Nikon D50 28 - 100mm telephoto lens

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Simon T, May 9, 2007.

  1. Simon T

    Simon T Guest

    Hi
    I have the standard kits lens with my Nikon D50 which only goes up to
    55mm.

    Would i see much of an improvement in going up to the 28 - 100mm zoom,
    or should i go to 70 - 300mm for my money?

    Looking to take nature shots.

    When i had my 35mm slr my 70 - 210mm did very well.

    Simon T
     
    Simon T, May 9, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Simon T

    Craig M Guest

    I recently got the 55-200 mm zoom for my D50 and I love it, its a great
    little zoom, I too have had a 70 to 210 mm zoom on my old cannon AE-1 slr
    years ago, was a Vivitar zoom, did pretty well also, so glad I made the jump
    to DSLR some time back.
     
    Craig M, May 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I got the 55-200 to supplement the kit 18-55 I got with my D50.
    I am an extremely happy bunny

    Doc
     
    Dr Hfuhruhurr, May 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Simon T

    Neil H. Guest

    Up to you, just remember that your D50 (like all other Nikon DSLRs) has a
    1.5x lens factor, on account of having a sensor size just 2/3 the diagonal
    of a 35mm frame. That is, your 18-55mm kit lens is equivalent to a 27-82.5mm
    lens on a 35, and so on. So a 28-100 would be equivalent to a 42-150mm lens
    on a 35.
    Probably your best choice would be either Nikon's 55-200 or their new 55-200
    VR. Equivalent to 82.5-300mm on a 35, obviously either one would be better
    for nature photography than the 70-210 you used on your 35. The new 55-200
    VR (Vibration Reduction) lens at $250 or less is especially desirable, since
    it will eliminate or reduce the effects of camera shake, which could
    otherwise be a problem at the long end. If however you don't feel you need
    VR you can find the older 55-200 at about $170 if you shop around.

    I have that older non-VR version myself and it's a great little lens,
    remarkably lightweight and compact for its power. But if I were buying one
    today I would definitely go the relatively few extra bucks for the VR
    version.

    Neil
     
    Neil H., May 9, 2007
    #4
  5. Hi,

    I use the AF-S 18-70 and the AF 70-300G. I can recommend this as I do
    not realy miss the AF-S but like the 300mm. If you want AF-S then use
    the 55-200.
    Nature shots say nothing. If you want to take photos of fast moving
    animals in lower light conditions, you MUST use something with F2,8 (or
    at least F4). If you have the time and a good tripod you can get great
    pictures with the 70-300G and it is very cheap.
    An alternative would be tha 70-300 Macro from Sigma. Less expanisive and
    for non proffessional use a perfect lense with the possibility to get
    closer to the subject (0.9m for Sigma and 1.2m for Nikon)

    Torsten
     
    Torsten Driese, May 9, 2007
    #5
  6. Simon T

    Paul Furman Guest

    About your only option here is a 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF Nikkor new for
    $750, or used for as little as $300-400. You could probably add a 1.4x
    teleconverter to get a useable 250mm f/4. Or get a 90 or 105mm Macro
    from Tamron, Tokina or Sigma & add a 2x teleconverter, that would be at
    f/5.6 though but probably look OK, what you'd have though is a good
    butterfly catcher. For birds & deer & such, you really need at least a
    300mm f/2.8 & those cost thousands of dollars. I got an old beater
    manual focus Tokina.
     
    Paul Furman, May 9, 2007
    #6
  7. Well, it's really all about how much magnification you want and how much
    money you are willing to spend...
    Considering that any f/2.8 is very expensive, the 70-300VR is a good
    compromise.

    Have a look at http://mysite.verizon.net/jurgenex/Umatilla.htm.
    I took those photos last Saturday at dusk with light already pretty low,
    distance maybe 400-500m, Nikon 70-300VR at maximum zoom, 1/40sec, no tripod.
    With naked eyes you could only see an undefined brown spot.
    I never would have believed that you would be able to see anything on the
    photos, but that lens just blows you away.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, May 9, 2007
    #7
  8. In field of view, yes, in magnification, no.
    Sorry, your best choice would be the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. Hands down one of
    the best lenses Nikon makes, period.
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), May 9, 2007
    #8
  9. Well, while the 70-200 is certainly a great lens the OP is already wondering
    if he you should spend the extra money for a 70-300. Therefore the 70-200 is
    most likely way beyond his price range, not to mention the weight and bulk.

    It is a great lens ..... if you can afford and carry it.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, May 9, 2007
    #9
  10. Simon T

    RichA Guest

    The 70-300mm ED VR is a very nice lens for the price and offers a
    practical zoom range. If the conditions call for it, 1600 ISO on the
    D50 (shoot raw, use Neat Image or Noise Ninja) and it's a perfectly
    viable option. About $600 for the lens.
     
    RichA, May 10, 2007
    #10
  11. In both field of view and *final* magnification, yes. The magnification at
    the sensor is of relatively little importance. There are some depth of field
    differences of course, but these are likely to be unnoticeable.
    It's *very* unlikely that the OP would regard something that pricey as his
    "best choice." Some of you folks who enjoy that kind of glass seem to think
    that the world is full of people willing to pay thousands of dollars for
    their lenses.

    I'm forever seeing people here with a $600 or so camera who are clearly
    trying to stay within a manageable budget, advised by some of you that what
    they need to do is buy a $1500+ lens. That just isn't very helpful.

    For the OP and his present equipment, either the 55-200 or 55-200 VR would
    be his best choice, IMO.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, May 10, 2007
    #11
  12. Simon T

    ASAAR Guest

    That depends. If the OP is puny and doesn't mind going into debt,
    then lacking a home based Charles Atlas course, a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR
    would be the best way to build Rita-size muscles.
     
    ASAAR, May 10, 2007
    #12
  13. <guffaw!>

    I can't argue with that!

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, May 11, 2007
    #13
  14. Simon T

    Neil H. Guest

    Right, "nature shots" can mean almost anything, but the OP did indicate he
    was satisfied with a 70-210 on his 35. That suggests he's probably shooting
    hand-held, and 300mm without VR on a DX camera would likely be too much to
    handle comfortably.

    Nikon's commpact, lightweight and inexpensive 55-200, or better yet their
    new 55-200 VR, seems ideal for his purposes.

    Neil
     
    Neil H., May 12, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.