Lens ???

[f86sabjf]

Ok Gang got a question . Here in the near future I will have about $1500 for a new lense. My camera is a Nikon D5100 that I like a lot. I don't plan on going full frame ever but might upgrade to a 7100 in a year or so. I mostly shoot wildlife and some road racing. The lenses that have caught my eye are Nikon F4 70-200 $1396 or maybe one of the aftmkt 70-200 f2.8's like the new Tamron at the top of my range. Would you trade the light stop difference for the Nikon lenses quality?? Any other ideas are appreciated.

[f86sabjf]

Anybody?????

[OldClicker]

Anybody?????

You might try the Nikon forum since us non-Nikonites (Nikonians?) really can't help much.- Terry

[Franglais]

I wouldn't count on there being more responses in the Nikon forum. I haven't seen anybody saying they are using either lens.

I had a check round some of the lens testing forums - DXOMark, photozone.de, lensrentals.com The only place that has tested both is DXOMark, which gives them an equal score.

There aren't many tests of the Tamron about. I think it's overshadowed by the Nikon 70-200 f2.8. If you're going to spend that much money then you might as well spend a bit more and get the best.

Personally I think it's strange that you're willing to go from a lens that goes to 300mm for one that only goes to 200mm when you're shooting wildlife. I also find it strange that you are interested in a f2.8 lens when all your activities are in broad daylight.

A lot have people have bought the Nikon 70-300VR (I have one). It doesn't have as wide an aperture as the lenses you mention but I don't believe it sacrifices image quality, it goes all the way to 300mm - and it's much cheaper.

[wfooshee]

I will echo the 70-300 ED VR comment. I'm very impressed with mine, and nearly everything I've posted on here is through that lens. For 1500 bucks, you'd be real close to one of those AND the D7100!

I had the same questions when i saw the thread. Why are those in your "want" list, other than speed? I didn't reply because I know nothing about any of the lenses mentioned. But if you want reach more than speed, maybe look at the Sigma 150-500. It's certainly not f:2.8 speed, but folks are saying it's not a bad lens for about a grand. I'm thinking about one myself.

[f86sabjf]

the reason on the 200mm is on my camera the crop factor makes it a 300mm. I am generally in the woods before daylight setting up . So I never know when the shot may come.

[f86sabjf]

I will echo the 70-300 ED VR comment. I'm very impressed with mine, and nearly everything I've posted on here is through that lens. For 1500 bucks, you'd be real close to one of those AND the D7100!

I had the same questions when i saw the thread. Why are those in your "want" list, other than speed? I didn't reply because I know nothing about any of the lenses mentioned. But if you want reach more than speed, maybe look at the Sigma 150-500. It's certainly not f:2.8 speed, but folks are saying it's not a bad lens for about a grand. I'm thinking about one myself.

just looking for better image quality than my kit lenses and lower light capability. This year at the Rolex24 I needed a lot better lense to get any decent night shots. My iso was getting sky high with quite a bit of noise to get a shot at 1/125. Also with my nature photography I am starting to set up in the dark and be in position as the light comes up.

[f86sabjf]

You might try the Nikon forum since us non-Nikonites (Nikonians?) really can't help much.- Terry

hahahah no way I lasted there about 3hrs and ran screaming from that site. Might work for some folks but not me

[Franglais]

I think he means the Nikon forum on this site. Most of the people who have contributed to this thread also participate in the Nikon forum.

If I were you I would go for the Tamron f2.8-constant zoom rather than the Nikon f4-constant zoom. We don't really have much feedback on either but here is my reasoning:

- One stop difference is a lot when you're short of light. You can freeze slight subject motion with 1/125s whereas with 1/60s it would be blurred
- The Tamron is designed with low light sports in mind (competing with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8) whereas the Nikon is designed to be a general-purpose professional do-everything lens for the D800 to accompany the 24-120 f4. As you're only using the center of the frame any advantage that the Nikon might have in the edges of the FX frame is not important

I think that for your usage you are likely to get more successful shots with the Tamron.

[f86sabjf]

Thanks for the opinion . I'm hoping to only do this once . we will see how that goes

[Franglais]

Do this once? It's possible. When you have the right lens it can last you a long time. I have the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-S which I bought 14 years ago. When I need available-light - basically theatre productions - it always works, especially on a monopod. I was going to suggest it for your case but it's no longer available new.

I suggest that you keep your 55-300. An f2.8 constant zoom lens is a burden to carry around and terribly visible. I bought the cheapo 70-300VR when I got fed up with carrying the 80-200 and it's great for most things.

[NuroKnight]

Hello i'm new.