Camera Lenses

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I've got a Nikon D5000 with the standard 18-55mm lens. I'm doing alright with it, but have got to the stage where I'd like a bigger lens, ideally 300mm.

Before I spunk 600+ quid on a new Nikon lens, are there any other (cheaper) Nikon compatible lenses out there that I should be looking at? I've heard mixed stuff about Sigma for example.

I'm not doing professional stuff, just ******* about really.

Some of my pics below:

Screen Shot 2014-07-11 at 21.51.27.png
Screen Shot 2014-07-11 at 21.49.59.png
Screen Shot 2014-07-11 at 21.52.08.png
 

RigPig

War Hero
Fcuking elephants! How big is your estate?
Can't help with lenses question, I use Canon, which obviously won't fit. I run a 75 -300 as my long lens and sometimes wish for longer.

RP.
 
Sigma are fine, you need to be highly critical before you'll pick up the difference. In harsh conditions, the Sigma will get you 90% of everything you need without taking out a bank loan. Don't expect critical detail right into the edges of the frame, is all, just accomodate the lesser quality when framing the image.

If you've won the lottery, get the Nikon 600mm and a twicer.
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Mega advice
Sigma are fine, you need to be highly critical before you'll pick up the difference. In harsh conditions, the Sigma will get you 90% of everything you need without taking out a bank loan. Don't expect critical detail right into the edges of the frame, is all, just accomodate the lesser quality when framing the image.

If you've won the lottery, get the Nikon 600mm and a twicer.
Mega advice.

Sigma it shall be.

Cheers.
 
If you want to try lenses without committing yourself, hire them. Google lists various places, one should have what you think you would like. You may find that in reality you would seldom use it, so no point in dropping a lottery win on it.
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If you want to try lenses without committing yourself, hire them. Google lists various places, one should have what you think you would like. You may find that in reality you would seldom use it, so no point in dropping a lottery win on it.
Now that is a blinding idea. Hadn't even crossed my mind. I'll only be using it once a month or so.

Cheers.
 
Tamron and Tokina were good names, thd last Tokina I had (a short zoom) was solid and performed pretty well, it only died because I fell off an 8' wall on to it. Best to look at a couple and read the reviews. A mate uses a Sigma 300 F2.8 for footie and it's done him ok.
Try to get as wide an aperture as you can to give your pets ;-) nice out of focus backgrounds. By the way, the quality of out of focus portions of images is called 'bokeh' and differs from lens to lens.
You might be tempted to go for a zoom lens but the cheaper ones of these almost always have fairly small maximum apertures at the long end- probably f5.6 or worse- making it difficult to seperate animals from busy backgrounds.
 
Fcuking elephants! How big is your estate?
Bastard. Beat me to it.

Anyway. Yes go for sigma but expect to have to crop out 5% round the edges but with modern resolutions just pull back a bit when framing. Most pictures will be fine but run with that in the back of your mind you wont go wrong.

I had a Sigma lens for my EOS1000D and picked up a Tamron when I got an EOS1100D.
 

spaz

LE
That's quite a good elephant Ravers, I like the way you've framed the shot and the semi-silhouette is a nice touch but check out this one of mine if you want a few tips.

It's got two elephants and you can see them properly. With yours the bits of grass in the foreground look a bit tatty. That's why I took this one of mine at the beach. It's a serene background but doesn't detract from the subject, which is of course multiple elephants.

 
I've got tamron and tokina alongside my nikon/nikkor lenses, image quality is about the same but the nikon always wins on focus speed and motor noise. The nikon lenses didn't need any fine adjustment whereas the others needed considerable changes to back focus.
 
I'm a Canon user but have both Canon's own 55-250 kit zoom and a Sigma 70-300. I can't really tell the difference on the image quality and obviously the Sigma has more reach plus a Macro capability. Would echo what's said above about trying for the "fastest" lens you can afford though as you find in the African twilight (just as the big cats come out) you can't stop down below 5.6 and everything is too dark - made worse if you have a x2 on the camera as well!
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
That's quite a good elephant Ravers, I like the way you've framed the shot and the semi-silhouette is a nice touch but check out this one of mine if you want a few tips.

It's got two elephants and you can see them properly. With yours the bits of grass in the foreground look a bit tatty. That's why I took this one of mine at the beach. It's a serene background but doesn't detract from the subject, which is of course multiple elephants.

What the hell are you suggesting? That he gets his portables strimmer out and does a spot of gardening prior to taking the picture?
Nice picture where was it taken?
 
Nikon 70-300vr is unbeatable, but the 70-300 tamron vi has a very good reputation too. I'd go for that and spend some of the saving on a 35mm f1.8.
 
A 300mm lens on a DX sensor camera means you'll have a shit tonne of magnification for bird/nature pics. What are you looking to photograph?
 
I've got a Nikon D5000 with the standard 18-55mm lens.
The Nikon 18-200 is the best outdoor lense I have ever used. Period. Covers everything except the darkest of dark shots. Forget the Nikon 300 zooms, even the new one is not much good.
If you need to reach out longer at something stationary then a Sigma will do if conditions are good - but don't expect it to perform well in anything other than good conditions, and forget movement.
300 or 400mm in a quality package that can handle wildlife shots (movement) is going to set you back 5k, so just hire one for the next trip to Botswana.
 
The Nikon 18-200 is the best outdoor lense I have ever used. Period. Covers everything except the darkest of dark shots. Forget the Nikon 300 zooms, even the new one is not much good.
If you need to reach out longer at something stationary then a Sigma will do if conditions are good - but don't expect it to perform well in anything other than good conditions, and forget movement.
300 or 400mm in a quality package that can handle wildlife shots (movement) is going to set you back 5k, so just hire one for the next trip to Botswana.
Disagree. My 70-300 is noticeably sharper at 200mm than my 18-200, and generally pin sharp at even 300mm from about f8.
 

RigPig

War Hero
My dad uses a Sigma DSLR and Sigma lenses. He has no problem with them.

RP
 

Latest Threads

Top