Nikon Telephoto Lens Recommendations

Nikon is coming out with a 200-500 lens soon.

David,

I'd look at ALL lens makers, Tamron,Tokina,Sigma,etc. Most people have something in the range of a 70-200 or so and that is a nice range. But for now, I'd look at the off brands too and see if there is one, that might be a bit faster than the Nikon lenses and in the same price range or cheaper.

If the budget allows, I'd look at the full frame lenses, for down the road,when you move up to the full frame body, possibly,

Rich

Thanks Mark, Rich. I don't know if I'll ever get serious enough to get such expensive, heavyweight gear as super zoom lenses and full frame cameras. Right now I just want the ability to bring things in somewhat closer than I can now with the 18-55. Thanks for mentioning speed, that's a consideration I hadn't thought of.

I use the Sigma 70-300 which I have loved. It can produce some really sharp images.

Thanks Toby, the price is right on that one too.

Man, it's alphabet soup out there. I assume DG APO is preferable to SLD DG? What little I understand about it I'm thinking the extra $30 is worth it. I also see there's a super duper DG OS SLD, is the extra $100 really worth it? Something about multi layer coated lens something or other.

David,

You get what you pay for, most of the time. As just a starter zoom lens, I would just get something within the budget and start shooting. It be nice, if it had a "macro" function, which I think you might actually use more than a 55-200, or a 70-200. A 70 to 300 is really a nice range and a good lens.

And I would also look at eBay and maybe find a used lens, from a reputable dealer, with better glass and a faster aperture range. And the nice thing about buying a used lens, is that if you don't like it, you can just go and sell it on eBay and not lose much.

I've bought stuff on eBay and sold over $100,000 of camera stuff too, so if you deal with good vendors, you don't have anything to worry about,

Rich

Just to agree with Rich when it comes to lenses you definitely do get what you pay for. That said if you know the limitations of the less expensive lenses and don't expect them to do things that they just can't you can get good images under the right circumstances.

I'll admit, I'm not well versed on what a difference in lens quality will do. I only plan on shooting static subjects, mainly landscapes and parked cars. I don't need to shoot fast (at least I don't think I do). Is $200 cheap for this kind of lens? I really don't know, but it seems most in this focal length range run $150-$300. I'm comfortable with spending $200, but am willing to spend more if it's really worth it. I just want good bang for my buck, no need for overkill.

Should I be considering upgrading the 18-55 kit lens too? Are there limitations to the kit lens that's making it harder than it should be to take the photos I want?

David the OS model has image stabilization which can be good because when you are zoomed tight into something a tiny movement can cause motion blur. I got the non-OS version and I am very careful about motion blur - I keep my shutter speed as fast as I can. Sigma says their image stabilization will be like dropping 4 stops.

If you're interested, here a few samples of images taken with my Sigma 70-300:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/citgo-sign-closeup-boston-ma-black-and-white-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/sunrise-on-salem-harbor-salem-ma-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/fenway-park-banners-boston-ma-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/a-spring-day-on-the-charles-river-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-boston-skyline-from-east-boston-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-prudential-lit-up-in-red-white-and-blue-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/sunrise-on-cadillac-mountain-bar-harbor-maine-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/illuminating-boston-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/colby-farms-sunflower-field-newbury-ma-lineup-toby-mcguire.html
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/sleeping-duck-toby-mcguire.html

I have no regrets on buying this lens whatsoever.

David, before I comment any further I should add the disclaimer that I shoot Canon so I am not to familiar with the actual Nikon versions of the lenses. But for what you are planning on shooting and if the light is bright you should be ok with the lens Toby recommends. I do know the Canon 18-55 kit lens is actually a pretty decent lens so if you don't need low light performance of precessional glass that should still work for you.

I think 200 is average for the Entry level 70-300 zoom.....

I should also mention that the Sigma is actually an FX lens so it's going to be 105-450ish on a crop frame camera.

Your photos are definitely impressive Toby, but I'm guessing that's probably more the photographer than the lens. ;)

Thanks Brian, I definitely don't need to get too fancy at this point. I have much to learn and much practice to do. My art knowledge helps a lot with choosing subjects, composition and color, I feel I have a major leg up on many photography beginners in that regard but all this technical camera stuff can be quite bewildering. Good thing I found a "Dummies" book for my camera, I'm starting to learn my way around the options and settings finally.

David,

Just about every image in my galleries, with the exception of the most recent ones (June '15 - Current), were shot with the Nikkor 18-55 AF-S VR kit lens. Some were shot with the 55-200 AF-S VR lens mentioned. It works for me when I need some reach, but I don't do wildlife/birds. The 55-200 is for the cost, but isn't spectacular in really low-light conditions. Using the round lens hood on occasion that came with the lens , I've experienced slight, not drastic, vingetting at the far reach of the lens.

On a side note, the 18-55 kit lens that came with the camera (D3000 at that time), back in Dec 2009, no longer has the auto-focus feature, as it has ceased to function. I got roughly 5.5 years use out of it. This past June I bought a D7100, which came with a 18-140 AF-S VR lens which is now my main lens. The 55-200 works well on the new camera when I need a bit more reach.

I shot this with my 28-135 kit lens ( i also own the Canon 18-55 but it didn't actually come with my camera) and I have sold this images a few times.




The photographer matters but sometimes the glass helps in certain situations, I shot my daughters elementary school "graduation" earlier this year. It was in a dimly lit auditorium, normally I don't need a fast standard type zoom cuz it doesn't fit what I shoot but for this I did. Luckily I have a friend who let me borrow a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, it really made life easier that night. you don't need a fast lens till you really need a fast lens. good luck

David, before your make your investment, you might want to take a look at reviews that are online for whatever lenses you are considering. I would recommend that you look at photo forums and web sites (although I would take anything that someone who has a photo gear review website and the initials KR says with a grain of salt) to get your info (if this statement is against FAA rules, let me know and I will edit my comment about taking something with a grain of salt out of the message). The idea of purchasing used gear is a really good one. I purchase almost all of my lenses used and have had generally good luck (not 100% - had two that had to be sent back because they were not as described by the seller. Both instances were purchasing through ebay and I did not have any issues with the returns.) If you use something like ebay, your best bet is to purchase from a reliable seller, as someone else mentioned.

From your description of what you are looking for, the 70-200mm f/4 (mentioned by someone else) is really quite a good lens. Also, Nikon has some older, but quite good 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses that are also excellent and can be had for very reasonable prices on ebay (I have a quite old version of this lens and it is wonderful).

Good luck.

David, Adele,

When I shot film, my camera system was the Nikon and my favorite lens, was the 80-200, F2.8. VERY heavy lens and a few companies make a "collar" stiffner device, that helps take the stress off the camera, where it attaches and the lens, which I used ALL the time. Something like this:

http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Collar_for_80-200mm_Push-Pull_D.html

"Really Right stuff" also makes these things.

Having good technique and the right gear, ALWAYS overrides an expensive lens. So a very good tripod, cable release and maybe even "mirror lock-up" will make an average lens shine!

Rich

I second the recommendation for the 70-200 f/4 (Nikon). I have one and I can honestly say it's an excellent lens.

Roberts Camera is local in my neck of the woods. But they have a very large variety of used equipment. I love cruising through their used stuff. http://usedphotopro.com/?SID=tfppui77mgj8grlhsr6a51j576

Not looking at everyone elses comments, I would recommend you not getting DX lenses for your 5200. I spent lots of cash on the dx lenses for my 5300, then moved up to a full frame. If you go ahead and get FX lenses they will work fine on your dx, and you get extra reach from them. I would stay away from sigma-I had a Bigma 150-500, and when I went up to my full frame nikon it had awful noise even at low iso settings. I ended up getting a nikon 80-400 and a 1.4x teleconverter, nikon tc2, Tamron has really good reviews on their nikon branded lenses I have a 24-70 2.8 for my ff and it is awesome, fast and sharp. They have a 28-300 which is nice in both Nikon and tamron brands. Ken Rockwell has good reviews on such things.

Thanks for your input everybody, you've given me much info to chew on.

My first DSLR was a Nikon D90 with the 18-200 VRII. I never had to change lenses, and the image quality was good enough for me and all stock agencies, including Alamy. Many of my pictures here at FAA are shot with the 18-200. For low light, I had a 50mm 1.8.

Than it happened: In my garage, the 18-200 attached to my camera felt on the concrete floor. After that, I could still use it, but the focus mechanism was damaged. I sent it to Nikon for repair, but the costs would have been so high, that I couldnīt justify it.

Because it was still working perfectly in the 18-100mm range, I decided not to by a new one, but the 70-300 1:4,5-5,6G VR. Although I loved the versatility of the 18-200, the image quality of the 70-300 is MUCH better in the overlapping range.

The difference in image quality became really obvious, after I bought a D7100 (same sensor than the D5200?)!

Some weeks ago, I bought the new 18-55, because I got it for a price, I couldnīt resist. And here also, the image quality of the 18-55 is MUCH better in the overlapping range, than the 18-200.

Another thing, which was said before: if you plan to upgrade to full-frame in the near future, I would look for full-frame lenses. The 70-300 is full frame.

My conclusion:

The versatility of the 18-200 (18-300) on DX, is unbeatable! The image quality is good, but for the same price - or even cheaper - the combination of the 18-55 and the 70-300, gives you a much better image quality. For low light, I have a 30 year old 24mm 2.8, and the 50mm 1.8 D.

If money doesnīt matter, the sky is the limit, of course.

Colin Utz
http://colinutzphotography.com

I have a Nikon D600 which I bought as a package deal from Costco. It came with two zoom lenses... 24-85mm and 70-300mm.

I recently expressed my openness at purchasing a greater magnification lens to a camera shop in Baltimore. He mentioned what sounded like a great price on a 150-600mm by the brand name "Tamron" for $1069.99. I asked if it was compatible with my Nikon which he said it was. I asked about the lens quality/sharpness, which he said was good. They were out of stock at the time but expected more to be coming in soon. Meanwhile I looked up the lens on the web and read reviews by people who bought or used the lens. They were positive comments. About the only drawback I read was that they can get a little heavy after a while. I'm thinking that should not be a surprise considering.

That info may not be what you're looking for exactly, but someone else reading this may appreciate it.
I see that Rich also mentioned Tamron.

I previously bought a pair of Pentax K10s, and later bought cheaper priced 70-300mm Quantaray lenses. The internet reviews were not favorable for the "Quantaray" lenses but I was using them primarily for a stereo rig (two cameras mounted close together), and the lenses were fine for what I wanted to do. It's been my experience so far that the zoom up to 300 is what they consider a good "next step" that along with a standard lens of about 50mm or so would cover most of the basic photography needs. Beyond 300 may allow more attainable captures of wildlife for instance. I would definitely use a tripod for the bigger lenses when possible. A little movement at your end is a huge movement at the subject's end.

Hi,
There have already been everything suggested. So, just sharing my opinion. I do not shoot wildlife, so, I bought the cheaper Tamron 70-300 lens and it works great for me. I use it sometimes for portraits and sometimes to get things closer. I am quite happy with the quality of this lens and it is in very affordable range. There are 2 tamron 70-300 lenses. I use Tamron SP AF 70-300 F / 4-5.6 Di VC USD. As far as fast lens goes it is not fast but I think that only matters if you shoot handheld in low light or wild life.

I use a AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm lens which is great.

Brian, Kamlesh,

Yes Tamron does make great lenses! As does Tokina,Sigma,and others. ANY LENS MAKER can and has produced poor quality lenses, Canon and Nikon included. So check the reviews, especially if you're buying a lens (full frame) that you think you will have for years. I had 2 Tamron lenses and one, the Macro 90mm 2.5, if I remember right, was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever had. I also had a Tokina, 300 F4 lens, that rivaled my Nikon 300 F2.8 $6000+ lens!

Most lens makers have a "hobbyist" level of quality and then a "Pro" level and there will be a difference, both in cost and price.

The very first thing to do, with a new lens, is to test it, on a tripod and shoot some cereal box or newspaper type, something very sharp and go through the F-stops and see where the lens might be "soft" or have vignetting. If you can live with any shortcomings and MOST lenses will have a few, then you got a good lens. If not, return it and try another one/brand. Taking it out and shooting in the "field" isn't an accurate way to judge a lens, since there are too many variables.

David, for your needs, most of this shouldn't affect your decision. Find a lens, within your budget and buy it. Then as you shoot more and your skill level gets better, see what's lacking and what you need to do, to get better images, camera/sensor or lens. So for now, just get a lens and start shooting!

Good Luck,

Rich Franco

Unless you have a specific need for a long telephoto lens I would go with the 55-200 Nikon. I have owned 3 Sigma lenses and they always seem to fall a bit short on quality. You pay later in repairs and lost sales. I owned the Sigma 70-300 macro once. Not the latest model but I bought the better of the 2 qualities made at that time. It was one of the few lenses I ever sold because the quality was just not there. (another was a Tamron, the king of mediocrity). Going to a Nikon lens payed off in more keeper shots and more sales, plus rugged dependability.

If you have a few extra thousand the new Nikon 80-400 is a great lens.

Rich - you are absolutely right about good technique. Using a tripod and mirror lock-up help tremendously toward getting tack sharp images. Agree with you too about the tripod collar.

In the end, everything contributes to the quality of the image - composition, light, glass quality, technique.

Thanks for the additional input everybody. I am a beginner and a "hobbyist" but a serious "hobbyist". If this art "business" ever gets to the point where it at least pays for itself I might consider getting high end gear, but for now the entry level stuff will do.

David,

GOOD decision! Start with what you can afford and use and then, if you decide to move to the next level, you'll know more of what it takes and costs,

Rich

Hi David,

I have the 55-200. I shot some pictures at a zoo and felt I needed a longer lens so I got the 55-300 (both DX lenses, using a Nikon D3200).

I've since upgraded to a D610 and FX lenses for my main rig, but I still use the D3200 at times.

I'll give you a good deal on the 55-200 if you're interested. It's had very little use, and is about 2 years old. Email me if you want more info at randy@randymorter.com. I actually have 3 200mm lenses and only use my FX 70-200 F/4. I also have an older 70-210mm FX.

I shoot Canon so can't recommend a lens for you. But would like to say look at KEH. They sell used and new equipment. You also get a 6 month warranty on used, which you won't get on Ebay. I have bought 3 lens from them. They also will do a return with no questions asked.

I have use a Telephoto VR Nikon ED 70-300mm. It cost around $300.00.

For zooms and won't break the bank
Sigma 150-600mm would be my number one choice. Fast AF and almost prime lens sharpness. Added bonus you can buy a USB Dock and super fine tune your lens to whatever camera you attach it to.
#2 and it's a very close second is the new Nikon 200-500mm f5.6
Very sharp through the entire range, lighter than the sigma offering AND the most affordable offering Nikon has ever ever made.

If money is no object get what I use.
400mm f2.8E FL ED VR and the 1.4,1.7(nikon please please upgrade this from 17ll to a 17lll version!!!)
And the 2X teleconverters. This will be the last telephoto lens you will ever want to buy, it is THAT good.

David, you might want to look at the Sigma 18-250mm lens. I picked up a copy of that one this year and it takes very good photos. My husband - not experienced at all with the cameras - really loves that one as he finds it easy to use, too. It's a great walk around lens that will get you in closer when you need it. When we go on some outings {for wildlife and birds, the zoo, the safari park, etc} I often have him shoot with that lens while I shoot with the big telephoto, so he will get the full body shots and scenic shots, and I get the close ups. It works very well. I had the Tamron 70-300 and after I got the 18-250, I sold the Tamron to my brother, since I already have a 300 fixed lens, and the 18-250 gets most everything I would need under the 300mm size.

I didn't expect this old thread to get resurrected. I already bought a lens over a month ago, thanks everybody for the information and recommendations, I'll close this now.