromises in other areas.

Keep in mind that the D300 is probably the most demanding camera for a lens, that you can buy. 12 Megapixels on a DX sensor!

My advise is this: keep it simple! Limit your lens purchases and explore first.

Cheers, Sean.

[shooter210]

For the sports side I think the f-stop is more important than length. If you are planning on shooting anything under stadium lights you will hate anything over 2.8 on the f-stop unless you are shooting NFL stadiums and such. If all you plan on doing is kids playing local soccer during the day then it's not as important. Sometimes budget means more than anything but if you are looking for a standard in sports I would dig deep and look at the 70-200mm f2.8 as a starter. It's not going to get you the length but you can frame the subject nicely.

just my two cents... but my two cents won't buy you a lens

[badpickev]

looking at glass you have a few choices for a standard dx zoom.

sigma 18-50 f2.8 - sharp and has hsm
tamron 17-50 f2.8 - a little sharper than the sigma but lacks hsm cheaper as well
tokina 16-50 f2.8 - a little pricey and is equal to 24-75, reports of soft at 2.8
nikon 17-55 f2.8 - has af-s and is the most expensive pros claim its worth the money

for a sports lens you want a fast lens and the bigma is not it. the bigma is f4-6.3. by 200mm its at 6.3. i have shot baseball games with this at 800 iso and after the sun goes down its done. the motion blur is really bad. so you are left with just the fast glass.

sigma 70-200 f2.8 - pretty sharp and costs about $900
tamron 70-200 f2.8 - still not in the us but pre release pricing is set to $700
nikon 80-200 f2.8 - cost is about the same as the sigma
nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR - has vr for hand holding and monopod use worth the $1600
sigma 120-300 f2.8 - has the longer range that may be needed, some reports of softness $2700

a cheap way for wildlife is a used 400mm f5.6 lens or you can go with a bigma.

[cyclohexane]

I do wild life and sports so it looks quite good.

What kind of wildlife, and what kind of sports?

For field sports, you'll eventually need something fast (f/2.8 ) and longer than 300mm, and a 300mm f/2.8 is $4500 USD. It only gets uglier from there.

t's perhaps a good idea to take a look at Welcome to Photozone!. This website does good lens testing and avoids the all too common euphoria, whenever a new lens comes out.

Photozone only tests copies of lenses provided by users, so they're mostly used lenses. The tests don't account for damage to the lens, which will affect performance.

[badpickev]

i forgot to ad the sigma 100-300 f4 for $1000

also check out slrgear.com

[sean_buerger]

Michael wrote "Photozone only tests copies of lenses provided by users, so they're mostly used lenses. The tests don't account for damage to the lens, which will affect performance."

Sean says:
-1- Not all tested lenses are provided by users. The Tamron 180 & Tamron 18-250 were provided by the lens manufacturer. I do agree that most tested lenses however are used ones.

-2- What I've gathered from their website is: if a lens has a centering issue, they will usually try a 2nd sample.

-3- What I've gathered from their website is: If performance gets affected by e. g. centering issues, this is usually mentioned in the text.

I have found their tests to be accurate and the results to be reproducible with my own lenses.

Sean.

[cyclohexane]

Well, I'm glad to see that their testing and reviews have changed. Before, it seemed like they tested whatever people lent them, and people aren't likely to get their lenses tested unless they suspect something wrong with them.

[sean_buerger]

It certainly never seemed like that to me

Personally I don't agree with you here. But never mind

Cheers, Sean.

[Ben Harris]

Thanks for all the input there are so many to choose from I do agree to sacrifce length for speed.
I have been looking everyday and still not any clearer.

[badpickev]

well ben i have the bigma, i have shot a lot of wildlife and its great for that. i have shot car races and airshows. once again the bigma works, if you have a lot of sun light. i also shot a baseball game with it at night. its not so good.

so if you are going to be daylight shooting, the bigma works fine.
if you are going to be in other lighting conditions, i would look at say the 120-300 f2.8 with a 1.4x. this will give a lot of range and still be sharp.

if you need pics i can post some.

[dubnikova]

The 18-200 VR DX looks very viable as a main pole. But it has its limits. You should buy it first (or get it in a kit) and later see if you need more specific gear.
AD

[Ben Harris]

Originally Posted by badpickev

well ben i have the bigma, i have shot a lot of wildlife and its great for that. i have shot car races and airshows. once again the bigma works, if you have a lot of sun light. i also shot a baseball game with it at night. its not so good.

so if you are going to be daylight shooting, the bigma works fine.
if you are going to be in other lighting conditions, i would look at say the 120-300 f2.8 with a 1.4x. this will give a lot of range and still be sharp.

if you need pics i can post some.

Can you post a couple that would be great.

[badpickev]

i am gonna cheat here. taken with the oh so slow fuji S3.

the air show was hand held i was at 300-500mm on the bigma.

Air Show

almost all the bird pids were with the bigma, shot from a tripod, some had the 1.4 sigma on it. the 3 in the nest were with the 1.4

Bird Pics

baseball were with the bigma at 200-300 and the wide shots were with the tamron 28-75 f2.8

Baseball Pics


you should be able to get a good feel for what the lens can do, and where it starts to lack. this last pic, i knew i could not get the cars sharp, so i let them blur. lens was rested on my knee for support. daytona july 2005

[Ben Harris]

Thanks for that i see it struggles onder stadium lighting abit but in all it looks quite good..

[Nikonfreak]

I had the Bigma at one time because I felt it was a reasonably inexpensive way to get to 500mm for nature pics. And, it is. It's a pretty good lens and a great value for the money, but there are limitations.

The thing about it is that beyond a certain distance (not all that far..closer than you'd expect for a 500mm lens), and I don't know if badpickev has experienced this or not, beyond a certain distance, it seems that the lens doesn't resolve detail very well or things get fuzzy or hazy. This hazy or fuzziness, lack of sharpness, doesn't seem to be there in the Nikon primes or if the subject is close enough (inside that distance I'm referring to) when using the 50-500 Sigma. After you've had the lens a while you'll start seeing where that distance is where you get a fuzzy subject and be able to gauge it.

The Bigma can be used for in-flight birding with decent success but it takes time to get it's timing and it is a real challenge... it is a big lens and focusing is a challenge sometimes. Use of a tripod is a must IMO beyond 300mm with that lens and it's noticeably softer from about 420-500mm. It's a slower optic so I found myself shooting at ISO 250-400 most of the time, even in brighter daylight.

Sigma should update the lens, improve the optics a little and make it a 200-500 f/4-5.6 with a $1,500-2,000 price point. You never use this lens within the 200mm mark...after all, isn't the long end why you'd buy this lens? It's characteristics at 50-150mm aren't that good, but they'll do if it's either take a shot with the Bigma there or miss an opportunity. You'll never say, I need a 50mm-100mm today, let me take the Bigma.
If Sigma did that change, they'd have an excellent optic that would be very useful for nature photographers and they'd probably have the amateur and semi-pro market all to themselves.

If you are going to go with a slower optic, and looking for reach, I think a better option would be the 300 f/4 Nikon AF-S with a 1.4 or 1.7x teleconverter. It will be very sharp and even with the teleconverters the lens is still fantastic (staying within this relative price point). Beyond that there's the excellent 120-300 f/2.8 Sigma and with converters you can get pretty close. Some of the Nikon 300mm prime f/2.8 lenses are out there used and can be had at relatively decent prices as well. Using converters on those is an excellent alternative.

Best of luck whichever way you go and please post some images!

Julio