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.
Should I buy this? (Nikon Lense)
- Thread starter tektonnic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
on your d50 you'd lose metering too iirc.
imo if you need a really cheap 300mm lens you should just get the 70-300. it's like $100 or so in the states; i imagine in the uk it'd priced similarly.
imo if you need a really cheap 300mm lens you should just get the 70-300. it's like $100 or so in the states; i imagine in the uk it'd priced similarly.
homerjward said:
Good points. Though the Nikon lens will perform better.
tektonnic may have higher hopes on the focus issue perhaps.
Well, to be honest I've become completely confused by the whole issue!
I want to do motorsport, and have now been told the 135-400mm Sigma lens might be suitable for my application - just a shame everything starts to cost so much!
I want to do motorsport, and have now been told the 135-400mm Sigma lens might be suitable for my application - just a shame everything starts to cost so much!
jessica. said:
I thought that was addressed by the post I responded to.
I was just saying that the 300mm AIS lens would be sharper than any "affordable" zoom with the 300mm focal length.
Sorry if I did not make myself clearer.
That being said many have been able do well with zooms that cost much less than the lens that was asked about.
So the 300mm lens is a prime? Either way I'd just get that over the 70-300 mm. That 300 mm lens may not be fast, but it's still faster than f/5.6.
My first intuition would be to just save up for a lens that actually does the job adequately rather than get this lens as as stopgap, and keep upgrading every 6 months or so until you get something decent. I don't know how bright it is at these motocross races, or how far you are away from the action, but I'm guessing that a faster prime lens, even one with a shorter focal length (ie: say 150 mm), and a bit of cropping would still give you good results.
My first intuition would be to just save up for a lens that actually does the job adequately rather than get this lens as as stopgap, and keep upgrading every 6 months or so until you get something decent. I don't know how bright it is at these motocross races, or how far you are away from the action, but I'm guessing that a faster prime lens, even one with a shorter focal length (ie: say 150 mm), and a bit of cropping would still give you good results.
Wow, isn't that type of lens.....oh.......5x more expensive than the lens you were looking at before? Without checking the prices, I'd think that it would cost at least £500-700 quid. Take a deep breath, give yourself another week, look at your bank account, and then decide. Don't do it now.
However, I think this is the type of lens you'd need to take the sort of photos you want, so if you came to the realization that buying any other sort of lens to take such photos was a waste of money, then good.
Here's a review:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/124/cat/13
However, I think this is the type of lens you'd need to take the sort of photos you want, so if you came to the realization that buying any other sort of lens to take such photos was a waste of money, then good.
Here's a review:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/124/cat/13
no thats the double ring one, im talking about the push/pull one, http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-80-200-mm-F2-8-ED-Lens-in-great-condition_W0QQitemZ130001382486QQihZ003QQcategoryZ3343QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
jessica. said:
You don't really need to meter. Motor sports photography is repetive. You typically set up near some corners and the cars all follow more or less the same lines and stay in the same light. Once you figure out the exposure it stays the same until the light changes. All you need to do is take one test shot, look at the histogram, make an exposure adjustment then take one more shot to verify. It was not long ago that cameras did not even have built-in meters and people did just fine. But the histogram display is the best meter you will ever find
The only thing is that th f/4.5 lens is not very fast. but in bright outdoor sunlight this will not be to much of a problem.
tektonnic said:
The 80-200 f/2.8 is the lens that every Nikon owner would love to own. It is outstanding. They are made is serveral versions and just keep getting better. It is truely a "profesional quality" lens both optically and mechanically. I've seen used examples of this lens sell for as low as $700.
But I have no idea if 200mm is suitable for your subject. It all depend on how close you are. but anyting longer will require a tripod with a ball head
ChrisA said:
Actually, the one over which most Nikon owners drool and which professionals prefer is the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, which is one of Nikon's finest lenses.