Well, they came out just fine, but the lens that came with the Nikon, while great for close-up shots and such, just doesn't have the reach I'd like. Here's a typical shot of the action, with the stock lens at full zoom (55mm):
Great tackle!
Now, I'd like something that got me closer to the action. I started looking around the 'net for lenses, and quickly realized that I was *way* in over my head. I figured I could do one of three things:
1. Go to local Big Box store, buy whatever they recommend;
2. Find some cheap POS Chinese knock-off crap on eBay, be disappointed; or
3. Pester the hive mind for thoughts on what to get/look for.
Since I also needed blogfodder, you see what you get...
Any suggestions/thoughts/comments on what to look for in a telephoto lens? I've got a Nikon D3100, one of the lower-end digital SLRs but still a pretty nice camera. It's got a Nikkor 18-55mm lens on it now, and I'm leaning towards something like a 70-200 or 300mm lens for distance work. Naturally, I'm a cheap bastard, and this is going to be a limited use lens, so I'm not all *that* keen on dropping the price of a small island nation on camera lenses...
I found a Tamron (which apparently is moderately well-known in the camera world) A017 lens for ~ $150. It's a zoom lens with 70-300mm capacity, which should be more than adequate for my meager zoom needs. It's compatible with my camera; comes with high reviews on several different sites, and can be purchased through Buy.com or Amazon.com with ease.
Any thoughts on this lens - or other suggestions in this range?
That is all.
25 comments:
I can't recommend a specific lens for your camera. But, I can recommend a place to buy from online, B&H Photo. I've always gotten good service at good prices from them. Plus, the user reviews on the site are usually spot on.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
Jay,
My dad's been shooting Nikon cameras for 50+ years. He's on his second digital SLR and swears by Tamron lenses. The 70-300 zoom you suggest is close to his every-day long-range lens. And in the off chance that the 70-300 still doesn't have enough reach, consider getting a teleconverter to install between the camera body and the lens. I think on occasion my dad tosses his 1.4 converter under his lens.
The reason my dad swears by Nikon? Good enough for the Apollo astronuts, good enough for him.
Oh, and Nikon also makes some very nice rifle scopes.
- Brad
i'm going to second the 70-300 glass. you can't really go wrong with it.
I did a LOT of sports photography in my younger days and almost always used a mix of lenses. 300 on one body on a monopole for the close up shots from the sideline and a 70-200 zoom on another body for more wide angle (relatively) shots.
Anything over 200 you'll need image stabilization or a monopod (or both) even in the daylight.
If it's always daylight you can get away with a slower lens but it you ever anticipate evening games or night, you'll need as fast a lens as you can afford.
Personally, I'd start with the 70-200 since you should have one of those ANYWAY.
I can't help too much here, as my Nikkor lenses are all pre-Automatic Index lenses (translation: they are old enough to have gone to the moon).
Having said that, the great advantage of Nikkor lenses is the fact that a lens from 1964 will still fit and work on your camera, albeit with still requiring manual focus, manual adjustment of the f/stop, etc. (It's from 1964, after all.) If you feel like saving money, you can get a 135/3.5 lens for the near-telephoto range that will work just fine, and for relatively cheap (I paid $25 for mine a few years ago). It'll do whatever you need and work in lower-light conditions for a fraction of the cost. It's not for everyone, but you may choose to look into the option.
I've got the Nikkor 70-300, it's a great lens. On a DX body, that's 450mm EFL on the long end. Be warned that you can't use any sort of teleconverter on it (1.4,1.7,2, whatever), as there have been reports of the lens elements coming into contact. That's just the Nikkor, though, unsure about the Tamrom
Nikon also makes an 18-105, which should get you closer, depends on your needs.
Tamrom is...okay. Some of their lenses are great, some are kind of meh. I don't know where it stands, but lensrentals.com seems to like it:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon/lenses/telephoto/tamron-70-300-f4-5.6-di-vc-for-nikon
They are a good place to rent from, if you want to take a lens for a spin, prior to actually purchasing it, or if you decide you want to haul a $7k lens around for the weekend, but don't want to pay that much for it.
+1 for what Alan said. 300mm is long even for a real camera. If your zoom needs really are meager, put your coins into a better quality 70-200 lens rather than a longer barrel with cheaper glass.
His remarks about faster lenses hold true too, but keep in mind that it's harder to make a fast (lower F-number) lens without adding distortion. (It can be done but it's pricey.) Photographing kids and nature scenes doesn't usually require perfect lenses, but you'd probably notice distortion if you're shooting things with lots of straight lines, like architecture.
And for the moment, you can get the equivalent of a longer lens, albeit at lower pixel resolution, by cropping the photos you took.
Sorry I don't know squat about Nikon camera's or lenses. But I am in the market for a new digital SLR, so keep writing about your camera and lens experiences.
Now, about this statement - "this is going to be a limited use lens"
When my daughter made the high school volleyball team I pulled out my old 8mm camcorder and discovered that it was DOA. Since I had only a couple hours before her first match I did a quick internet search - a whirlwind shopping tour of two different stores and eventually bought a low-mid range mini-DV camcorder to replace it. I didn't get a more expensive camcorder because this was going to be a "limited use" item.
I got to the game with 30 minutes to spare and was trying to record the game, take still pictures with my (at that time) fairly new digital SLR, read the camcorder manual and cheer on my kid's team, all at the same time.
What I learned was - I seem to have a multitaking limit of three tasks - not four (so I had to do the guy thing and not read the manual). I also learned that the inexpensive camcorder I had purchaed did a pretty good job of videoing volleyball games. And since it was going to be a "limited use" item I was congratulating myself on my wise decision not to go with a more expensive higher end camcorder.
I wore that camcorder out in three years. And spent countless hours recording video from those miniDV tapes over to DVDs of which I have a library of hundreds now.
I held onto that camcorder way too long. When it finally went belly-up I replaced it with a digital hi-def camcorder. Something I should have done at least a year earlier than I should have. I didn't learn from the last time, and went low-mid range again still thinking it would be "limited use" since my daughter's competitive playing days were winding down. I am rapidly wearing this camcorder out also.
I am constantly barraged by request from players for video footage for recruiting videos, still pictures for recruiting resumes, game footage for coaches, etc. in addition to the video I take and keep of my kid playing.
My "limited use" low-mid range purchases became the third most used piece of electronics I owned behind my wrist watch and my laptop. While they held up well, and did an acceptable job, I would have been a lot happier, and a lot more successful with a higher quality, slightly more feature rich camcorders.
You see as my daughter's involvement in the sports increased so did mine. I went from being a parent with a camera and camcorder to a coach, and eventually director and head coach of my own volleyball club.
So, that was long way around saying - where your kids and sports are involved never assume that anything you do or any equipment you use will be "limited use". I'm not saying buy the most expensive stuff you can get, but don't assume that you will only be using it occasionally at games. Buy good equipment that will get your job done and be a joy to use. But also that you will be willing to allow others around you learn how to use also. (You can't run the camera while coaching, so you have to teach other parents how to do that for you.)
Your kids will continue to suck you and your equipment so far into their world and activities that you will look back years from now and wonder how the heck did I get here? and where did that crappy old camera lens of mine go?
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-55-200mm-VR-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B000O161X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316105876&sr=8-1
I've got this one, no complaints. That's what I used for the Tiger photo a few weeks ago.
http://gunscoffee.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-hunt.html
It's hard to go wrong with actual Nikkor lenses, and the VR helps tons when the shutter speed starts to drop as long lenses tend to do. And for under $200 it's a damn good lens.
When I went to a Digital SLR I was replacing an old 35mm slr from H.School. Similar use as Alan. I took the stock 18-55 and bought the 70-300. I found quickly that for my application I wanted to spend a lot of time between 40-105. I bought an 18-200 with a good aperture for indoor lighting. I love it. I am not lugging 2 lenses and changing them all the time. I'm seriously considering buying an awesome 18-55 ish lens and getting a teleconverter though. Then damn cheer and dance nazi's penalize you for a nice camera because they want to sell their pics. but the enforcers have no clue what a teleconverter is. They just know the numbers on the lens.
How about this: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens -- less than 200 bucks, and it is made by Nikon. I am a firm believer in the OEM lenses. And while I am not a Nikon fan, the small delta between the Tamron and the Nikon lens price would lead me to buy the Nikon.
If you're looking at Nikkor lenses, there are 3 choices for telephoto zooms in the not-bending-over price range. they are the 55-200 f/4.5-5.6, the 55-300 f/4.5-5.6, and the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6. The newest versions of all three have VR, if that's important. All three are widely reviewed as great lenses. Personally, I love the 55-200, but I haven't tried the other 2. Thom Hogan's website has reviews on all three. http://www.bythom.com
Short version: The 55-200 sells for about $200, the 55-300 for about $300, and the 70-300 for about $500. (all for the VR versions, the non-VR versions will be a bit cheaper) The 55-200 is brilliant, small, and light. the 55-300 is the same lens with a bit more reach, and the 70-300 is a step up in build quality, will focus faster, and lets you override autofocus without flipping a switch first. In exchange, you get a higher price tag and more weight.
You had mentioned a 70-200 lens, but I imagine that the 70-200 f/2.8 pro-level Nikkor is a bit out of the price range you were looking for at ~$2000.
No specific recommendations on lens. Since Nikon does its image stabilization in the lens, and not all lenses are IS, make sure the lens you get is--It makes a huge difference in the usefulness of the lens.
Also, if it helps you justify spending the money, Nikkor lenses hold their value a lot longer than Nikon digital camera bodies.
+1 on BH Photovideo. I've been using them for many years with absolute satisfaction and absolutely accurate descriptions.
for example:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207359-GREY/Nikon_1928_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_70_300mm.html
This might suit your needs.
You also might look for some of their used lenses at about a 30% discount.
I've purchased most of my underwater photo gear and all of my camera gear from them.
I have the Tamron 70 - 300 for my Pentax and have had no problems with it at all. It's a nice inexpensive lens that does what I need it to do (similer in scope to what you're saying you want to do), that takes a nice picture. I'll admit that I've never had a Brand Name equivilent to play with and compare, but I have no problem at all recommending the Tamron lens that I have.
I have this:
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-18-250mm-3-5-6-3-Nikon-Digital/dp/B001PGXEGA/ref=sr_1_54?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1316114409&sr=1-54
I got a refurb'ed one for ~$300 or so. It's replaced the 18-55 Nikkor kit lens that came with my D5000 and the 55-200 that I bought to go with it. I use this lens almost exclusively in my day-to-day shooting. It's (relatively) fast, has optical stabilization, and has an f-stop of 3.5, which is a little better than the stock Nikkor glass. My only gripe is that in really close shots (less than 2 feet, well into macro territory) I usually end up manually focusing. And the versatility of not having to change lenses while ealking around really makes it worth a little manual action now and then.
I was a photojournalist and commercial photog for ten years. My thoughts"
The reason you buy Nikon is Nikon glass. Anything less ain't worth it.
Except for Tamron. I had one of the ultrawides for my FM2 back in the day, and I loved it. They'd be the only manufacturer I'd consider using with a Nikon.
And I've ordered from B+H in the past with great results.
My father and two of my coworkers have the Nikon 18-200 VR lens. It's pricey at $800, but it's the only lens many users will ever need. Read Ken Rockwell (pro photographer) gushing about it here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
The zoom range is huge, so you never have to change lenses. It's got excellent vibration reduction, so you don't need a tripod, and the image quality is great.
Optics (both camera lenses and rifle scopes) are an area where you really get what you pay for.
Jay, I heard about a guy ... his name is Oleg, or something ...
I´d recommend nikon 18-200 VR for all-round use. Long end (200mm) for in-game action shots, wide for team pictures and other use. "fast" enough for daytime little league football, ie there's sufficient available light. Same goes for other suggested lenses (70-300 etc), with f-stop around 5 on the long end, shooting night time football kinda sucks.
55-200 is good choice too, not as wide but is has VR(vibration control), and is cheaper than 18-200 VR.
Nikon's 70-200 VR....expensive, but excellent. Worse the conditions, better the results. Look for a used one, use it for some years and probably get your money back when selling it away. Handled properly will hold it's value.
My 2 cents: get the 18-200 because you can do about 95% of all of your photo's with it, then if the photobugs bites you get a dedicated lens for sports shooting.
vw: later
I would go with nikons 18-200 VR
My 2¢ worth, being a Nikonoid who has had a few pictures published and a few more sold:
Camera lenses are one of very few fields left where "you get what you pay for" is almost-literally true. You want high quality glass, you better be prepared to spend a lot for it.
The Nikon 55-200 f/4.5-5.6 is a decent lens for casual shooting, but my experience with it for action shooting (baseball, horse shows, some wildlife) was less than good. It simply did not focus fast enough to suit me, and the images were rarely sharp enough to satisfy me (did I mention I'm also a perfectionist?). I traded it toward a much more expensive Nikon 18-200 f/4-5.6, which is noticeably faster to focus and also noticeably sharper. I don't have any experience with the 70-300 lens.
I don't recommend any lens for which the long-end aperture is smaller (higher number) than f/5.6. Most modern dSLRs can have trouble with autofocus with an f/6.3 lens like the Tamron you mentioned.
If money is no object and you just want pictures sharp enough to cut yourself on, then forget this variable-aperture crap and get yourself a fixed-aperture zoom lens. They cost a bomb, but the quality you get is well worth it. I have a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 which is so sharp it's scary. Put a 1.4x tele-converter behind it, and it turns into a 100-300mm f/4 that's still sharp enough to split a hare.
To summarize: if you want a single go-anywhere-do-anything lens, I'd get the 18-200mm f/4-5.6 Nikkor. If you want a great lens specifically for sports and action, and don't mind going back to the kit lens for ordinary stuff, then get a fixed-aperture midrange zoom like 70-200mm or 100-300mm.
Weeeell... Camera lenses are expensive. Ones that are long range enough for sports especially so. I wouldn't be aghast at spending $10,000 on a lens (Nikon 400mm f/2.8 halloooo baby!)
Most normal people however, object to spending enough to buy a nice car on a camera lens. Your options are either to get closer, or buy cheap old glass and teleconverters (doubles the focal length of a lens but makes it slower).
A non-image stabilized nikon 70-300mm f/2.8 for $160 is probably your best bet.
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Camera/dp/B00005Y3OM
I will not be much use for the actual camera lens, but I can recommend this: Lens Hero . One of the best lens-related search engines I have found thus far.
I use a Canon, and my only additional lens purchase thus far has been a Sigma, but I have been happy with it.
Post a Comment