~300mm prime or zoom recc.?

[ampguy]

I'm looking for a Nikon afs compatible lens with a reach of ~ 300-500mm that is hand holdable. Don't need f2.8, but faster than 5.6 at longest would be nice. Zoom is OK, but fixed 300mm could work as well. Am currently looking at the 70-300 AFS zoom, which is very slow, but looks small enough to be handheld.

Any suggestions?

 

[Todd.Hanz]

If you don't have the need for speed the 300/4 was a great lens for me. I paired it with my F4S, sold it but wish I still had it to shoot with my D200.

Todd

 

[fgb2]

The 70-300 AFS VR lens is very hand holdable and the VR works well, but it's slow and not as sharp as the 70-200/2.8 VR zoom. The speed starts to be a problem if the light is not bright and you add a polarizing filter. I'm not sure whether the 70-200 plus the 1.7x teleconverter might be sharper than the 70-300, the 70-200 plus the 1.4x probably would be sharper and would be a little faster. The 70-300 uses smaller filters.

I've used the 300/4 briefly, it is about the same size and weight as the 70-200 VR and is a nice, sharp lens - lacks VR though. It is hand holdable if there's enough light to use fast enough shutter speeds. The 300/2.8 VR and 200-400/4 VR zoom are both incredible lenses but too heavy to hand hold for very long. I've never used the 80-400 VR which is said to have slow focussing speeds.

 

[kxl]

Not AFS, but... Here's a sample image taken with a handheld 80-400mm on a D200. Used to have the 300mm/4 AFS, and while that lens is sharper, with faster AF than the 80-400mm, it was not quite as easy to hand hold.

 

[Nikon Bob]

If you require a general purpose walk around lens the 70-300VR is hard to beat. If you need a faster aperture at the 300 end it starts getting heavy to lug around but will work with TCs for extra reach. If you need fast and VR then it gets very expensive to boot. For me the 70-300 works just fine when coupled to a D700 considering cranking up the iso is no problem. It is a gem for the price paid. If you are thinking of wildlife photography then 300mm is a minimum requirement and it will leave you wanting more reach especially for birds.

Bob

 

[astroman]

I agree with KXL the nikon 80-400 is a great lens its hand holdable and very sharp.In fact one of the sharpest zooms made in that range.Of course not as sharp as a prime but big prime glass is in another league.The only draw back to this lens is the Slooooow focusing so its not great for action shots but for wildlife it a fantastic lens for the money.
I use this lens all the time for wildlife shooting.I use to own a large prime I found it to heavy to haul around so i switched to the 80-400 a lot more managable.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks all, I will probably start out with the slow 70-300 afs. I am initially working with some slow moving wildlife. I like that this lens works on dx and fx. I already know what lengths I need from other systems.

Ironically I'm moving down in speed (but up in ISO), from my fixed 420mm, super small sensor fixed f2.8. I envision using the lens at the long end, and at 5.6 90% of the time.

 

[ampguy]

too big and too expensive

too big and too expensive

for now. I'm actually wondering if the Sigma 70-300 @ ~ $150ish would do the job.

How about the Tamron 200-500mm zoom? Or the "Bigma" (Sigma) at 50-500mm?

 

[pvdhaar]

too big and too expensive

You mean the 70-300VR?

I'm not sure there are many AF-S lenses that can beat it in the size/price department.

There's a 55-200VR for DX that's half the price/weight/size.. but it may be a tad on the short side.

Last I checked, the Sigma APO 70-300DG macro was not an HSM lens.