Recommendations for D50 Telephoto Lens

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Bill Helbron, May 16, 2006.

  1. Bill Helbron

    Bill Helbron Guest

    I have a Nikon D50 with the 18-55mm kit lens but I'm looking for a telephoto
    lens to be used primarily for nature photography. I have seen the Nikon 70-300mm
    for about $390 and a Quantaray 70-300 for about $160 (quite a difference in
    price!) but have read good reviews on the latter. I'm curious if a teleconverter
    would be more suitable. Recommendations, please!

    Bill Helbron, May 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bill Helbron

    Randy Howard Guest

    Bill Helbron wrote
    The Nikon 600mm AF-S f/4D ED-IF II is an excellent choice.
    Either the black or the gray one would be fine. :)
    Randy Howard, May 16, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bill Helbron

    Dr. Boggis Guest

    I've just bought a Sigma 28-300 +Macro lens for about $270, will have to
    take a few shots to see how it is, but it comes more highly rated than
    the Nikon 70-300G lens (which you should be able to find for $150 or
    so). Not sure which Nikon 70-300 you've seen for $390, would help if you
    added a few extra letters for identification.

    Have a look at some reviews on the web, sites like: (their nikon mount zoom lens reviews are here: )
    Dr. Boggis, May 17, 2006
  4. HOW long?

    A teleconverter with at (slow) 70-300 is not a good option.

    Espen Stranger Seland, May 17, 2006
  5. On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:44:38 -0700, "Dr. Boggis"

    When will people stop referring to Ken Rockwell?

    Please, stop.

    Espen Stranger Seland, May 17, 2006
  6. Bill Helbron

    Randy Howard Guest

    Espen Stranger Seland wrote
    Care to tell us why you feel that way?
    Randy Howard, May 17, 2006
  7. Bill Helbron

    J. Clarke Guest

    If you're talking about putting a teleconverter on the 18-55 then don't.
    The 18-55 kit lens isn't all that sharp to begin with and a teleconverter
    isn't going to get you all that much more focal length, but it will amplify
    the fuzz and reduce the effective aperture far enough to disable autofocus.
    Even the kit 55-200 would be a better option. Teleconverters are mainly
    useful on lenses of reasonably large aperture that are very sharp to begin
    with--the 18-55 doesn't qualify on either count.

    By the way, I hope those aren't US dollars because B&H lists the 70-300 ED
    Nikon for $297 and the non-ED for $110.

    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    J. Clarke, May 17, 2006
  8. First determine if this lens is compatible with TC's. The D70/D200 18-70
    kit lens isn't. The rear lens element would be contacted. Next, for AF to
    work you need a combined max aperture of f/5.6 or larger.
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), May 17, 2006
  9. Bill Helbron

    Bill Guest

    I've read several of his reviews, and aside from the high-end lenses,
    his reviews are heavily skewed towards the newbie who wants a single
    lense solution or a very simple setup. There doesn't seem to be a middle
    ground for people who want decent performance at a reasonable price.

    For a prime example, his opinions of the Nikon 18-55mm kit lense are way
    off. While it's an ok lense similar to the Canon it's by no means close
    to the 18-70mm. He recommends the 18-55 over the 18-70 for all the wrong

    I know prices make a difference, but if you want quality you generally
    get what you pay for, and the 18-70 is much better than the 18-55 for
    most aspects of its optical performance, and most of its mechanical
    functions. The 18-55 has a bit less wide angle distortion and the zoom
    ring is a tad smoother - about everything else the 18-70 does better.

    So yeah, if that's all that matters to you then it's a good buy. But so
    is any cheap lense from any company, which will allow you to take nice
    4x6 snapshots of your kids or pets.

    I dunno...maybe he figures if you're buying a D50, you don't want good
    optics. But to me, if you're paying hundreds of dollars for a digital
    SLR, there's a good chance you want to get some good optical performance
    from the camera.

    Just my 1.5 cents.
    Bill, May 17, 2006
  10. Bill Helbron

    Randy Howard Guest

    Bill wrote
    I'm sure newbies are all about wanting to know the specifics of
    barrel distortion correction in Photoshop. Right. Look at his
    write-up on the 12-24 for example.
    So, if you differ with his opinion on a lens, everything he
    writes is not worth reading?
    I wouldn't buy either lens, come hell or high water.
    Randy Howard, May 18, 2006
  11. Bill Helbron

    Bill Guest

    If you're buying the 12-24 then you probably have an idea of what it can
    and can't do, and how to avoid or correct it.

    Only a fool would slap down a grand and not know what they're buying.
    I guess you missed the part above where I said his high-end reviews seem
    to be more in-line with the important bits.
    That's probably because your needs are different, as are mine.

    For the price, the 18-70mm is one of the better price/performance
    options from Nikon and for him to suggest that the 18-55 is "better" is
    not practical for many end users. His misguided recommendations have
    caused problems before and it won't end with the current pages he has

    I would much rather he give straight forward REVIEWS with something more
    than personal opinions, and let the buyer select which lense suits their
    needs based on accurate and unbiased information.

    As it stands, the uninformed consumer has nothing but his words to sway
    them, and that will simply cause more people to buy the wrong lense.
    Bill, May 18, 2006
  12. Bill Helbron

    Randy Howard Guest

    Bill wrote
    What does that have to do with what started this sub-thread,
    namely a requested ban on discussing a certain reviewer's
    comments on lenses?

    Are you suggesting that the higher the price tag on the lens,
    the LESS likely you should be to gather information on it before
    examining it closer?
    I would much rather people allow me to decide who to read and
    who not to read, and not post comments to this newsgroup asking
    that a certain author NEVER be mentioned again.
    Randy Howard, May 18, 2006
  13. Bill Helbron

    cjcampbell Guest

    A teleconverter on what? The 18-55? I do not think you would be very
    happy with it.

    Quite honestly, you will be way ahead of the game if you just bite the
    bullet and get the 18-200mm VR. It is way sharper than any lens with
    such a wide zoom range has any right to be; it focuses close enough for
    light macro work; you get four extra stops you can use handheld. It is
    one of the finest all-around travel lenses I have ever seen. Get that
    lens and you will save a ton of money on buying a bunch of more
    specialized lenses whose full capabilities you will never use.
    cjcampbell, May 18, 2006
  14. Many of the products he reviews has never been in his hands. You just
    can't trust him. Ken Rockwell is the big joke in the

    There are many other good sources for reviews, people who have done
    extended testing over time.

    Espen Stranger Seland, May 18, 2006
  15. His pages are useful. If you don't like them, don't read them. I find his
    reviews a good place to start in evaluating a Nikon lens. I then look
    elsewhere (a lot of places) for a more thorough analysis. There is nothing
    wrong with Ken Rockwell posting his opinion and there is nothing wrong with
    somebody referencing it.
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 18, 2006
  16. His "misguided recommendations" have caused problems? What recommendation do
    you consider "misguided" and how did it cause a "problem"?
    I don't know if you care, but his reviews are clearly opinions; something any
    reader that has passed comprehension 101 will note. Anybody making decisions
    based upon one man's opinion will get exactly what they should expect ... the
    results of one man's opinion which they may find they do or do not share.
    They do have more than his words. His words are one source and there is
    nothing wrong with them. If people make their choices based upon one man's
    opinion, blame the foolish buyer and NOT the man who posted his honest
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 18, 2006
  17. Indeed ... you are right on the mark.
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 18, 2006
  18. Keep in mind that is a theoretical maximum. My brother shoots a cheap Tameron
    75-300 (or 70-300) with a Tamron 2x teleconverter all the time and he has
    taken pictures out at 300mm and still managed to get his autofocus to work ...
    what is that f/11? If the light is bright enough, your autofocus will work
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 18, 2006
  19. Bill Helbron

    Bill Helbron Guest

    Bill Helbron, May 18, 2006
  20. Well, I don't.
    Of course everyone can say what they want. This is not about that.

    His opinions IS his problem. He has opinions on things ha have never
    seen. He should then stop using the term "review" for those articles.
    People have the right to know that. That's my opinion.

    Espen Stranger Seland, May 18, 2006
    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.