Photogtaphy Forums

Photography Forums > Camera Manufacturers > Nikon > Nikon AF Long Lens under $9,000 !! <s>

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Nikon AF Long Lens under $9,000 !! <s>

 
 
John Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 08:48 PM
I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
surfing, and wildlife photography.

I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.

Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
reasonable cost?

With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

TIA---


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 09:07 PM
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>
>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>
>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
>reasonable cost?
>
>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.


Have you considered a 200-400m m f/4 +TC? I use one with aTC-C14 all the
time, and a TC-2 under favorable conditions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 09:23 PM
Thanks kindly. I've heard good things about the 200-400, but I'm wary of the
teleconverters for both quality and speed reasons.

What's been your experience with both the TC14 and TC20?

Would the 200-400 even be able to autofocus with the TC20? I thought the
widest f/stop had to be no less than f/5.6. I think the TC20 would turn the
200-400 into a 400-800 f/8 if I'm no mistaken?

Thanks...




<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>
>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
>>at
>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>
>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
>>more
>>reasonable cost?
>>
>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
>>need
>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

>
> Have you considered a 200-400m m f/4 +TC? I use one with aTC-C14 all the
> time, and a TC-2 under favorable conditions.



 
Reply With Quote
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 09:45 PM
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 13:23:44 -0800, in rec.photo.digital "John Smith"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Thanks kindly. I've heard good things about the 200-400, but I'm wary of the
>teleconverters for both quality and speed reasons.
>
>What's been your experience with both the TC14 and TC20?
>
>Would the 200-400 even be able to autofocus with the TC20? I thought the
>widest f/stop had to be no less than f/5.6. I think the TC20 would turn the
>200-400 into a 400-800 f/8 if I'm no mistaken?
>


For reference I've lived with the 70-2-200mm f/2.8 VR +TC2 for years.
Starting with a D70, moving to a D200 and next a D300. I added the
200-400f/4 a while back. I use it all the time with a TC-14. In good
conditions on the D300 you can use the TC2 with it.
http://edwardgruf/bluebird.html

 
Reply With Quote
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 09:50 PM
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote in <%_97l.28052$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>
>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but at
>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>
>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a more
>>reasonable cost?
>>
>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't need
>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

>
>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.


He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 09:58 PM
Thank you. Exactly my response...


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote in <%_97l.28052$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>>
>>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
>>>at
>>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
>>>more
>>>reasonable cost?
>>>
>>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
>>>need
>>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

>>
>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

>
> He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 09:59 PM

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote in <%_97l.28052$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>>
>>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses but
>>>at
>>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
>>>more
>>>reasonable cost?
>>>
>>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
>>>need
>>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.

>>
>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

>
> He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.


Too late he already did it would appear and this is why I have him
killfiled, what a goose.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Smith
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 10:00 PM
No, he's right. A reply suggesting a P&S really is idiotic...



"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:50:27 -0500, (E-Mail Removed) wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:48:58 -0800, "John Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>wrote in <%_97l.28052$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>>
>>>>I've got a Nikon D3 and occasionally rent a 500mm or 600mm for sports,
>>>>surfing, and wildlife photography.
>>>>
>>>>I'd love to buy one of Nikon's latest 400mm, 500mm or 600mm AF lenses
>>>>but at
>>>>$7,500 - $9,500 they're just way too expensive for me.
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone know of any AF glass at 400mm+ that might be available at a
>>>>more
>>>>reasonable cost?
>>>>
>>>>With the D3's excellent performance at higher ISO's, I certainly don't
>>>>need
>>>>an f/2.8 lens, or even an f./4 lens.
>>>
>>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

>>
>>He's got a D3 John, don't be an idiot an suggest some P&S.

>
> The only thing idiotic there is your response.
>
> --
> Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
> John



 
Reply With Quote
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 10:18 PM
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:52:29 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

But why don't you post the original images instead of down sizing them?

>Sample images:
> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>
> * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>

posted as 800x600


> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg>

posted as 800x600
original:
# Image Width = 965 pixels
# Image Height = 724 pixels

You must be changing these as I post
 
Reply With Quote
 
me@mine.net
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-01-2009, 10:32 PM
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:52:29 -0800, in rec.photo.digital you wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 13:45:09 -0800, John Navas
>
>>Consider instead an inexpensive used Panasonic DMC-FZ8 as a complement,
>>with an excellent stabilized Leica-branded super-zoom lens that's f/3.3
>>@ 432 mm, or 734 mm with a Tele Conversion Lens.

>
>Sample images:
> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/ht8pc8.jpg>

# Image Width = 1913 pixels
# Image Height = 1421 pixels
But posted as 800x594

> * <http://i41.tinypic.com/oa9pw1.jpg>

# Image Width = 1879 pixels
# Image Height = 1409 pixels
But posted as 800x600

> * <http://i39.tinypic.com/2aqcl5.jpg>

# Image Width = 965 pixels
# Image Height = 724 pixels
But posted as 800x600


If you want to make your point John, why not post the original resolution ?
Do you need to down sample and sharpen the images to make your point?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Nikon D90 is dead. Long live the Nikon D7000! Bruce Digital Cameras 9 09-27-2010 02:09 PM
[SI] Too long, or not long enough? Al Denelsbeck 35mm Cameras 6 10-16-2005 09:31 PM
Which long lens for Nikon D70? Ben Thomas Nikon 10 02-22-2005 10:50 PM
UPDATE (was: How long is too long) Mark C Digital Cameras 0 07-28-2003 12:56 PM
how long is too long? Mark C Digital Cameras 8 07-23-2003 08:38 PM