Thinking about a new lens

[My2Girls66]

I am thinking about getting a Nikon 70-300mmVR for my D50. I'm wondering, for the future(possible trip to Yellowstone), would that be enough for wild wildlife? Could I use a teleconverter? or would I be better served waiting and getting something with 500mm capability?
I have a 70-210f/4 and a 75-300mm. Both are from the mid-80's.
I haven't had great luck with the 75-300mm lately thats why I'm thinking of getting the VR version.
Out of curiosity- if you have a camera and lens both with focus motors- do they both work together? or does one override the other?
Thanks

 

[webshark3]

In general, the larger the zoom range, the lower the quality. 7X-300 are flexible, not not always sharp (and rarely fast).

If you're shooting wildlife, will it be moving? VR won't help with movement, so you'll want a fast lens more than VR if that is the case.

And I'm not sure, but I think you lose 2 stops (?) when using a teleconverter.

 

[dr_zero]

I am thinking about getting a Nikon 70-300mmVR for my D50. I'm wondering, for the future(possible trip to Yellowstone), would that be enough for wild wildlife? Could I use a teleconverter? or would I be better served waiting and getting something with 500mm capability?
I have a 70-210f/4 and a 75-300mm. Both are from the mid-80's.
I haven't had great luck with the 75-300mm lately thats why I'm thinking of getting the VR version.
Out of curiosity- if you have a camera and lens both with focus motors- do they both work together? or does one override the other?
Thanks

The 70-210 f/4 is a good lens!
what are you wanting to take pics of?
Animals just wandering abouts or like moving?
Are you not able to get close enough and they are getting spooked is that why the not great luck?

 

[My2Girls66]

Mostly animals either hanging around or wandering. Not necessarily animals running around. Birds in my backyard and any national park trip we may take in the next few years, bears, elk, deer, moose. I'm thinking longer than 200mm to keep myself from getting too close to anything dangerous. I had good luck with my 75-300 on my N80 and N8008 film slr's. It doesn't seem as good on my D50. Hunts a lot and photos aren't as sharp. I use my 70-210f/4 a lot- love it. I've had very good luck with it I was just thinking more reach.
I've seen 4 lenses online that look like they wouldn't be too cumbersome.
Tamron 200-500mm- $769
Sigma 50-500mm- $969
Sigma 150-500mm(OS) $979
Nikon 80-400mmVR $1429(probably more than I should spend)
DH would rather I get a longer lens because he's afraid I may try and get too close to an animal that I shouldn't get close to just for a picture.

 

[MICKEY88]

DH would rather I get a longer lens because he's afraid I may try and get too close to an animal that I shouldn't get close to just for a picture.

hmm at least you know he still loves you, otherwise he'd encourage you to get close...

 

[dr_zero]

Mostly animals either hanging around or wandering. Not necessarily animals running around. Birds in my backyard and any national park trip we may take in the next few years, bears, elk, deer, moose. I'm thinking longer than 200mm to keep myself from getting too close to anything dangerous. I had good luck with my 75-300 on my N80 and N8008 film slr's. It doesn't seem as good on my D50. Hunts a lot and photos aren't as sharp. I use my 70-210f/4 a lot- love it. I've had very good luck with it I was just thinking more reach.
I've seen 4 lenses online that look like they wouldn't be too cumbersome.
Tamron 200-500mm- $769
Sigma 50-500mm- $969
Sigma 150-500mm(OS) $979
Nikon 80-400mmVR $1429(probably more than I should spend)
DH would rather I get a longer lens because he's afraid I may try and get too close to an animal that I shouldn't get close to just for a picture.

That Nikon 80-400mmVR looks like a good lens have you read the review on it?
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/80400vr.htm

Might be a little slow for what you are shooting.

 

[Bojo]

DW has the non VR 70 -300 for her 35mm SLR and I have used it on my D50. We went to the Everglades in March 07 and took some OUTSTANDING pictures with the VR version. No comparison IMHO.

All of these are straight, out of the D50, JPEG with no PP.

Can't wait to take it to Yellowstone this summer!

 

[pointandshoot]

Hi,

Have you considered the Tokina 400mm f5.6 AT-X SD? It is no longer in production but you might find a deal used. I think the D50 supports an older Nikon lens. I know this lens does not work on the D40 but will operate on my D200.

Here is an example of a zoo shot a few months ago with this lens on a tripod. The autofocus is pretty fast and takes a nice, sharp picture in good light.

Here is link to a picture of the lens with some old user reviews. It can get you started if you decide to research it further.

http://www.photographyreview.com/mfr/tokina/35mm-primes/PRD_84302_3111crx.aspx

It is a bit if a challenge finding a reasonably priced Nikon zoom that reaches 400mm. I have struggled with the same decision that you are currently considering. I have always liked the Tokina lens but wanted faster focus and image stabilization with a range up to 400mm. The best option is the Nikon 200mm-400mm f/4 VR. But that is big, expensive, and difficult to find in supply. The Nikon 80mm-400mm VR is a nice zoom, but uses older VR technology and I have read and know some photogrpahers who say it is a bit slow to focus. Wanting to take pictures of birds around my house and at the beach, as well as some day light sports activities like kite boarding, I needed more. With the current rebates, I ended up buying a Canon 40D and a 100mm-400mm USM L lens just this week. Good lens for wildlife without the big price tag.

Chuck

 

[My2Girls66]

Thanks for all the replies.
I've read some good reviews on the Nikon 70-300VR and the 80-400VR- one of the Sigmas and the Tamron had some decent reviews also. I guess its hard to plunk down that kind of money when you aren't sure if you'll like it.
Maybe I'll keep reading up on lenses for now and use my 70-210mm. I don't really NEED one yet. I'll look into the Tokina and keep an eye out for those Yellowstone pictures! Thats one park I can't wait to visit. Maybe a newer version of that 80-400mmVR will come out before I need one In the mean time, maybe if I get a few bucks to spend I'll get the 70-300mm VR.

I got what I think are some nice ones on my N80 with my old 75-300mm-these are scans- also Everglades- 2001. Easier with a stationary subject.

I've tried the 75-300 at my DD's softball games but she usually plays 6pm games and there just isn't enough light for that lens

 

[handicap18]

I have the 70-300mm VR lens and really like. I find it to be very sharp expecially for its class. I like having the VR especially for the long end to help keep the lens steady. That was my biggest problem with my older 70-300. Way to much camera shake at the long end. The 80-400mm VR is an older lens. One of the original VR lenses. Many nikonian's are hoping for Nikon to upgrade this lens. The focusing is on the slower side (its AF not AF-S).

The Sigma 50-500 has gotten great reviews. 0bli0 uses one for his sports shots. The 500 end is great for wildlife. One drawback for me with that lens is no OS. Though you'll probably want to use a tripod or monopod with this lens anyways.

I also like the thought of the Sigma 150-500. Though I don't know anything about it. Looks like it might be fairly new to Sigma's lineup.