Lens options...

[300+]

I'm thinking of getting a Nikon D7000 in 6-8 weeks. I'll get the 16-85 VR Nikkor as the standard lens. This leaves me wondering about the long end.

The contenders are the Nikon 70-300VR, which Chucaro is getting amazing results with, or the Sigma 120-400 OS. The prices are so close as to make no odds.

The Sigma has the focal length I'm after, but as well as a couple of inches in phyical length it is also an astounding 1KG heavier than the Nikon! I'm no wimp, so I'm thinking that it will be OK to carry that around, but at the same time my camera bag often contains a laptop and loads of other stuff, so the Nikon is sounding like a nice idea. I'm still leaning towards the Sigma however.

The 150-500 is half a stop slower and even larger and heavier so I've ruled it out. Same for the (unstabilised) 50-500.

Opinions?

Thanks, Steve

[dmdigital]

If the money stretches to it a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VRII and TC-20 EIII would be the best pick.

I would go the 70-300 over the 120-400 without having used it. There is a tendency for the Sigma zooms to be slow at focus acquisition. From what I've been told the 150-500 is very good but slow, especially at the 500 end.

[300+]

Thanks Derek, the 70-200 & TC comes to $2,600 at DWI. The 70-300 is $600. I'm sure it would be a lovely lens, but for $2K extra I could take myself to some really nice places to take pictures.

There is the stealth factor of the 70-300 to consider. It looks at least $2.5K cheaper than the 70-200 or 120-400 to the untrained (wifely) observer...

Cheers, Steve

[Snapper]

These are two shots of the same helicopter at the same moment taken with my Nikon 70-300mm on a D90 body.

They where taken with a low resolution setting on the camera however on the full size image I can see the details on the flight crew's face.



http://www.aulro.com/afvb/members/snapper-albums-randoms-picture1959-dsc-0105.jpg @ 70mm

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/members/snapper-albums-randoms-picture1958-dsc-0108.jpg @ 300mm

Snap.

[dmdigital]

There is the stealth factor of the 70-300 to consider. It looks at least $2.5K cheaper than the 70-200 or 120-400 to the untrained (wifely) observer...
I know all to well what you mean. Nikon gear mostly comes in lovely shiny gold boxes. The size of the box for the 70-200 is considerable and VERY hard to hide... :(

Been there and will probably be there again :angel:

[RR5L]

Thanks Derek, the 70-200 & TC comes to $2,600 at DWI. The 70-300 is $600. I'm sure it would be a lovely lens, but for $2K extra I could take myself to some really nice places to take pictures.

There is the stealth factor of the 70-300 to consider. It looks at least $2.5K cheaper than the 70-200 or 120-400 to the untrained (wifely) observer...

Cheers, Steve

Hi Steve,
Just looking at the DWI site, today the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f2.8G ED VR II is only $2163.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f2.8G ED VR II Lenses (http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=2292)1

Out of curiosity this being a .au site, is it the same one everyone is talking about?

[300+]

That's the site. The TC is another $573, to give the higher total. It is hard to justify the extra above the 70-300, given the low quality of my photos.

Cheers, Steve

[Chucaro]

The 70-300VR @ 200mm is as sharp as the 70-200 VR so for my money I will go for the 70-300VR and save for the 300 f/2.8 Sigma as a cheap alternative to the Nikon 300mm f/2.8
You cannot use a TC on the 70-300VR.
Your skills will improve with time and so your results so get the best lens that you can buy and you will be happy for many years to come.
Cheers
Arthur