Does anyone know of a good telephoto lense for the d50. I am new to this whole thing and it is somewhat confusing. Price Range: 300-600 usd. Thanks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon D50 Telephoto
- Thread starter macdaddy121
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF is always a good choice, though in your price range i'd suggest something better...faster aperture and better optical quality, though size gets bigger. You might be able to pick up a used copy of the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF, or a good used copy of the very good Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM APO (don't bother with the DG, its way more expensive and its only difference is a different lens coating), which due to its HSM motor (like nikon's AF-S) has very fast silent focusing.
Silentwave said:
Is there a website you recommend for finding used camera equiptment? Used equiptment always makes me nervous, but if you can trust it to be a good product then you can normally save a good deal.
Dunno what you have for lenses right now, but I'd get the 18-200 VR... little bit more, but more useful than the 70-300s, IMO.
I have a 70-300G, which appears to be fairly similar to the more expensive 70-300ED, and I'm not too happy with it. 200 is probably the most you want to shoot handheld anyway.
I have a 70-300G, which appears to be fairly similar to the more expensive 70-300ED, and I'm not too happy with it. 200 is probably the most you want to shoot handheld anyway.
What will you be shoting?
You've got it backwards. Don't start with price. You have to start with your needs. So my question is "What will you be shooting?" No need to answer the questions
1) What size subjects. People or groups of them or small birds
2) What distance.
3) is the subject moving, how fast?
4) What light? bright daylight only or dusk, dawn and overcast or indoors?
4) can you use a tripod?
depending on your answer
So it could turn out that a low cost lens would work, or it could be that there is no way you can do it for $600 Or it could be that you could do best by looking into the large market ofused Nikon lenses. So is it small birds at 100 yards in the late afternoon or indoor head and should portraits?
macdaddy121 said:
You've got it backwards. Don't start with price. You have to start with your needs. So my question is "What will you be shooting?" No need to answer the questions
1) What size subjects. People or groups of them or small birds
2) What distance.
3) is the subject moving, how fast?
4) What light? bright daylight only or dusk, dawn and overcast or indoors?
4) can you use a tripod?
depending on your answer
So it could turn out that a low cost lens would work, or it could be that there is no way you can do it for $600 Or it could be that you could do best by looking into the large market ofused Nikon lenses. So is it small birds at 100 yards in the late afternoon or indoor head and should portraits?
macdaddy121 said:
You really should be asking this over at http://www.nikoncafe.com It works like here after a few posts you have acces to the "marktplace" and people are always Nikon selling stuff there and because you need like 50 posts to access it these are peole with a reputation, not the pawn shop owners and the like you find on ebay.
With nikon if you really have a budget you can always fall back to _very_ old lenses made in the 1970's. For example a 135mm f/2.8 might sell for $80 and the old lens is very sharp. I've got one that I think I paid about $85 for. It doesn't work on "auto" mode so many peole don't want it hence the price. but with $600 you can do much better.
fireball jones said:
Yeah, I'd save for the 18-200 VR. If you're new at this like me, you'll pretty much never have to take this lens off.
Also, you (probably) won't need to buy a tripod and such if you're using a long telephoto (ie: 300 mm) and want decent results, because you won't always get decent results at 300 mm without one. The "VR" stands for "Vibration Reduction", which is great since beginners love shooting handheld because they always have, and a tripod is just a nuissance and impractical to carry around (although many photographers don't mind if they're really into it, since it gives them results they like).The 70-300 mm is ok, but it's very limiting because while it's good for general use, it's not great in any particular area and offers no advantages. If you're going to buy a lens for the long-term, then always buy a lens that's definitely a "keeper".......something that you won't sell on eBay 6 months from now and lose money on just because you wanted a cheap solution.
What do you like shooting? I have a D50 and don't have a single telephoto lens because I find that I rarely ever need to shoot things far away. I like landscapes and such, and will eventually get a 105 mm macro lens of some sort, but that's probably not long enough to be considered a telephoto.
ChrisA said:
Let me second this recommendation. I've been a member at NikonCafe for over a year now (username AFS), and they're the finest camera forum on the net! You can access the For Sale forum after 25 posts (sometimes you need to wait for the forum software to catch up). You can get there real easy. Introduce yourself, ask a few questions, comment on and post photos.
True, but with the d50 you would lose all metering functions as well as have to manually focus in a small viewfinder. its probably easier to deal with a used AF lens that will meter and focus.
Dude I wish, I've never seen the sigma 70-200mm non DG for "way cheaper" than the DG model. But there will be a new version soon enough, that has the Macro title.Silentwave said:
jared_kipe said:
I was pretty sure i've seen them around $650ish used. With the new version coming ( I remember reading about that) prices may continue to drop.
There are gathering rumors of a new 70-300VR from Nikon. Both the G and ED lens are on tight supplies right now. Maybe in the next 30 days or so we might see a new lens announced. I can only hope.
The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR has apparently been on hold lately for a design revision. It was all set to go but the designers had second thoughts- it was already at least as good as the 18-200 VR, they wanted it to do one better.
Price point may be out of this person's range though...and the slow aperture is like the 80-400 VR...sloooow.
Price point may be out of this person's range though...and the slow aperture is like the 80-400 VR...sloooow.
I have a 70-300mm Sigma lens with macro @ 300mm, I have no complaints with it. I've used it continuously for the past say... 4+ years? and its still working as if new.
i've used it with my N65 and my D50, wasnt too pricey either. I believe I got it for well under $250.
i've used it with my N65 and my D50, wasnt too pricey either. I believe I got it for well under $250.
Silentwave said:
Runs counter to the info that I have heard from sources in the know.
Only time will tell.
It was originally supposed to come out alongside the 105VR. My sources in the know say it was held up for an improving revision...but it has apparently now been completed. We may see it soon
Silentwave said:
Not an expert on Sigma lenses, but doesn't the DG signify that the lens can be used on the smaller digital APS-C, and 35mm film formats, while DC lenses can only be used on digital? I don't know what it means when a Sigma lens has none of these classifiers, but I thought I was sure about the first 2.
You never know........maybe Nikon will go full format one day (a long long time from now).
Abstract said:
There is absolutely NO restriction on what lenses conforming to the Nikon AI or CPU standards can be used on digital. None.
DG means that it has been 'enhanced' for digital with a different lens element coating.
DC for sigma means that it cannot be used on 35mm film cameras because the image circle is designed to cover DX.
Sigma and Nikon have not and most likely will not be making DX/DC telephoto zooms outside the consumer range. Once you get to constant-aperture lenses of that focal length, the lens MUST be that big and will cover the larger format anyways.
Silentwave said:
Not sure how you meant this. See attached lens compatibility chart for the D70s.
Yes, most any AI or later Nikon F mount lens can attach, but there are restrictions on metering and the such. As a note the D200 and D2X allow for AI lenses to be used for metering.
Maybe not. Given the announcement of the Tokina 50-135/2.8 and rumors of a similar Tamron, Nikon may do a 50-135/2.8 AF-S VR lens ( a FOV for the popular 70-200 focal range).
As to a digital specific 70-200/2.8, it could be made perhaps 10 to 20% smaller and lighter than a 35mm equivalent , due to the smaller image circle needed. The question is one of whether it is worth Nikon's effort to do such a lens. For as long as the F6 is in the line-up, and used F4's, F5's, f100's, and the such are still being used, there is little need to change.
What you may find is secondary "pro" digital lenses to answer the 35mm equivalent FOV's of the likes of the 80-400VR (a 50-275VR AF-S DX) and the 200-400VR (a 135-270VR/2.8 that could be shorter and smaller than 35mm 200-400VR/4.0).
For the joy in digital is the 1.5X FOV factor has given to those that need longer reach. But for many that is not a real need. And having two lens types will help consumers in the end.
On the Nikon DX format, not everyone wants or needs the FOV of 105-300 that the 70-200VR/2.8 gives; but a smaller and lighter 50-135VR/2.8 would be an ideal companion, with a 35mm FOV of 70-200.
Attachments
What i'm saying is that there is no need to make it DX, as the actual size savings are nil.
While yes there are potential uses for say a 50-135, I would prefer that they make that f/2.0 instead.
While yes there are potential uses for say a 50-135, I would prefer that they make that f/2.0 instead.
Silentwave said:
At a 10% savings I might agree. But at 20% there might be a market if it weren't the obscene price of the 70-200VR. Price the 35mm version at $1100-1200 and the smaller lighter DX version at $1500-1700 - then the market will decide.
While that would be nice, one only has to look at the Olympus f2/.0 lenses to see that making that jump to 2.0 verses 2.8 does not add to any savings in size or weight in current optical design.
Some of use are truly wanting 35mm equals for for DSLR's, at a size and weight savings.