Digital camera accessories

[dimitrz]

The 3 closest choices that are available to me are listed below and I would be grateful if you guys could guide me towards the best one in the lot , suited to my needs.

1) AF NIKON 70-300mm f/4-5.6G ZOOM-NIKKOR ( Rs. 6,900.00 / $ 150 )

2) SIGMA 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO LENS (Rs 14000 / $ 295 )


3) TAMRON AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6Di LD MACRO 1:2 LENS ( Rs. 8,350.00 / $ 175 )


What surprises me is the fact that both Tamron and Sigma is priced higher to Nikon – does that mean their quality is better – usually we have this saying you get what you pay for?

Naturally I am looking at 70-300mm to get the best reach therefore I would be working in 200-300 range most of the time while using the lens but mostly for landscape or to get closer to dangerous animals during safaris.

All of these lens does not have VR – is it that important – I have a tripod and use it most often but we all know that there are occasions when using a tripod is not feasible especially when shooting a wild animal or sports action. Will lack of VR be a big handicap as it seems ?


One last option though as a last resort would be the

Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Zoom

Which gives VR option though at a price between $ 520 to $ 610


Thanks please help

[bdery]

Hi,

I have not used either of these lenses (but have used other lenses in that range), so I will not comment on these specific lenses. I recomment you visit www.photozone.de or www.slrgear.com for lenses reviews.

Things to consider:

1-lenses such as these will always create some level of distorsion, chromatic aberrations, and will probably be of good, but not great, resolution. They compare well with kit lenses however.

2-these lenses are relatively "slow" (not letting much light in) at the 300 mm end. That means image stabilization (called VR by Nikon) is  a big plus, and a tripod even more so, when light levels are low.

3-I do not know much about the Nikon but the Sigma and Tamron are well regarded, as long as you nderstand thir limitations. The Tamron is generally said to be sharper but has more aberrations too.

I do not know of any other "consumer" options in the Nikon lineup, but I'm not really familiar with the Nikon lenses (I shoot Pentax). One other solution, which might be more expensive however, would be to get a prime (non-zoom) lens in the 200-300 mm range. You'd get a better lens but would loose the option to zoom in or out. Primes in that range might be expensive though, because they are often quite good.

[ShutterbugGail]

I highly recommend you read lens reviews (by  users like you and me) before buying one. One of the best places is Fred Miranda's site: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Choose carefully, because you may have the lens a long time. If you can get a lens with Image Stabilization, do, especially because you're going for a longer focal length.

As an aside, a 300mm lens will be suitable for photographing some wildlife but not all. Most go for at least a 400mm lens, but a 300mm may be suitable for you. We're talking big money for most super telephoto lenses, and most are heavy. I've gotten some good shots with my 250mm IS kit lens. My camera has a 1.6 crop factor.

[Deb]

Hi, in addition to the great points in the replies above, I too would agrue in favor of vibration reduction/image stabilization with regard to your interest in wildlife photography for this reason. When shooting wildlife, in general, it helps to use a faster shutterspeed to freeze the subject as well as allow for a larger aperture to isolate the subject from its background. However, even with increased shutterspeeds (and assuming your subject is not moving faster than the chosen shutter speed will freeze), you might still end up with a speed that's too slow for you to hand hold steadily while zoomed in. Yep, you could increase ISO to achieve greater light sensitivity but you do loose some sharpness/clarity. This can potentially diminish the fine detail (say of eyelashes, fur, etc.) when the image is enlarged for that lovely large scale print you might want to frame and hang one day.  I too always carry around my tripod but I've come upon a fast changing scene that required me to forgo the tripod and handhold my camera. Having VR/IS-type capabilities were pivotal in capturing an image that was still crisp.

I'd also add that a fast focussing lens would be benefit to your wildlife photography efforts. You wouldn't want the lens wasting time hunting for focus. Your critter could move out of a good line of sight in that instance.

Finally, whatever the focal length of the lens you use, don't fret if you can't get the whopper 600mm lens. It's about composition of the subject and it's surroundings. It's about what emotion you can convey or story you can tell with your image while ensuring that you don't stray into the wildlife's zone of comfort impacting it's behavior and stressing the animal.

[dimitrz]

Thanks for sharing your insights Gail, Deb and bdery

well I decided to go for the Nikkor VR primarily  because of the VR.  since 50% of my shots would be hand held even if I am tagging a tripod along - so I feel VR might eventually be useful.


I am still skeptical about the quality difference between Nikkor VR and Sigma lens - I am not convinced after reading multiple reviews that Nikkor's IQ is better than Sigma's - but have decided not to take any chance

[bdery]

I'm sure you'll be happy with your choice. VR makes sense in your situation.

Regarding lens quality, I own a Sigma lens (along with many "genuine" Pentax lenses) and can testify that lens quality is not about a specific brand, but about each separate lens. Each brand makes amazing AND horrible lenses. Not all Sigma lenses are great but I would not part with my 17-70. Nor would I part with my Pentax 50 mm macro. Reviews are a great way to make your mind, and visiting websites like Pbase and Flickr too, since you can search photos based on the lens used.