Hello,
I am starting to play around with a Nikon DSLR camera.
I'd like to get a Long Telephoto lense. Nikor ones are really expensive.
Does anyone have any experience with Tamron or Sigma lenses? Or should I just bit the bullet and invest in the Glass?
Thanks!
Get the best you can afford right now. Good lenses hold value fairly well..you can always sell it and move to a nicer one if you need it and can afford it down the road..
Buy used and get the lowest aperture available.
But I cannot give advise. You sicken me with your misuse of the English language. You should be ashamed, very ashamed.
Sure. What kind of focal length are you looking for? What kind of photography do you want to use it for?
Tamron and Sigma make some great lenses, and some shi**y lenses. So do Nikon.
Samsung makes the best sports cameras.
I shoot with a sony dslr and wouldn't buy a lens without consulting this site first. Invaluable.
Try to find a site like dyxum for nikon cameras and compatible lenses.
I've shot Nikon for about 6 years. I'm writing this assuming that you have a D3xxx or D5xxx, but not much would change for any other crop sensor camera.
I'm going to start with the tl;dr: You can get good third-party lenses, but you're almost always going to be compromising on something, unless you're paying big bucks for them in which case you may have well gove Nikkor.
Now for the long answer:
What are you going to be shooting? Many new photographers think that they need a lens big enough to see their subject's nose hairs through the viewfinder. If you're shooting running/track you really don't need more than 200mm, maybe 300mm. If you're set to capture large and fine photos, you can crop and blow up anything in the frame. Even the 18-55mm lens that comes with the camera can get you pretty close. With lenses this long, make sure they have VR, or the Tamron/Sigma equivalent. A monopod/tripod is very useful and is a requirement at longer focal lengths.
Aperture is very important for shooting sports, and this is where you'd find the biggest improvement over your kit lens. If you're shooting sports, or anything else in motion, and you want to "freeze the action," you need a fast shutter speed. For running, 1/250s to 1/500s will probably be good enough, other things will need faster speeds. In order to let enough light into the camera, you need a wide aperture (smaller f-number equals wider aperture). For sports I'd look at f/4 at least. If you're shooting inside, you'll probably need wider. On a nice sunny day you'll probably be shooting f/8, so any lens will get you there. If you don't have a wide enough lens (often called a fast enough lens), you'll have to increase the ISO, which is fine to a point, but will increase the noise (speckles) on the photos.
I used this for a long time for all sorts of photography, including indoor and outdoor track.
http://www.adorama.com/NK55200VRU.html
It would be fine for most situations.
If you struggle with having enough light, this would be better
http://www.adorama.com/NK702004U.html
If you wanted to get real crazy, then this would be the way to go
http://www.adorama.com/NK70200AF2U.html
The only real difference between those lenses is the aperture. The f/2.8 will allow for fast shutter speeds in pretty low light.
With third-party lenses, you're often giving something up because the lens manufacturers don't know the proprietary information about Nikon cameras, and Nikon camera software won't necessarily know the lens specs. This can lead to distortion or in rare cases complete incompatibility.
If you have any specific questions, let me know and I'll try to help. I'm sure there are way more experienced photographers than me around here that will chime in too.
The new Sigma 150-600mm Sport is supposed to be pretty good, and at ~$2k is probably the best bet for an inexpensive telephoto lens. The Contemporary version is also worth a look once it's readily available, and the Tamron is supposed to be decent too.
The new Nikon 300mm f/4 PF is also worth a look and could be used with a 1.4x teleconverter (or 2x if you have a D7100, D610, D750, D800-series, or D4 series camera).
If you want to shoot sports and have $12k burning a hole in your pocket (and assuming you have an appropriate camera), you couldn't do much better than the newest Nikon 400mm. Or for $18k, if you want to shoot wildlife, the 800mm is supposed to be excellent...
As an addendum, for what it's worth, I haven't used any of the lenses I mentioned above, but I shoot primarily landscape with a Nikon D800E and Nikon 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VR II, and a few prime lenses.
bpence wrote:
The new Sigma 150-600mm Sport is supposed to be pretty good, and at ~$2k is probably the best bet for an inexpensive telephoto lens. The Contemporary version is also worth a look once it's readily available, and the Tamron is supposed to be decent too.
The new Nikon 300mm f/4 PF is also worth a look and could be used with a 1.4x teleconverter (or 2x if you have a D7100, D610, D750, D800-series, or D4 series camera).
If you want to shoot sports and have $12k burning a hole in your pocket (and assuming you have an appropriate camera), you couldn't do much better than the newest Nikon 400mm. Or for $18k, if you want to shoot wildlife, the 800mm is supposed to be excellent...
Teleconverters are usually no good for moving subjects because they allow less light in. Even at f/2.8 you often can't get a fast enough shutter speed.
Teleconverters are usually no good for moving subjects because they allow less light in. Even at f/2.8 you often can't get a fast enough shutter speed.
Certainly true, although it depends on the application. I have no problem using my 70-200 with a 2x teleconverter for large wildlife like elk and moose. Many sports would cause a problem with motion blur at f/5.6, although the performance at ISO 800-1600 on the top level Nikons make smaller apertures usable outdoors in many cases with high shutter speeds.
Most reasonable suggestions to get to 400mm or 600mm, absent a $5k+ investment, will put you at f/5.6 max aperture anyway. Since we don't know what camera the OP is using or his/her applications for a telephoto lens, the recommendations posters (including me) on this thread are providing may or may not be completely useless.
The OP is just trolling.
Teleconverters are usually no good for moving subjects because they allow less light in. Even at f/2.8 you often can't get a fast enough shutter speed.[/quote]
But ^this^ is completely wrong. A 2.8 lens with a 1.4 TC, or even a 2x TC, works just fine. You can easily get higher s/s these days with high ISO. We're not shooting Velvia any more. :)
I wouldn't recommend the new 300mm f4 over the old one. It uses (essentially) the same DO optics as the Canon 400mm f4, and suffers the same weird "donut" halos on backlit subjects, etc.
The newer 400mm f2.8 and the 800mm f5.6 are probably the sharpest super-teles out there.
Hochspannung wrote:
Hello,
I am starting to play around with a Nikon DSLR camera.
I'd like to get a Long Telephoto lense. Nikor ones are really expensive.
Does anyone have any experience with Tamron or Sigma lenses? Or should I just bit the bullet and invest in the Glass?
Thanks!
The Nikon 2.8 70-200 VR II is the standard for general sports photography; this lens is about $2500 these days and will get you by for most situation and is also a good portrait lens as. There are better or more specific Nikon lens, but the fact that you are mentioning Tamron or Sigma, means you probably can't afford the next class of lens. You can get good shots even with a kit lens or something like the $600 Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR, you just need to know how to get the most out of your camera and your lens limitations.
Nikon doesn't make good equipment any longer. The best brand these days in Samsung and Sony.
I like my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR for shooting running. Got it for just over $300 on Craigslist a few years ago after renting one to take shots at The Pre Classic. Would love to have a 2.8, but those cost a grip. Would probably go with the Sigma in that case.
Yeah the 70-300 f/4-5.6 is the way to go for budget telephoto for things that move because it's much faster to autofocus than the cheaper options like the 55-300. The 55-300 is optically nearly as good though, so if you didn't care about autofocus performance it would be the better option.
Of course the f/2.8 lenses will let you shoot faster shutter speeds, but as others have mentioned modern sensors a really pretty good at pretty high ISO speeds. So if you're not shooting in low light the slower lenses will be fast enough.
Also as some others have said, try to buy used, especially on the pricier lenses you can save a decent chunk of change.
The pros don't own any expensive cameras and lenses since they cost $100,000 for a full kit for track/field and cross/country. Don't buy a damn thing. Let the college or meet supply you with the cameras and lenses.
The pros don't own any expensive cameras and lenses since they cost $100,000 for a full kit for track/field and cross/country. Don't buy a damn thing. Let the college or meet supply you with the cameras and lenses.
Tamron and Sigma are cr@p.Buy Nikon for Nikon.Make sure it has VR.
Hochspannung wrote:
Hello,
I am starting to play around with a Nikon DSLR camera.
I'd like to get a Long Telephoto lense. Nikor ones are really expensive.
Does anyone have any experience with Tamron or Sigma lenses? Or should I just bit the bullet and invest in the Glass?
Thanks!