Recommend me a telephoto lens

Currently reading:
Recommend me a telephoto lens

Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
9,933
Points
2,037
Location
Cheadle, Staffordshire
Nikkor 70-300mm is ****e.

Been to Chester Zoo today and so took the D50 along to take some nice close up photos of the animals.

The telephoto lens ive got its the Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6. Ide never really used it before but to say im dissapointed is an understatement. The lens came with the camera (bought as a second hand kit on ebay) so I had no choice in it. Ive just been reading through reviews on the net and it seems it is actually a pile of **** lens. The photos are distorted, and hazy at the far end. None of what ive taken today have been "sharp" even though some were taken at 1/2000th of a second! They are all in focus but just have no detail. There was also quite alot of fringing noticable in the full res photos. Seems this is exactly what all of the reviews have said.

DSC_0054.jpgDSC_0079.jpg
DSC_0089.jpg


Admittedly, these images dont look too bad but these are the best of a bad bunch and the higher res ones were far worse quality. Its definatly the lens though as my other lens (nikkor 28-80mm 3.3-5.6) gives superb results. What im talking about is most noticable in the rhino and meercat photos. Just look at the lack of sharp detail on the skin. it should have sharp clean edges, they are just distored. And look at the grass, theres just no detail or definition to anything.

sam1.jpg

now compare the above image to the previous images (at the zoo). This was taken with the 28-80mm Nikkor. Just look at the gorgeous sharp detail in the hairs and the grass. The colour is superb and the photo in general is gorgeous.

So now im looking for a new telephoto. the one I had on the Olympus E-500 was stunning. Fantastic lens. I want something like that heh, but ive no idea where to start. If anyones got any recommendations then I would love to have a look about. Budget isnt massive but anything considered. Would be bought second hand anyway. Has to fit a Nikon D50 and it doesnt really matter what make it is as long is its a good lens! My faith in Nikkor lenses has been lost on this one but apparently its actually a rebadged tamron anyway.

Cheers guys!
 
Last edited:
Re: Nikkor 70-300mm is ****e.

sigma bigma, or Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8, (effectivly a 120-300mm zoom on a nikon digital body though)
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm, seems decent enough. Only one on ebay thought and its a canon lens :mad: Although it does seem a little too big for what I want. Im after something more compact I can sensibly carry around.

Looked into a few other sigma lenses though, mainly a 70-250ish one. cant remember the exact spec but it seemed very nice.
 
Last edited:
zenit fs-12 fotosneiper. its a body and lense combo mounted to an actual russian gun stock WITH TRIGGER for shutter! (well earlier fotosneipers used wooden gun stocks, fs-12 and newer use a metal jobby).

photographic quality, erm, poor-fair.
cost, few quid
coolness factor, intense
chances of being shotdown by a swat team whilst taking pictures of ducks in a pond, VERY HIGH :cool:
 
I got that nikkor lense too, my old man give me it and i cant say i've ever used it properly on my D50! Although some of the shots he used it for on his nikon F55 come out nice with it, might avoid using it on my D50 now though!

I been reading good things about the 18-200mm nikon f3.5-5.6 G IF-ED AF-S VR DX. Trouble is being an AF-S lense its a bit more in price and not exactly needed for the D50 as it can use AF lenses as well!

Sigma do some good lenses but theyre not quite up to nikon quality but all depends on what your gonna use them for. I just got a sigma 10-20mm super wide angle for my D50, which are priced at £300 here and the equivlent nikon lense was £849! So no contest there really for my needs.

Do you read any of the photography magazines? I always find digital photo magazine gives pretty good/fair reviews on lenses
 
the problem is its a nikkor. yes there are good ones, but from my experiance with the things they aren't the best.
go for a nice tamron, or sigma or something. a good tele is hard to come by, and aren't cheap. hence why I don't bother, purely can't afford anything worthwhile :(
 
Back
Top