Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 1, 2003, 8:19 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 71
Default 80-400MM Zoom Lens Comments?

Hi all,
Looking for feedback on two Zoom related questions (for a D100):
1) I am evaluating a number of zoom lens's (Tamron, Nikon, Sigma) and am interested in knowing which lens is the fastest (F stop wise)? Is it a metal body?

2) Of the lens manufacturers listed above (for the same 80-400MM zoom), which lens is fastest FOCUSING?

3) Am I better off with a 80-400MM lens or a 50-500MM lens (Sigma)? Or should I go with a smaller lens and use a teleconverter?
....I don't want to sacrifice picture quality as most of my photos will be challenged already due to shooting indoors without a flash.

The intent would be to use the lens for sports photography, and most of the photos would be taken in a Ice Rink, and outdoors on a soccer field.

Ideally looking for the most bang for the buck......

Many thanks to all.
Eric
eriseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 1, 2003, 9:32 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

The longer the zoom, the slower the fstop. This is mostly due to weight problems. They get really large and heave fast as they get longer and faster. The fastest zoom I've seen is f2.8 at 200mm (in a zoom) f2.8 300mm & 400 (prime, not zoom.) I've never seen anything faster than f4 above 400. I'd be interested in hearing if they exist.. they could, they would just be heavy and large... and CA and either barrel distortion or Pincushion Distortion would be a problem because the lens element would be rather large.

The nikon version of tha lens is very slow focusing. In fact, it is one of slowest AF lenses they make.

I didn't realize the Sigma version of this lens was out yet. But it looks like it is (at least adorama lists it, but B&H doesn't.) I know nothing about it.

I didn't think that Tamron made a lens in that range. They have a 200-400 f5.6, but that is different (and its so cheap, I wouldn't hold my breath.)

I have heard very good things about the 50-500. But realize that they are for different purposes. Its heavier and can't be hand held by most people (at least not long.) The 80-400 is designed to be hand holdable.

The f5.6 makes indoors hard. Do you know how much reach you really need? You might be better off with something in the 300mm range and a teleconverter.

If "bang for the buck" is really that high a requirements... than going with the teleconverter is probably the way to go. But I don't know of a f2.8 300 zoom (which with a TC would probably do the trick.) One might exist... I don't know.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2003, 3:21 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 71
Default Teleconverter and Prime instead of Zoom

Eric,
My main objective is to take photo's in a hockey rink with no flash - so a fast lens is a must. The zoom is nice, b/c if affords me flexibility - but at a f-stop price.

If I were to use a prime 300mm f2.8 lens - would that be fast enough for hockey rink photos using natural light?

If I used a teleconverter with the lens (for extreme head shots), would I lose f-stop? With a 2x converter - would the lens above still be an F2.8?

What do I lose by using a Teleconverter??

Thanks
Eric
eriseman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2003, 4:26 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Its possible that f4 would be good enough. I would guess that someone makes a 400 f4 (Canon has one, I would assume Nikon has one.)

f2.8 should be fast enough for a hockey rink. I believe many hockey photographer shoot without a flash, but I don't know for sure. I believe that a pro hockey shooter uses f.2.8. They certainly don't shoot anything faster (lower f stop) because I don't believe something like that exists. And I would doubt that slower than that would work.

You might consider renting the 300 f2.8 to see. Some places will apply part of the rental price to a purchase. You'll probably need a monopod to use it for long, though. I don't believe its a light lens.

You could also test it. Take any lens which is faster than f2.8 (I have a 50mm f1.8, for example) and try it out. Put it at f4 and see what shutter speed you can use. Same with f2.8.

a 1.4xTC looses 1 f-stop
a 2.0xTC looses 2 f-stop

I don't know beyond that, never considered them as the optical quality of 2X starts to get questionable (not always, but some times.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 2, 2003, 11:57 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

You might also want to check out:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php

He is a pro photojournalist. One of his threads is dedicated to sports photography. Might have useful info.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2003, 12:19 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 112
Default Teleconvertor

Eriseman, I've tried a 2x teleconverter with my D100 & Quantaray 70-300mm a couple of weeks ago to get some moon shots. The 1 thing I did not like about using the tele is the autofocus was slower than molasses in January going uphill!!! Now, keep in mind, I'm a novice, so I may not have done something correctly. But if I had to do sports photos like your talking about. I personally would do it with out the converter.
Chrisr is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:43 AM.